Template talk:Infobox actor/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Let's set a limit on notable roles

I propose four. Four notable roles per actor. MisterBadIdea 17:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think a limit is necessary and elsewhere on this page someone suggested three, but my big concern is how to achieve a short-list without POV. Everything else in the infobox is a fact, but the notable roles field is always going to come down to opinion. Rossrs 20:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's an example of how I did one: there are five for Lindsay Lohan, which is long, but here was my rationale:

• The Parent Trap (1998) — first film role
• Freaky Friday (2003) — first teen role, very successful
• Mean Girls (2004) — first lead role
• A Prairie Home Companion (2006) — first independent film
• Bobby (2006) — first overtly political film

Actually, someone else added Bobby, but I couldn't think of a legitimate reason to remove it. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If I supported the field I would support this list in a heartbeat but... how about Katharine Hepburn, Robert DeNiro, Elizabeth Taylor, Henry Fonda, Cary Grant, Humphrey Bogart, Meryl Streep, Bette Davis, Marilyn Monroe, Marlon Brando, Paul Newman, Myrna Loy, Jack Nicholson.....? :-)

A little POV is unavoidable; any article only includes information one deems "notable", so I'm more than comfortable with having a "notable roles" section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MisterBadIdea (talk • contribs) 03:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

I agree that a little POV is unavoidable in any article as every editor decides what is noteworthy, but I disagree with the use of a field that is entirely POV, within something as prominent as an infobox. In this cases it's easily avoidable simply by not using the field. To put it simply, I don't think anyone is qualified or has the right to go through someone's career-long filmography and boil it down to 3 (or 7 or 42 or whatever the number), no matter how it's justified. Rossrs 08:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Is a limit really needed? Common sense states that one doesn't need loads; and even if that's not followed, I'd say it's hard to find more than around four or five for anybody. For many of the examples given above, I would say that anything for which the person in question was nominated for, or won, an Academy Award doesn't need to be duplicated in the notable roles field; if that means it's empty; so be it. SteveLamacq43 01:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

There was some discussion some time ago that resulted in a decision that only Academy Award wins would go in the infobox under the "Academy Awards" field, so a nominated role could go under "Notable Roles". Do you think the field complies with WP:NPOV? In the body of the article the notability of a role can be established by cited sources or critical commentary, but I'm concerned that in the infobox, (and assuming that someone might not read the entire article), it reads like an endorsement/recommendation/opinion of Wikipedia itself, whereas the NPOV policy is basically: give the readers the facts and then let them make up their own minds. Rossrs 11:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd planned to say for, Robert De Niro for example, the nominated roles could easily be moved to notable roles e.g. Taxi Driver and The Deer Hunter, however, I've never heard of Awakenings and wouldn't regard Cape Fear as hugely notable. I think POV is always going to play a part with fan-editors and less "worthy" actors; Colin Farrell has 3 notable roles, Marlon Brando has none! Perhaps it's something as small as changing the wording? 'Notable' itself implies POV. SteveLamacq43 14:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that these are good cases to discuss. Awakenings was Oscar nominated, but in the grand scheme of De Niro's career I don't think it's very important. Cape Fear would be "notable" for Robert Mitchum in the original but not for De Niro in the inferior remake. My opinion, of course. I'd be surprised if we ever came up with a "definitive" list and even if we did, someone would change it and in would go their favourite performance, notable only to them. I saw one the other day with 8 notable roles and I meant to go back and look at it, but I can't remember who it was now. Marilyn Monroe at one time had about 10 notable roles. Whatever the criteria is (and I don't think we have one), it's applied fairly inconsistently. If the wording is changed, can you think of something appropriate? I can't think of anything suitable. Rossrs 21:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Notable roles is a bad field from a POV standpoint. In addition, a nominations field would be too large, since it would include more nomination types than there are award types. Therefore, I propose replacing 'notable roles' with fields like 'Film Debut' and 'First Lead Role'. --PhantomS 22:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I think your suggestions are heading in the right direction - ( ie away from POV) but they are still problematic. How many film debuts, for example, are in non-notable roles in non-notable films? For the majority of actors, these films would be of little interest. I think there's also a danger of overcrowding the box. If we use "film debut" and "first lead role", how about "last film"? I'm sure someone would want to add that using the same rationale. It's highly likely that each of the three films could be non-notable, coming at the beginning of a career that hasn't yet been established, and at the end of a career that's past its peak. The films that are truly "notable" (but POV) would be excluded. Rossrs 07:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure adding more fields to the notable roles section is the answer because that leaves too many angles uncovered, however, as said above, it would mean that the guidelines are clear and much less POV. Saying that, I can't think of a better solution at the moment. Perhaps changing notable for "praised" or "acclaimed" and sourcing at RottenTomatoes (for critcs view) or IMDB (for public view). I think that may be more appropriate for films rather than just actors though. SteveLamacq43 17:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm also unsure about adding extra fields. I was suggesting that if we did, the same rationale could be used to add others, (and I think that would be a mistake). "Praised" and "acclaimed" broadens the definition too much, I think. With the number of reviews for any given film/performance it would be easy enough to find "praise" for just about anything. Rossrs 21:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV in 'notable rolls' is an issue, and there should be an attempt to define it. award wins? nominations? debut? interesting fact? either way, it should be limited to three. --emerson7 | Talk 20:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, let's remove notable roles entirely. I remove them whenever I see them in Indian actor pages, as mere POV; other editors keep reinserting them, saying that they're allowed. Unless there is an agreed-upon metric, picking the notable roles comes down to truthiness -- "I know it when I see it" -- and is irretrievably POV. Zora 08:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Very nice, Zora. Bearing in mind that your removals of notable roles discount the use of infoboxes in the first place especially if there is no other interesting information in WP:INCINE articles. Not very logical eh? Ekantik ^talk 03:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Notable roles again

A quick question - bold character names as per Marisa Tomei (this version) or non-bold as per Kim Basinger (this version)? I prefer non-bold for aesthetic reasons as I think bold makes it look a bit overstated and "busy". Also, the notable role is already highlighted by virtue of being in the infobox so I don't think it requires the extra emphasis. Any thoughts? Rossrs 13:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe it should be bold, as it helps to separate the character name from the movie name. I've put considerable thought into this, and have decided to bold. Here is a more direct comparison between different versions of Kim Basinger: without bolding and with bolding. Fistful of Questions 23:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I guess it's a question of preference. I've reverted back to unbold text but not because I disagree with you. It's only that I've asked the question giving two examples, one with bold and one without, so I would like anyone who cares to reply to be able to just look at the two examples and comment. Now we've got a version showing non-bold with italics but if you want to revert it that's fine - I just wanted an example to refer to. Rossrs 00:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Movie/tv series names should be in italics, an example commonly used: John Doe (Lost) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Have changed to italics. Rossrs 00:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Non-bold is my opinion. The titles should already be in italics per the MoS, so that makes a clear enough distinction to me whether I'm reading the character's name or the film title. Dismas|^(talk) 08:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Bolding tends to be helpful when there are "character articles" to wikilink. For example in the Kim Basinger article, there are separate Wiki-articles for Vicki Vale etc. so bolding will help this. On other pages where there are no character articles, bolding will just do what it normally does: bold the text. Ekantik ^talk 03:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how this is helpful. If there is an article, the words appear as a link and that's easy enough to distinguish, so why does it need bold text for that? Rossrs 10:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah right, I see your point. I suspect that it then boils down to a question of aesthetics. Ekantik ^talk 01:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes it's partly aesthetics but bold text is usually used to denote emphasis or to highlight or stress the importance of something. In this case it's been given emphasis and importance simply by putting it in the infobox so the bold text suggests that even within the infobox it requires further emphasis. Rossrs 22:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This is all irrelevant, since there should be no notable roles at all in the infobox, unless someone can come up with objective criteria for deciding what's notable and what isn't. Zora 05:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I happen to agree with you Zora, and I think POV creeps in here, but I would argue that point seperately. In raising this question I was looking more at consistency. Wikipedia assumes an unprofessional look when everyone just does their own thing. Rossrs 10:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Zora, instead of trying to discredit the work of other editors and make them feel bad about their contributions, I thought it would be plain by now that the Wikipedia community does not generally agree with you. Ekantik ^talk 06:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

