Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 7

Twitter section

With scads of celebrities creating Twitters, what about adding a "Twitter" section to the infobox and having that be a link to their Twitter? --WTRiker (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. We only use their primary website in the infobox for a reason: to keep numerous URLs from cluttering the box. If the twitter account is particularly notable in itself, include it in the external links section. Otherwise, just leave it out. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hm, but Jamie has one, above... Rich Farmbrough, 11:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC).

So? He has one in a test showing of a template? Also oppose having it in an infobox. If important, put it in the external links section. Garion96 (talk) 13:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Gray color

I propose adding a gray background over the name of the person, if the person is dead. warrior4321 23:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Provided the contrast between backgrounds and text is sufficiently great; that seems a good idea. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there going to be a legend so that readers understand the color code? Would this be implemented automatically if |death_date= is defined? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 17:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouild prefer if the gray background over the name of the person would appear if either |death_date=, |death place= or |death cause= were filled in. warrior4321 20:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced; I never really agreed with this sort of thing at {{Infobox actor}}. Why distinguish between the living and the dead in this manner? PC78 (talk) 22:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It instantly tells the reader if the person is living or dead. Many other infoboxes have this kind of background coloring, such as this one. warrior4321 23:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Many infoboxes use colour, yes, but they don't generally have different colours for living and dead people. The very first sentence of an article should tell you whether or not a person is alive. PC78 (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the music infoboxes use color, but I have never seen it as useful— it only works for those who are aware that there is a key to the colors. For readers who don't browse to that template documentation, the colors probably appear random. For this suggestion, the infobox content makes it clear that the person is dead. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Remove unnecessary style elements?

Can we please remove some of the unnecessary style elements in this template? Specifically things like the padding and font sizes, all of which were inherited from an earlier version of this template but are simply unnecessary now it uses {{infobox}}. I've stripped away all of this junk at {{Infobox Person/sandbox}} and prepared some examples at {{Infobox Person/testcases}}; the only real visible change is a slight narrowing of the infobox, but this has no detrimental effect and makes it consistant with other infoboxes.

Other changes I've made in the sandbox are the removal of several non-breaking spaces which frankly didn't make any sense (they were applied rather inconsistantly) and added {{nowrap}} to "Opponent(s)" and "Spouse(s)" to prevent undesirable wrapping there. Also, it would probably be wise to move this themplate to {{Infobox person}} per capitalisation guidelines at MOS:INFOBOX. PC78 (talk) 10:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I support all the above changes, Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Same here, obviously. There's no obvious reason for overriding any of these defaults, and it slightly improves consistency across our biography articles (as most specialised bio infobox templates use the unmodified {{infobox}} defaults these days). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please update template with the code at {{Infobox Person/sandbox}} and move to {{Infobox person}} per above. Cheers! PC78 (talk) 00:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Done (one difference - I subst'd the nowrap templates). — RockMFR 02:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Question: there are a few nbsps left - should these still be there? — RockMFR 02:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I left a couple in intentionally, because it didn't seem ideal to have words like "of" wrapping onto a new line. Thanks for the update. Can you also move the template to the uncapitalised "person", please? PC78 (talk) 15:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. I think I got all the redirects fixed up... — RockMFR 22:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Add hidden category

{{editprotected}} Please make this template emit the hidden Category:Articles with hCards. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 08:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Done - Rjd0060 (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

More general discussion moved to Template talk:Infobox#Emitting categories

Also

If the template is to be edited, can:

}}<includeonly>[[Category:Articles with hCards]]</includeonly><noinclude>

be changed to:

}}<includeonly>{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:0}}|[[Category:Articles with hCards]]}}</includeonly><noinclude>

to prevent the categorisation of undesirable pages. PC78 (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Support. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Deprecation of alma mater

The current problem that I see with alma mater is that is is ambiguous. The dictionary definition isn't precise (using words like "usually"), and can cause confusion. For example many people have been awarded honorary diplomas and some have not finished college (hence dropped out, or currently enrolled). Some articles consider this to be an alma mater, while some use "Education". Completely unrelated, if one were to have multiple alma maters, it would be gramatically incorrect to include multiple colleges in the section alma mater, since the plural of alma mater is almae matres. It would be similar to listing multiple awards in a section labeled Award:. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 18:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I support this proposal. There was a specific discussion regarding Sean Hannity, who dropped out from two colleges, as well as a more broad discussion at the pump in which the community expressed a preference for a less ambiguous term. I'll try to