In the discussion of notable roles in a previous section, several other editors agreed that the choice was personal opinion. There's no consensus yet, but there are people who agree with me. I'll keep at it until you guys come up with a metric other than truthiness. Zora 07:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:POINT. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Whether I like it or not, Zora does indeed have a point; I think discussion should ensue about the viability of notable roles in an encyclopaedia that hinges on NPOV. So let's have at it. There are obvious POV concerns in determining which roles are notable for the actor (in that it can be argued that such a role is an editor's personal opinion), and my position is that a list should be arrived at by due reference to reliable source material. This is also a concern because this template is placed on WP:BLP articles as well as for biographies of deceased actors, and this is probably the wrong place to discuss this issue which is why I have started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography#Notable_Roles_disputes_in_Infoboxes. You're all welcome to participate there. Ekantik ^talk 01:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Golden Globe Awards

If Academy Awards allowed the entry of other key awards such as Emmy and Tony Awards, the Golden Globe Awards are as important as the previous two, in my opinion. I'm currently restoring an article of someone who has won them all. Nat91 18:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

If we add Golden Globe awards, we will probably end up also having to add BAFTA, César, and New York Film Critics Circle Awards. --PhantomS 19:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh, probably, I get the point. I still think it's as important as the Emmy and Tony though. Nat91 03:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If we do decide to add more awards fields, we need to decide the criteria for which awards should be included. At the moment, we have one award for each acting medium. The problem with adding a generic awards field is that it will turn into chaos. Furthermore, even with the current setup, there are already some interesting things being done with award nominations. --PhantomS 03:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think part of the consideration could be to include significant awards from other countries. I've spoken to another user on this subject. Indian actors for example, working within the Indian film industry are not likely to win Oscars, Emmy's or Tony's but their awards are just as important within their (huge) industry. Likewise the actors of other countries. If anything, I think the addition of more diverse and culturally representative awards fields will reduce what I see to be a bias towards the American entertainment industry, to the exclusion of other industries - after all this is English language Wikipedia and it should strive to be more inclusive of other English speaking film industries. This won't create clutter, as (for example again) an Indian actor is unlikely to win a "Photoplay" award and then go on to win a slew of Oscars. I think the BAFTA is notable enough and would represent the British industry, the Australian Film Institute award to represent Australia, etc. I agree that the line has to be drawn somewhere though, or we'll create chaos! :-) I think the American entertainment industry is well represented and I'm not convinced we need to add more to this.

On another topic, you mention interesting things being done with nominations - could you please give an example. I'm curious to see what else is being done. Rossrs 07:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why the Golden Globe Awards are not included in the infobox.. I'm not American and here in Europe the Golden Globe are considered the TV equivalent of the Oscars and they are more famous than the Emmy Awards. I don't say that Emmys should be removed but my opinion is that Golden Globe Awards should be definitely added. Thank you! Sthenel 03:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

1) Don't talk about all of Europe, please. The relevance of Globe or Emmy differs on the country.

2) I agree with listing other countries awards. I do think, however, that we need to establish a criteria to not end just listing any award from any country. Perhaps 1 cine, 1 TV and 1 theater by country? --Andromeda 16:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If there are that many new awards categories added, there also needs to be a limit on the number of award types listed for each person, since the box will extend on indefinitely otherwise. As for my reference to nominations, I've seen actors with no wins that have something like 8 nominations listed in the academy awards box. --PhantomS 17:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

1) The awards fields should be used only for wins, not for nominations. It will be too long otherwise.

2) So, what awards are we talking about adding? I think possible candidates may be the Golden Globes, the BAFTA, the César Awards and the Goya Awards.--Andromeda 14:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree it should be for wins only - this was decided earlier, I'm sure. I agree with your suggestion regarding awards, although I'm not entirely sure about the Golden Globes as it may duplicated information already in the Academy Awards and Emmy Awards fields. I would add Australian Film Institute Awards to the list of candidates. Perhaps Filmfare Awards for Indian cinema, although I hope that someone who is knowledgeable about Indian cinema comments on this - there may be a more appropriate award to recognise. Rossrs 08:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that awards should be more inclusive of global awards rather than focusing on the American industry, and I also agree that they should be used for wins than nominations. I believe that the concerns about adding awards infinitely have no basis because those fields can simply be left empty and they will not show up on the infobox (see how they are empty at Shah Rukh Khan for example). A suitable award for Indian Cinema may be the Filmfare Awards or the IIFA Awards - the latter is relatively new (began in 2000) whereas the former has at least 50 years of history behind it. I personally follow the rationale that an award (or awarding of an award, tongue-twist!) is "notable" if the star turns up to collect it; in that sense Oscars, Golden Globes, Emmys etc are all notable because the stars turn up to collect their awards. Indian cinema stars also turn up to collect Filmfare and IIFA awards (IIFA are more "glitzy" ceremonies) but I would prefer Filmfare to be recognised on the basis of it's solid history.

The reason why Indian Cinema awards ought to be recognised is because Bollywood is fast becoming a noticeable and major player in the global film industry. Ekantik ^talk 18:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

So, we agree to add fields for the Golden Globes, the BAFTA, the César Awards, the Goya Awards, the Australian Film Institute Awards and the Filmfare Awards, for now? Also, if we agree these fields should only be used for wins, we need to delete the nominations from the boxes who have them. --Andromeda 08:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I support your suggestions. I think the Golden Globes could cause duplication of entries, but if other editors have no problem with it, then I will not object. Rossrs 09:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with the duplication issues that will result from the inclusion of the Golden Globe award field. Also, why not include the David di Donatello awards (Italy), European Film Awards, Hong Kong Film Awards, and the Deutscher Filmpreis (Germany)?--PhantomS 12:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I have an idea, let's include every award in existence!? Wholly extraneous. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

1) What duplication issues?

2) Not everybody is American and wins Oscars, Emmys and Tonys. A lot of actors here will never win an Oscar but they're great and well-known actors in others parts of the world. Every award not, but the important ones worldwide yes. --Andromeda 13:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There have been numerous times where someone has received a golden globe and an academy award for the same thing. --PhantomS 15:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed and full support from here (per Andromeda's proposal to add more awards). Ekantik ^talk 02:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Added fields for: Golden Globe Awards, BAFTA, César Awards, Goya Awards, Australian Film Institute Awards & Filmfare Awards. --Andromeda 14:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I added Olivier Awards (the premier UK theatrical award) without reading this discussion, pls revert me if I'm out of order.

I would take the view that there is no particular overhead to adding additional International awards to the template; empty slots are just ignored, after all. On nominations, these can be notable internationally, as (for instance) very few Oscars go overseas, but it is prestigious to be nominated. I would agree that for those lucky enough to have won them, additional nominations are probably over-egging the pudding. Kbthompson 18:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

order of spouses?

Should spouses be listed in chronological order with the first marriage listed first or reverse chronological order with the most recent first? IMDb uses reverse chronological, which they also do for filmographies, but we have already gone against IMDb's formatting for filmographies by using chronological, which I feel makes more sense. 71.114.62.228 22:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the order that we have for filmographies but for the sake of consistency feel that if we're going to start with earliest first, I think it should apply here as well. Dismas|^(talk) 22:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if WP:LOW can be applied to spouses, but it seems commonsense to list spouses in order of marriage. Ekantik ^talk 04:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Help, please

1) Is there a size limit for these infoboxes? I was working on one for someone who has won several Emmy Awards, but the box seemed only to be able to handle a few entries. Adding one more blew it up. Thoughts?

2) The basic Biography Infobox includes "spouse" and "children." If we are going to continue to include spouse (per above debate), why not children?

--Vbd 21:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

death date and age

There is a TfD up for the "death date and age" template, which is for inclusion in infoboxes in a similar way to "birth date and age". Please vote keep/delete on the Templates for Deletion page. --PhantomS 05:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

IMDB in the Infobox

I heard this has been talked about in the past, but is anyone but me interested in putting an IMDB (and also possibly IBDB) link at the bottom of the actor info-box as they have in film infoboxes. IMBD has both persons and titles. Just a suggestion. Cott12 Talk 13:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I see in the archive this has been much discussed already. Has anyone considered taking a vote? Cott12 Talk 14:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Why would a "vote" be taken? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Because it is one possible procedure on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Straw polls. Cott12 Talk 14:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It has been discussed before at Template talk:Infobox actor/archive2#IMdB again. The discussion is lengthy although there were only a few contributors. I'm opposed to it for a couple of reasons - the type of information relating to an actor on IMDb such as biographical information is not necessarily well sourced or well written. I think we should only link to sites that provide unique information, or information that is above and beyond what we could achieve ourselves. (as per WP:EL). Also, I see IMDb as a rival site. I accept the numerous links via "external links" but I think putting it into the infobox implies that we consider it to be especially important or relevant. It's the kind of endorsement I think we should avoid making, especially considering that it is commercial. We rather naively give it a lot of free advertising already but you'll notice that it gives us none. Of course, being a commercial site it is not about to direct its visitors to a rival, and yet we do it in thousands and thousands of articles. We should be wanting readers to use Wikipedia as the best and most authoritative site, not providing them with a prominently displayed link that serves no purpose to us and actually directs readers away from us - the exact opposite of what our aim should be. Rossrs 15:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I have also witnessed several discussions over at WT:RS about how IMDb is not even a reliable source. See here for example. Whereas IMDb may be used as a source for filmographies etc, it is not an infallible source itself. Ekantik ^talk 04:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

To throw in my two cents, whether or not IMDB is a good source for article info or not, I really do think there should be a space for it in the infobox. Its the first source most people go to for filmographies and practically every actor bio in Wikipedia gives a link to the IMDB entry for that person under "external links". I see no reason why it shouldn't just go in the infobox. Iamcuriousblue 12:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We always add it to the end of the just about every entry out there and it a space for IMDB is already made available on Template:Infobox Film so it makes sense to add it here. No one source is 100% accurate or reliable and people shouldn't just be relying on one source for everythin (it could be published biographies contradict each other after all). IMDB happens to be major resource for film information and not having the link would be unusual. (Emperor 13:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC))

I agree too, so long as it's optional. Then, if there's a particularly bad example on IMDb, the link can always be removed from the specific template/ page concerned. Andy Mabbett 13:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with including IMDb as a parameter in the Actor Infobox. Other than for its filmography listings, IMDb is notoriously unreliable. More importantly, I thought that the purpose of an Infobox is to give a high-level, executive summary of the person. I don't see how a link to IMDb consitutes an essential piece of information. Also, if you make it optional, then you just invite edit wars.--Vbd (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think a filmography is an essential piece of information, and IMDB is the best source for it. IMDB is widely regarded as one of the basic references for film and film people, so I really can't see the point of deliberately excluding it. I strongly feel it should be there as an option, but evidently, a few people don't want it there. Is there any way of reaching consensus on this issue? Iamcuriousblue 00:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there is. I agree with you about the value of a filmography and that IMDb is a good (maybe the best) source for it. The question is not merely should we link to it, but should we link to it in the infobox, and most of the comments here relate to justifying an external link, but not specifically to reasons why the link should be in the infobox. I oppose it, and I think the infobox should be used only for key, relevant information. I don't understand why any external link other than a performer's official website should be featured so prominently. Aside from the points I've made above, to me it suggests that if a person is looking at our articles, and they read the infoboxes first, they are being given a helping hand out of Wikipedia and onto a rival site. It's less of a problem at the bottom of the article. I don't understand why we are so willing to advertise commercial sites and make it easy for people to jump right to them - they certainly don't return the favour - and I don't think we are helping Wikipedia by implying that if someone wants a comprehensive insight into the actor's career, the best place to go is elsewhere. Whether IMDb is a good, bad or indifferent source of information is entirely not the point here and I would be making the same comment about any such site. If you're seeking a consensus, I'd be interested in hearing some arguments for having it in the infobox. To put it simply: it's used in thousands of articles at the bottom of the article (I have no problem with that) but what will be the advantages of moving it to the infobox? thanks Rossrs 06:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Not only is it a useful resources but it would make it consistent with Template:Infobox Film - no one source is going to be too accurate but homepage, IMDB and possibly AMG. (Emperor 14:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC))

My previous comment was intended to specifically address the question of whether a link to IMDb should be in the Infobox. I am opposed to that idea. But I do agree with Rossrs that having it as an external link is entirely appropriate. (I'm even in favor of including the link to the IMDb filmography and only having partial filmography listed in an actor's article, but that is a different discussion.)--Vbd (talk) 04:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Fix needed

Can someone fix this template. There is an extra "-" somewhere. Look at Al Pacino for an example. I couldn't really figure out where the extra "-" was in the template. :) Garion96 (talk) 02:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It should be fixed now. There has been some edit warring with the height field. --PhantomS 02:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Garion96 (talk) 02:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Height

Curiously, if most people who have discussed it on this page agree that height shouldn't be in the actor infobox, why is it still there? --PhantomS 17:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's remove it and find out. According to the page history, User:SteveLamacq43 has reverted the last 4 attempts to remove it. --Conti|✉ 17:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've been bold and removed it once again, as I think that that the consensus on this was pretty clear. --Conti|✉ 18:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone reverted me, so I finally started a requests for comment on this issue. Older discussions can be found here. The consensus is IMHO somewhat clear, with only very few people actually objecting the removal of the height-part from this template. It was claimed that there was no consensus tho, and/or that there were not enough people participating in the discussion to form a consensus, so I hope that an RfC might do the trick. --Conti|✉ 16:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

There was a supermajority, which, although not a consensus, is an accepted WP procedure. --PhantomS 17:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Can someone explain what they have against "height" in the infobox? 4dhayman 21:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It's trivial, it's of little importance to most people, it's not clear what it would take to prove that it was correct (male actors wear lifts and exaggerate their heights), and it actually can change. People tend to get shorter as they age. Zora 22:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand, I agree with the decision to remove "height". Thanks Zora, 4dhayman 22:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been consistently opposed to the use of this field, mainly because I think it is trivial, and for most actors, is of no consequence. Most actors are of average height, so I see no point in recording their height in the infobox. If someone is 5'6 or 5'7 - what difference does it make? It's not a defining attribute, and there is no uniqueness to it. It's about as relevant to their careers as their shoe size, eye colour or whether they are left or right-handed. It is of zero importance. If their height has significantly contributed to their career, then it should be discussed in the article because the explanation about why it contributed to their career is more important than the mere statistic. Also, a number of people who want to keep the field have stated that there is no WP:Consensus to remove the field. I would like to note that the inclusion of the field was challenged very shortly after it was first added (Template talk:Infobox actor/archive2) and a number of editors discussed removing it. That discussion was never resolved, but if it's going to be said that there is no consensus to remove it, it is actually more truthful to say that there was never a consensus to add it in the first place. Rossrs 07:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, it is of no consequence 4dhayman 01:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Height is important if you're hiring stage actors, while lifts are possible, they're uncomfortable to wear for long periods. For this reason, height is generally included in actors' portfolios. I tend to agree that it's largely (or should that be highly) irrelevant here. If you're Tom Cruise (1.70m), you probably get everyone else to bend down, anyway .... ; but then why isn't build included? (1.88m, available for Shakespeare and children's parties) Kbthompson 12:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree that height is not relevant. Every actor's bio I've seen outside of Wikipedia lists an actors height. It would seem that a height inclusion should not be that controversial. Many people are simply curious as to an actor's height. Take Robbie Coltrane of Harry Potter fame for example. Since he's obviously not as tall as the character he portrays, it would be nice to find the info here rather than have users go to IMDB.com to get that data. As it turns out, he's actually only 6'-1", a height that is statistically closer to 'average' than that of the vertically challenged Tom Cruise (5'-7"). Similar questions arise after viewing John Rhys-Davies as a Dwarf in The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Finally, I would humbly argue that it's just as relevant as an actor's age or their place of birth. Вasil | talk 22:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Flags

How do people feel about flags in these infoboxes? I am coming to dislike them intensely as they are frequently simplistic and reductive. The 'rule' seems to be that a person's place of birth and death gets a big flag of the appropriate country next to it. This can be misleading, since a person's place of birth is not always their nationality (Richard E. Grant is not a Swazilander, for example). And it can be pointless - why does Charlie Chaplin need a Swiss flag in his box just because he happened to die there - he wasn't Swiss and had little connection with the country. It would make more sense to have flags to indicate a person's nationality, but even this is complicated since many actors have dual nationalities and there are endless debates over how to describe them (see e.g. Talk:Nicole Kidman). Furthermore, flags may look pretty but they are also political statements; for example, saying that someone is from England or Wales rather than from Britain is a divisive matter that opens up more debates (see e.g. Talk:Christian Bale). Do others agree or am I alone in this? Cop 633 03:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I find them pointless. I saw them recently added to the place of birth and the place of death, both, of course, the same flags. See also Wikipedia:Don't overuse flags. Garion96 (talk) 03:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Pointless per Garion. I've seen stupid and unnecessary disputes about whether the flagicon should be placed before or after the birthplace/deathplace. Ridiculous. WP:FLAGS should at least become a guideline if not policy. Ekantik ^talk 03:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This is still causing ructions at Talk:Nicole Kidman. Maybe a line for "Citizen of" in the box, above birth and death would go some way to solving this. Even though some people can't get their heads around the difference between technical citizenship and nationality either... Grant | Talk 05:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's pointless and I think the flags are being used mainly for decoration - doing it because we can rather than because we should. I don't see that it serves any informational purpose. There is a lot of inconsistency as well, with many -but not all- American performers having state flags rather than the national flag, and while many people would recognise "Texas" or "California" or "Florida", how many would recognise the flag more easily that the written word? I really don't like the idea of saying "citizen of" etc as it is often too complicated a situation to be adequately addressed in the infobox. The infobox should only contain the most basic factual information and place of birth is sufficient. Further clarification belongs in the article. Rossrs 09:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I find myself agreeing, they don't add anything. I would also prefer to just see Birthtown-state/city/county; at the moment most of them read like the start of Adrian Mole's diaries - an example, Clapham, London, England, United Kingdom (with a couple of flags, of course, and me expecting it to carry on "Europe, The World, The Galaxy"). The infobox should just carry the executive summary, the text should carry the load. The Nicole Kidman page is ridiculous, carrying so much personal information as to be hurtful, and Helen Mirren's page is changing every five seconds, as some bright spark wants to add her Oscar win, without reading it in the sentence immediately preceding! Citizenship is a complicated question, it is remarkably easy to be a citizen of more than one country, not so easy to be born in more than one. Kbthompson 10:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally think it's important to add 'UK' after 'England', 'Scotland', etc. Otherwise it risks perpetuating a tendency among non-Brits to think English and British are synonymous; this can be irritating to some Brits at first glance.Cop 633 16:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

And of course someone can be a citizen of one country but self-identify as another. I just noticed that Liam Neeson, who self-identifies as an Irish Catholic as far as I can tell, has the (now abolished) Red Hand Flag flapping over his infobox because he happens to have been born in Northern Ireland.[1] You can explain such complexities in words, but a flag means only one thing, and because they're colourful and attract the eye, they can easily mislead. Cop 633 14:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) Flags are unneeded imo. Too many look a-like and can be misleading, at best they are mini-décor which serve no purpose over then consuming space and making the infobox multi-coloured. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Another great example of excessive flag adding was a small edit war on Michael J. Fox. Should the Canadian flag be added which was in use when Fox was born, or the current Canadian flag. :) Garion96 (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Screen Actors Guild award

Are there plans to add an entry in the infobox for the SAG (Screen Actor Guild) awards? This award is considered a notable, major award among actors and actresses in the television and film industry and considered a precursor for who to watch for winning higher profile major awards (such as the Oscar at the Academy Awards ceremony). lwalt 07:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to make a proposal, wording etc. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

How long this template is going to be protected?

How long this template is going to be protected? We were working on it before and I feel it unfair that we have to pay for a couple people's irresponsibility. --Andromeda 16:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It's actually been protected as "high-risk", translated that means: A few administrators do not trust us non-admin users to click the "edit" button and not vandalise it so they slap a "protected" mode and tag it and then we have to seek permission to get edits done (very un-wiki like), suffice to say semi-protection would of been fine if there is a worry this template will be vandalised. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

That's really unfair! There's no way to ask for the protection to be removed? We have worked hard in this one! --Andromeda 22:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The original reply was a wildly inaccurate and non-neutral way to describe the reason a template like this would get protected (that user also appears to have deleted his account 1 day later).

The actual reason, is because it is a very ripe target for vandalism (due to being in hundreds/thousands of articles). Per this guideline: Wikipedia:High-risk templates. It's very easy to ask for a change to be made, as explained in the template at the top of this page, but a stable template shouldn't really need to be changed very often anyway. Hope that helps. (I was just passing by, looking for the RfC above :) --Quiddity 02:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that we were in the middle of expanding this template and fixing the awards section, and the protection brought everything to a halt. Also, pardon me, but I don't think a template has to be protected even before it's vandalized. Semi-protection yes, but this? This template never had any big problems. It's like putting someone in jail just because he could steal the jewels he has access to! --Andromeda 15:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This template is getting too long – too many awards are included

The infobox should provide a quick overview of the person in question, but adding so many awards (Golden Globe Awards, SAG Awards, BAFTA Awards, César Awards, Goya Awards, AFI Awards, Filmfare Awards, Laurence Olivier Awards) can make infoboxes extremely long and redundant, as multiple awards are often won for the same role. I think the template should limit the awards to Oscars for film work, Emmys (televison) and Tonys (stage). The infobox should not degenerate to an "Awards" section. Sloan21 14:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not BAFTA? Matthew 14:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

So, just for actors with American exposure then. Since Oscars are limited to films with a US release, the Emmys to material on US TV, and the Tonys for US productions - which may be transfers of International productions, but then again might have an entirely different cast.

The infobox FAQ, as stands is essentially a summary for American awards, you have to search down the list to find the International awards, is that so unreasonable?

The alternative would be to have separate infoboxes for different nationalities, but that (I suspect) would be a bigger nightmare than a few - generally hidden - extra options. Kbthompson 14:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not exclude all awards? That would be so much simpler. Deciding which awards are more 'important' is inherently POV. If there's an awards section in the article, you don't need one in the infobox. Cop 633 15:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Originally I thought that the awards were some indication of the significance of the actor; but having worked on articles for fine long serving actors, who've never received that recognition, I do begin to wonder. I think I've realised that it's actually a handicapping system, actors who win awards spend so much of their time at parties, they no longer have time to get on with the work! Kbthompson 15:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

How strange. This was discussed at length above after several editors felt that the template was too exclusive, given that a large number of (international) actor biographies deserve award sections for country-specific awards. How strange that so soon complaints are coming in about the template being too long? First of all, the "extra" award fields are not strictly a part of the template, they are just there as optional fields, you don't have to include them if you don't want to. On the other hand, you can also delete unnecessary fields from the original template, I don't see how there is a problem? Ekantik ^talk 01:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that a lot of actors who win an Academy Award also won the Golden Globe and SAG Award (might be added as well apparently) for the same role, and the fans of that person will insist that all of these awards are included; so that would be six lines for one film appearance. I just don't think that is necessary or advisable for the infobox. Sloan21 23:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah I see what you mean and how that could be a problem. I would suggest further discussion revolving around choosing one notable award rather than many. For example, Academy (Oscar) Awards are arguably more prestigious than Golden Globes and thus GGs should be removed from the template. I realise that this brings up problems of its own with possible further arguments about how GGs are notable, but I am thinking on international lines rather than location-specific considerations.

To give an example from Bollywood, there are many types of awards such as Filmfare Awards, IIFA Awards, Stardust Awards, National Awards (Arguably more prestigious than the previous-mentioned awards), but somehow or other there was an agreement about Filmfare Awards being the "most prestigious".

Honestly, I don't know. Perhaps this ought to be discussed further. Ekantik ^talk 02:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

broadening template scope

Since this template is not really specific to actors, except for the notable role field, what do people think about renaming this to something more generic for people in the film/television industry and using the bgcolour field to designate occupation? --PhantomS 20:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I was looking for one to use for a film director and David Lynch and Steven Spielberg use this template so that is the one I'll go for (others like George Lucas use even more general ones). (Emperor 18:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC))

IMO, this should be renamed to Infobox Film Bio or something similar, since it would probably be the main infobox of the newly proposed Wikiproject Film Biography (AKA WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers). --PhantomS 18:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about that but just going for film might exclude those working in TV. It might be that a specific TV Bio is needed for them - if there wasn't one already. So yes go for that. It makes the mast sense. (Emperor 18:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC))

Agreed as well. All of the various templates (voice actor, director, [tv] actor, etc.) could easily be merged into one under the category of film industry. -- Shiori 03:42, May 11 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, completely agreed. But would this change wreak havoc? Is that why no action has been taken? --Melty girl 04:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Picture

I wasn't sure where to bring this up, so I thought someone here might be able to help. I noticed on the Hiroyuki Sanada article that someone had uploaded their own drawing of the actor as the picture in this infobox... is that allowed?? (Sorry if this is in the wrong place, I'm tired and ill and confused. :P) Thanks in advance for any help. Tartan 23:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

hCard Microformat

I would like us to add the hCard microformat (see also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Microformats) to this template. I can advise on the required mark-up, but I'm not familiar with template code editing. Andy Mabbett 11:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

How would this be useful for an actor infobox? Btw, the only fields that seem to apply are fn, bday, and url. --PhantomS 18:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page. Andy Mabbett 19:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Caption font size a problem

It appears that the image caption size is specified by a combination of stylesheet "font-size:90%" and the small tag. I think either one or the other would be good enough. Currently it doesn't display well on Safari for being too small. —Tokek 11:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Award nominations

What about nominations for awards? Should there be a category for these? Or would this be too lengthy for some actors? --Theunicyclegirl (talk, review me!) 18:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Awards

This infobox supports many awards other than Academy Awards, Emmys, and Tonys, but those three are the only ones listed under the preformatted Usage section. Could someone add the others under there as well? --AMK1211 20:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Any specific use for the bgcolour attribute?

I've seen some articles' infobox colors being used differently than the others, some in an POV sort of way. Is/should there be a special key (similar to Infobox musical artist) for the colors? If not, then why is it there? --w^{L<speak·check>} 19:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The only specific use of colour I have seen is when the infobox is used on someone who is deceased, and the colour is changed to grey.--NeilEvans 20:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Should we remove the {{{bgcolour}}} field completely and let the template decide automatically what the background color should be? Kudret abi 02:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I say remove it. There's no reason at all for it to be there, other than the highly dubious practise of using silver for deceased actors (and if need be it can be replaced with a living= field). I've seen plenty of articles where users are seemingly using their favourite colour (Bae Yong Joon, for example). PC78 02:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it. The background color is now selected automatically. It will be the usual yellowish color by default, except if {{{deathdate}}} is specified in which case it will be silver. Since this is the scheme that most articles are using, the change should only affect those that use the unusual background colors such as pink, magenta, fuchsia etc. -- Kudret abi 05:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Great idea! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you?" Contribs} 11:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that's good. Consistency is important. Rossrs 08:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Year of film or year of award?

There seems to be a lot of confusion over whether to use the year of the film or the year of the award (often one year later) in the infobox; both formats are widely used. There should be a definite guideline on the template's page which format is intended. -- EnemyOfTheState 16:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It should be year the award was won. Sometimes it's even two years after the film came out. But the field is for awards, and that's what the year should refer to. This also allows for accurate cross-referencing with awards ceremony articles. The filmography section is where all the years of films go. --Melty girl 03:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Melty girl. Rossrs 08:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Awards (AGAIN!)

I recently noticed that someone added the SAG Awards to what has already become a long list. I am deleting this addition because there was no process or consensus to add it in the first place. At least when the international awards were added, there was a lengthy discussion about it first (see above). Thoughts? Outcries of rage?--Vbd (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that change entirely, and I would suggest to remove the Golden Globes as well which is basically a vanity category and often redundant as actors win the Golden Globe and Oscar for the same role on many occasions. The Golden Globes are the poor man's Oscars (and Emmys) and reasons of internationalization don't apply, like it was argued with the BAFTA and César Awards above. The infobox should remain as concise as possible imho. Sloan21 16:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the best idea would be to delete ALL of the awards (my personal opinion; many would probably prefer to keep the major three) and simply put in a miscellaneous section that can have more things added as necessary. (See the Album Infobox page for an example of what I mean. -- Shiori 05:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

What if the awards were in a WP:NAVFRAME hidden by default? Or we could come up with a more concise way of listing them? Or stick them in an extra template? It makes sense for the list of awards to be standardized and glanceable, so I'd hate to throw them out completely... Vagary 19:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This Infobox lists only awards like the Oscars, Golden Globes, Emmys etc. But, there are equally important awards in other regions. So perhaps, we could add an "Other Awards" section? Helps to get rid of the long list as well. rohith 18:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Partner

In response to an edit war over whether Charles Nelson Reilly's partner of 27 years could be called a "spouse," & in line with suggestions on that article's talk page, I've added a new line "partner" directly under "spouse" for entering the names of unmarried long-term partners/companions. --Yksin 00:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

For Wikipedia purposes, it is not relevant as to what he could be called, it is only relevant what WP:RS generally called him (if anything). Regarding the infobox, since there may be situations where WP:RS provide proper justification for including one's partner in the Infobox actor, yea, there should be a "partner" parameter and how that parameter is used may be left up to those dealing with the issue in the article. -- Jreferee 18:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Philippine award giving bodies int he infobox actor template

hi im a filipino, and just like americans, filipinos love to give out awards to our actors as well. but in wikipedia there were no awards templetes for all filipinos actors could you please make a special template for filipino award giving bodies namely:

Filipino Academy of Movie Arts and Sciences Award, (FAMAS)

FIlma Academy of the Philippines(Luna Awards)

Gawad Urian

Star Awards

These are the four major award giving bodies int he philippine entertainment. Please so that we could edit of of our actors templates as well.

thank you!

Nandi Awards

Hi, Nandi Awards are the Awards , given by Andhra Pradesh State Government , India. Its having 40 years of history. pelase add Nandi Awards to Wiki Infobox: Actor. You can refer to the link Nandi Awards , For verification.

Thanks in advance, Regards, --Sultankhadar 05:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Young Artist Awards

Hey, is there any chance of implementing other awards and nominations like the Young Artist Awards category? Ryan 21:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Spouse and children

I can see some minor value in using fields for notable spouses and maybe even notable children, but most children of celebrities are not in themselves notable. Do we really need a field for them? Example Joan Fontaine has a daughter "Debbie Dozier" born 1948. If the infobox is intended to condense and segregate the most important facts about a person, I don't see how this piece of information qualifies. I also think that before a field is added that potentially effects thousands of articles, there should be some discussion. Rossrs 06:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

i think the problem with the instructions: Insert the names of known and especially notable children of the actor. it should read simply: Insert the names of especially notable children of the actor. besides...it's kinda difficult to list the names of 'unknown' children. --emerson7 | Talk 15:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the "children" and "parents" fields are valid and useful enough, given that there are quite a few famous acting families. Would it therefore also be an idea to have notable siblings in the infobox? Perhaps replace these two fields with a more generic "Notable family" or something? PC78 16:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

National Film Awards

Hi guys, could you please help me to insert the National Film Awards to the template? It is the most senior, important and pretigious award given in India. It's given annually by the government of India. Filmfare Awards already exist here and we all use that, but I think National Film Awards have to be there too, even more. I've added that, but when I tried to display this on an actor's infobox, it didn't work. I turned to administrator who worked on this page but apparently he is busy. Please help if you can. Thank you, Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Already displayed. It's ok. --Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion...

With regards to the above discussions over the extreme POV of the "Notable roles" field, and the excessiveness of the various "Awards" fields, how would people feel about replacing both with "Award winning roles"? At the very least it would sidestep the POV issue, and would also prevent the infobox from being overly long. PC78 21:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Astrological sign

I removed it as it was breaking the template and adding extra }}'s to the page. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 03:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

On this subject - could new additions to the infobox please be discussed before adding? I for one would strongly oppose the inclusion of a field for astrological sign. Rossrs 04:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

yeah...really. what's next, shoe size? --emerson7 | Talk 18:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Can we have favourite colour too? Cop 663 19:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Generic Section for Awards, Collapsible Fields, Notable Roles

I am planning on inserting a generic Awards section. It will only say 'Awards' in the title and the user will write whatever he wants below that. There are a countless number of awards available and it is impossible to list all of them in this template so that should provide some flexibility. Please let me know if there are any comments, suggestions, objections etc. -- Kudret abi 16:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No objections to the proposed change so I finalized it. I hope it helps. -- Kudret abi 13:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I am thinking of a reform to the awards fields. Reading some of the discussions on the page, I feel there is general agreement that too many awards ceremonies have been added to the infobox, causing clutter. In addition, many people have raised understandable concern that there is a bias towards western awards. My proposal is to remove all the specific fields except the generic field {{{awards}}}. Everything can be provided under this section, with the help of another new template that can take the name of the ceremony and related info, and provide the nice formatting. This way the infobox can be greatly simplified, while retaining (even extending) its functionality.

As an example I put something together something in my user space at User:Kudret_abi/Template:Infobox_actor_new. Please view the demonstration using this template at User:Kudret_abi/Sandbox/Sandbox1. On that page, please click on edit this page to see the source and observe the awards part of the infobox.

I would be very interested on hearing your comments. criticisms, suggestions, etc. on this idea. --Kudret abi 06:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's good. My only concerns are that we are going to see every trivial and inane award ever presented, being given equal credence and I predict that they will start popping up in infoboxes, and then we'll have another endless debate about which awards should be included. I also think that we will also see a lack of consistency in the way the awards are noted, something that the multiple fields goes some way to reigning in. I think the infobox as a whole works best when there is uniformity - ie I prefer to see the general appearance in every article to be close to identical. I don't disagree with your suggestions, but I think it could create a different set of problems that could be more difficult to control. I also agree that there is a bias towards Western films. Perhaps for English Wikipedia this is somewhat understandable, but it still needs to be addressed. Rossrs 13:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rossrs, thanks for the constructive comments. How about if the Award section appears collapsed to start with? The interested user can simply expand the frame to get the list. Again, please see User:Kudret_abi/Sandbox/Sandbox1. I think this will address the uniformity issue that you mentioned, as well as making lengthy lists less of a problem. Best, -- Kudret abi 00:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

WOW!! Such a simple idea but sometimes the simple ideas that are the best ideas. That is an excellent innovation in my opinion. So many infoboxes look huge, mainly because there are so many awards listed, and this will allow for the people who don't want to see the awards to be happy, and the people who want to see them to be happy also, just by clicking "show". I hope this gets a lot of support - I support it 100%. Actually..... I wonder if some of the other fields could also be hidden..... Maybe spouses and children could be listed behind something generic like "relationships"... Maybe "notable roles" also. You've got my brain clicking over now :-) Rossrs 01:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Rossrs. I hope more people will express support of these proposed ideas. I also tried to incorcoprate the changes you suggested in my sandbox page User:Kudret abi/Sandbox/Sandbox1; I hope this was close to what you had in mind. I will probably wait for a few days to see if there are objections and then make some changes on the actual template. Best, -- Kudret abi 05:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It's exactly what I had in mind. You know Kudret abi, in all of the discussion on this page, this is the closest I have ever seen to a compromise that just might be acceptable to those editors who want to include a lot of information in the infobox, and those editors who don't. I've never seen anything else here that treats both opinions so fairly. I hope it wins the support of other editors. Rossrs 06:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I like what you've done with the Awards section, my only crit is that it could do to be a little more compact (too much emty space for my liking). I'm less keen on the other changes though. There seems to be a concensus of sorts below for getting rid of the Notable Roles field, due to POV issues. I'd also like to keep Personal Information in the main part of the infobox (certainly the website link), and as others have noted elsewhere I don't think it's a good idea to be listing all family members; lets keep it to those who are notable, i.e. famous in their own right. PC78 13:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I do agree with you, and in fact, I've been arguing against the use of spouse and notable roles fields for almost as long as the infobox has existed. Well over a year anyhow, but oddly, these fields have quite a lot of support in the wider community. That's not reflected here because most editors do not comment here. I've seen it so many times - an apparent consensus to change something here, leads to a change to the infobox, but gets reverted within about an hour by someone who has not participated in any discussion. I think one of the biggest problems we now have with this infobox is that it completely bloats many articles. In a disturbing number of articles, it looks amateurish, IMO .... the infoboxes in articles like Ingrid Bergman, Meryl Streep, Henry Fonda, Jack Nicholson, Marlon Brando, to name but a few have infoboxes that overwhelm the article. I've removed (as have many other editors) the notable roles from various articles citing NPOV. A week later they're back. After a year of discussing what should and should not be in the infobox, we are seeing the infobox actually growing rather than being reduced. In my opinion, the first and most immediate problem is the appearance/size of the infobox, and we now have a straight-forward, workable alternative. The Ingrid Bergman infobox could easily look like Kudret abi's Jodie Foster infobox, and this could be done relatively quickly. People like me who don't think the fields should be used at all, could probably tolerate the generic headers more easily than they could the list of information. The people who find value in knowing the names of spouses and children, or the notable roles, need only click on "show" and all is revealed to them. I see this as a solution that is more likely to please both sides of the discussion than anything yet suggested. We could then keep discussing whether notable roles etc should be retained or not. Similar points have been raised from time to time since about July 2006, but this would allow us to move forward somewhat and still permit further discussion and fine-tuning in the future.

I propose that initially we look at the suggestion in its simplest form. Do we like the idea of compacting the infobox? If yes, we can utilise it and continue to look at the specific issues. If the majority don't like the suggestion, we leave things how they are. Rossrs 14:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, I like the idea of doing this for the Awards section, but I do think the line should be drawn there. If you start hiding too much away then it's going to defeat the purpose of having an infobox at all. PC78 16:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough but could you elaborate just a little please. Why do you feel hiding it away is a problem when the information is still easy to get at? Would it be any different to the TOC, which individual users can either hide or not hide. I don't really understand what you mean when you say it defeats the purpose of having the infobox. Also, do you have any thoughts purely on the aesthetics of the infobox for someone like Ingrid Bergman (as opposed to the content, which we agree is a problem, and assuming that the awards are hidden). Rossrs 16:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I feel that (for the most part) the information needs to be "there" rather than hidden away. Granted, it's not a huge effort to click a button to reveal it, but it also shouldn't be necessary; I can't think of any other infoboxes that work like this. I'm not sure how comparable an infobox is to a TOC, but TOCs aren't hidden by default.

I'm not entirely sure what you want me to say about Ingrid Bergman; can you be more specific? I will say that such a lengthy list of awards is a good example of why it should be hidden, because it's almost as long as the awards section of the main article. PC78 19:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks PC78, I am really interested in your opinion. You're right in saying no other infoboxes work like this. Perhaps that's just because nobody else has thought of this. Perhaps some of them would benefit from being compacted too.  :-) (or perhaps not). I think I understand what you're saying. You're also right about the TOC - it's not hidden away by default but if you don't want to look at the TOC, you don't have to. Right now, if you don't want to look at an infobox that stretches beyond the limits of the page, you have no choice, so that's what I was getting at when I used that as an example. Giving a choice to the individual editor/user without the drastic and contraversial step of removing information that some editors find useful and some find useless. Also, the longer the infobox is, the more the text is squashed to the left of it, and that can cause images and section headers to not display or format neatly, and at the moment nothing can be done to prevent that. I've only just thought of that aspect, so I don't think it's a huge problem.

To be more specific in regards to Ingrid Bergman - and Henry Fonda is another good example - both of them have quite a few names listed under spouse and children. Forget the awards and let's pretend they aren't there. My questions are: does the infobox look unnecessarily large in your opinion or do you think it is ok? Does the need to have the information immediately visible, outweigh the effect that the size of the infobox has on the article? It's OK though. I know that you must not see it as a problem, or you would have mentioned it. I guess you and I look at the infobox and see different strengths and weaknesses, and that's fair. Rossrs 01:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

OK then. The Ingrid Bergman one looks fine to me; just taking away the awards cuts it in half, and otherwise it isn't too bad. The Henry Fonda one is far more problematic though. Eight notable roles is just silly - what objective criteria is there for listing them? I think the POV issues alone are reason enough to nuke this section per WP:NPOV, regardless of how others feel about it. With regard to the number of spouses this is clearly a more extreme example, and it wouldn't look half as bad if each entry was confined to a single line. Perhaps there's a case for having the infobox a touch wider, and/or making the width adjustable (assuming that's possible). PC78 02:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I don't know if it's a good idea to widen the infobox if that effects other article where the width is not a problem, but making it adjustable may work. I don't know if it's possible either. It is an extreme example, isn't it? Maybe I'm wrong to be looking so negatively at the extreme examples. Maybe I should accept that most are not extreme and we should address what works best for the majority. Well, I'm about to throw caution to the wind and remove the notable roles from Henry Fonda. I wonder if it will be days or merely hours before someone restores them. I hope I'm wrong, but I'll guess hours. :-) cheers Rossrs 02:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed notable roles from Henry Fonda. It's a featured article too, so there is no room whatsoever for questionable POV. Rossrs 02:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I meant get rid of it from this template rather than just that article. :) As long as it's there, people will use it no matter what. Fair point about making the infobox wider, though. Since we're using Henry Fonda as a kind of guinea pig, I made a minor adjustment to the spouse and children fields to try and reduce them a bit. PC78 02:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

"Well, I meant get rid of it from this template rather than just that article. :) " - YES, me too! Emphatically! Your adjustment looks good. It's an improvement. Rossrs 03:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Rossrs, PC78 thank you for your comments. I had some personal problems so I wasn't here for a couple of days, thus my late reply. I took on PC78's suggestion to remove the spaces between the awards so I think it looks a more compact now, see User:Kudret_abi/Sandbox/Sandbox3 and User:Kudret_abi/Sandbox/Sandbox2. I also took out the the {{{website}}} field from collapsing as suggested. I think there is more or less consensus that neither of us wants the Notable Roles, but as you both stated, a lot of editors like it and are currently using it, so I believe making it collapsible rather than removing it would be a gentler step. Based on the reaction we can go from there. I also think that although in theory only significant children and spouses should be inserted, it is clear that in practice this is not what is done and people tend to insert everything there. Hence I also believe this section on personal information would also benefit from being collapsed. I think the pages look bad whenever the infobox extends past the TOC into the main text, and I believe the proposed changes will avoid this in practically all cases.

Another thing I noticed is that there are thousands of pages using this template but only three of us discussing here. So I think we need to be bold and commit to the changes to see the real majority reaction (if any). I think I will wait for about half a day and then make the changes on the actual template. We can always keep discussing, make more changes, revert, etc. as needed. Best, -- Kudret abi 04:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll pick box number 2... :-) the one with notable roles removed completely. They're both good and removing the spaces makes it look much better. What can I say? I agree with all of your comments. You've expressed your thoughts more clearly than I did, particularly when you talk about it being a 'gentler step' in relation to the family members. I also agree that the 3 of us here are but a drop in the ocean compared to the number of editors using the infobox, completely unaware of this discussion. Most won't be aware of any change until it happens and there may then be an outcry condemning it, but there could as easily be a chorus of approval. Who knows? I think it might be a good idea to wait a couple of days, and see if there are further comments. If you make the changes, I would also suggest referring back to this discussion and inviting comments. Otherwise it may just get reverted out of hand by someone who is not aware of this proposal. I would suggest compacting the awards fields (the 3 of us agree on that), but leaving the personal information as it is (as PC78 was not in support of that change). We can always keep discussing, and maybe other editors will enter the discussion.

As for the notable roles, should we remove the field based on the fact that WP:NPOV is official policy and therefore not open to debate? I've read back over the various discussions that have taken place here from the first time the issue was raised in August 2006. Since then 13 different editors have commented that the field is inappropriate because of POV issues. I can see 3 editors (excluding anons who tend to be of the "me too" variety) who are in favour of keeping it, but none actually present a case for this viewpoint. There are a couple of comments along the lines of: "POV is unavoidable". Well that's nonsense. POV is completely avoidable in an infobox, and there is no excuse for it. In the article - different story, because what makes a role notable can be explained and placed into context and therefore the NPOV element is removed (exactly as stated in the policy). There are also a few people who made very general references to the field as a "given" but without specifically discussing it. Well, it's not a "given".  :-) As far as I can see nobody has attempted to argue in favour of keeping it, while a number of people have argued for its removal. In terms of time spent on this issue, and the number of words written about it, should we now take the view that enough is enough, and apply the policy? If not, then I'd go with collapsing as a very distant second choice. Hope things are ok with you now Kudret abi. Rossrs 08:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's leave the spouse/children/parents fields as they are for now - I think it would be sensible to test the waters with one collapsible section rather than having two. But I'm with Rossrs on the Notable Roles. People have been expressing their concern over this field for the last 12 months, and the bottom line is that NPOV is a non-negotiable policy - protests along the lines of "I like it" just aren't going to cut it. Other than that your examples look good, though the background colour for awards should match the colour of the title for consistency. I do think that other changes to the infobox need to be made (some of the things Rossrs talks about below, for example), but perhaps we should press ahead with this first? PC78 13:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Rossrs, PC78, thanks for the comments, I made the changes on the template per our discussion. As suggested by Rossrs, in the reason field for the change I gave a link to this section and also cited WP:NPOV for the decision on Notable Roles. I left the personal information fields untouched as requested by PC78. I also checked that the colors of the award ceremonies' titles match the main title, which is actually whatever is specified in {{{bgcolour}}}, or the default yellowish color when nothing is specified for {{{bgcolour}}}. I hope that everything goes well with this change and it gets approval from the majority. Some reverts as an initial reaction might happen though, which we need to revert back and ask the editors to present their case here.

Also thanks for your concern Rossrs, things are slowly getting better for me. Best, -- Kudret abi 06:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear things are getting better, Kudret abi. I think you've done an outstanding job. I don't understand what you mean about the colour though. I see some that have the silver header for the infobox name, also has silver for the individual awards header, but the generic header is yellow. Example, our good old test case, Henry Fonda. Is that what you meant? Rossrs 13:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the infobox changes are great -- I noticed the changes and came searching to find out what happened. In particular I want to chime in that the notable roles field deletion is an EXCELLENT decision. (BTW, I'm glad I found this discussion, because I had no idea you're not supposed to list nominations in the infobox.)--Melty girl 03:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Just an observation Kudret abi, but the "Other Awards field" is doing strange things to the infobox in Laura Harring when you click on "show".

Also, are you still planning on using User:Kudret abi/Template:Award received? PC78 13:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello again to all, thanks for the comments, and welcome to the discussion Melty girl, glad to see new people joining the effort to improve the infobox. Rossrs, thanks for letting me know about the color mismatch, I changed the collapsible section's title to match {{{bgcolor}}}, so I think it should be fine now. PC78, I checked the page for Laura Harring and I am unclear what you mean by strange things, but I believe your concern is the fact that it says "Other Awards" while those shown are the only ones listed. So I will have a look at the template code and try to remove the subsection title that says "Other Awards" in case {{{awards}}} field is the only award related field present. About the User:Kudret abi/Template:Award received, my initial intention was to remove all of the specific award categories, leaving only {{{awards}}} and then have people list the awards using the template User:Kudret abi/Template:Award received. However, seeing that there are thousands of infoboxes using these specific categories, I am not sure how I can make this change in a smooth manner, without causing too much inconvenience to people. If anyone has any ideas on this, I would be very interested in hearing them. Best, -- Kudret abi 20:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

My bad for not being more specific about the Laura Harring article; I was referring to the alignment of the text in the upper portion of the infobox, which changes when you click on "show". It's not a major concern, though. Perhaps the "Award received" template could be used alongside the existing awards fields? PC78 20:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I checked the Laura Harring article and did not see any problems with it until today. I normally use Firefox for browsing but today I happened to look at it with IE and I now see your point. I will try to identify the culprit for this behavior and try to fix it. Thanks for letting me know, best, -- Kudret abi 04:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Just want to say I strongly disagree with the removal of "notable roles" from the infobox. the other changes are however welcomed. IrisKawling 08:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Field creep

I have been off-line for awhile, so I was shocked to see how many fields have been added to the actor infobox. From what I can tell, there has been little or no discussion of these additions. I particularly take issue with "Influenced," "Influences," and to a lesser degree, "Residence." The first two are somewhat dependent on POV, and would need to be footnoted in the text (which is where a proper discussion of influences and influenced belongs). They are not some statement of easily ascertainable fact.

I would also remove "Residence" as a field for a couple of reasons--in general, it is not a particularly relevant or meaningful piece of information; also, many actors have multiple residences, and listing them all here would simply clutter the infobox.

I am also a bit troubled by the number of award categories that have crept in, but less so. I will wait a few days to see what kind of discussion is generated from my comments. Then I will remove the aforementioned fields.--Vbd (talk) 01:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I mostly agree with your arguments. In fact I just added a generic section for the Awards and I strongly encourage people to list all the awards under there instead on using the specialized categories, which according to me, do little mote than just cluttering the infobox. Also thanks for discussing changes before editing, not everyone does this. Take care... -- Kudret abi 02:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I mostly agree also and I'm glad you raised the subject. I see two issues : one, that fields are being added without discussion (that's nothing new though) and two, that too much is being put into the infobox, which I think should only be a "snapshot" of the most relevant points. I also believe that some fields are added in good faith because we can add them rather than because we should add them, and I think that it is vital that the field's usefulness can be demonstrated or at least explained. I've also noted a general attitude in previous discussions that suggests that putting information into the infobox saves scrolling through the article and reduces the amount of effort required to find information. The same logic could be applied to put absolutely anything into the infobox, and that scares me - the infobox shouldn't be a substitute for the article.

Specific fields that I think need discussion:

1. Awards - I don't see this as a major issue. Most people would not have more than a couple of award types, and the individual headers at least allow the information to be presented neatly. I think User:Kudret abi's addition of a generic field was a good move. I don't think it's essential to have awards in the infobox especially when most articles also have a succession box at the bottom of the article, but if the awards must be in the infobox, I think that they are currently being presented well.
2. Residence - potentially a huge privacy issue. We should not be going there at all. I've removed it per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of contact information. The intention may not necessarily have been to present personal contact information but there was nothing in the instruction to discourage it.
3. Spouse/partner - I've commented about this at length earlier here, but to keep it brief, I fail to see the relevance of most entries. If the spouse has some kind of notability themselves, I can kind of see the point, but often it's just names of people we have never heard of, and dates. I don't see this as being helpful, but I feel less strongly about this than I do about some other fields.
4. Parents/children etc - if it's important enough to mention, the article is the ideal place, not the infobox.
5. Flags - They duplicate info (ie the country name is already given) but in a way that is less specific. eg the word "Poland" as country of birth would be recognised by most people, but how many would know what the flag looks like? Same with the US state flags. To me, it adds clutter without adding information and I think it's being used for decoration only. Does the country need to be identified by both the name and the flag? Isn't one enough?
6. Years active - I suggested this addition some time ago, but now I don't think it's particularly useful.
7. Influenced/Influences - Vague and very easy to corrupt with POV. Most importantly, just stating names offers nothing of value because the most important thing is context, and context can only be given in the article. That's where it should be discussed.
8. Notable roles - without doubt the field that I am most strongly opposed to - this field is entirely POV, and I've never been able to reconcile that while presenting a neutral POV is a cornerstone of Wikipedia, the concept is ignored here. In many cases (not all, of course), I think it really means: "I've seen this film and I liked it" or "I haven't heard of most of the films made by this person, but I have heard of this one". I disagree with the decisions made in just about every article I've seen the field used in. There is no avoiding the POV and editorial choices in discussing the film role in the article, but that's quite different because within the article it can be placed into context and supported. Just naming 5 roles in the infobox tells us nothing, except that the person who made that particular edit holds that particular opinion.

I would love to see the use of fields discussed in more detail and I strongly feel that the infobox needs a good overhaul. Rossrs 09:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree with all your points. Garion96 (talk) 09:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most of what is said above, particuarly about the "Notable roles" field. However, I do see the "Awards" field as a problem; choosing which awards are important enough to be included in the infobox is strictly POV, and at present there is a strong bias towards Western actors. I think Kudret abi's solution is better, but I'd rather see it go altogether, since the infobox can't effectively summarize what needs to be covered in depth within the article itself.

I was going to suggest adding a few things, but once you take away the problem fields identified above, there is little or nothing to distinguish this infobox from more generic ones such as {{Infobox Person}} or {{Infobox biography}}. Perhaps the whole thing needs a rethink? PC78 15:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive feedback! I struggle with the "Notable Roles" field and the multiple "Awards" fields. I, too, think the former is inherently POV, and the fact that previous discussions have tried to set a limit as to how many roles should be included under this heading further indicates to me how arbitrary it is. There is no metric for measuring how notable an part is -- it depends on a subjective opinion. I think User:Rossrs is right about how this field gets populated. Although I would support getting rid of it, I suspect there would be strong opposition from those who are attached to it.

In terms of "Awards," I agree that there is often a redundancy with the succession boxes that appear at the end of most articles. I actually find those more annoying, but that's just me. I'm ambivalent about keeping them in the Infobox. I like the idea of the generic Awards field, but am concerned about how it will look. At least the current layout keeps everything neat and clean. I disagree with the comment that there is a strong bias towards Western actors--a number of available fields have been added to account for awards from many countries.

I definitely do not want to see nominations creep into the Infobox. I recently came across a user who went on an editing streak of adding this information to Infoboxes (see, e.g., Uma Thurman). If you have some free time, please help me undo this guy's work -- check out User Contributions for User talk:Harold12.--Vbd (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The infobox includes two awards from India, while the rest are all North American or European. What about China? Hong Kong? Japan? Korea? Argentina? PC78 18:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both of your points and comments made by previous users on the awards related field. I have some thoughts to greatly simplify the infobox while still retaining the possibility to add any awards that the user desires in a nice format. Please come to the Generic Section for Awards part of this page, and let me know what you think. Thank you. -- Kudret abi 06:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, the introduction of the generic section for Awards is an excellent idea and should definitely be used in the future; that way the infobox doesn't turn into a lengthy awards section, but every important award can still be included and accessed by everyone interested. Secondly, I entirely agree with the above statement; there are a lot of pointless fields. "Residence", "Parents/children" and "Influenced/Influences" should definitely go, "Years active" might have some relevance for older or deceased actors, while I think marriages should probably be mentioned in the infobox. I'm not a big fan of the flags either, but the flag icons are an autonomous template, so I'm not sure anything can be done about that here. EnemyOfTheState 14:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

i added some of these fields. i think it is important to note that this infobox is very commonly used for directors, and influences are often referenceable as direct statements. i think its relevant from an artistic perspective, and also hard to fit into the text. i also added children (but not parents)... it is VERY common for an actor to spawn a number of notable actors, whether this is a cultural or biological phenomenon, i think its worth noting. --PopeFauveXXIII 02:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't undertand how referencing to influences is hard to fit into the text. If it's "referenceable as a direct statement" then it serves no value at all without the statement to support it. Putting it within the infobox without clarification, explanation, context, just stengthens my opinion that it should not be there. Discussing it in the article where it can be explained shouldn't be too difficult, and this is successfully achieved in numerous articles. Rossrs 09:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

what i meant was, you can place a footnote to an interview in which the person directly references who they consider their major influences... in other words, its verifiable. thats not necessarily something you can easily fit into an article, at least as i see it. you might have to awkwardly create an entire section just to facilitate it... personally, i think directors ought to have their own infoboxes, otherwise a universal "hollywood" template should be created that facilitates every kind of figure in the cinema/television industries, with the first field specifying whether the individual is an actor, director, producer, or some combination. they all win the same awards, but different information is relevant to the different occupations. --PopeFauveXXIII 04:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. "Influenced/Influences" is something that requires proper discussion and referencing within the article, not just a name in an infobox. These two fields should go along with "Residence", though I'm less opposed to "Parents/children", because as noted above there are many famous acting families. PC78 13:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ariel Award

I think Ariel Award miss in the Awards --Hugo Mosh 08:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Hugo, I think most of what I wrote in IFTA Awards also apply here. -- Kudret abi 21:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

NO, this award is equal to the Goya, Cesar, etc. but in Mexico. If you don't`t put this award you shouldn't`t leave the others awards. You should put all the award of each national academy of cinema in every country and dismiss the awards of others.

I apologise for my English. --Hugo Mosh 03:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Kudret, I think Hugo Mosh misunderstood you. I believe you support the inclusion of both the Ariel Awards and IFTAs in this template. Can you (or someone else) please do us a favor, and add both these awards? I'd try, but I don't want to break the the infobox. Thanks. --Melty girl 04:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is right, what I wanted to say was I am in principle against the specific fields, but based on the current structure of the infobox, it would be unfair not to include major awards from other countries. Sorry for the confusion Hugo Mosh, perhaps I am the one who should apologize for the English :-| Kudret abi 05:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)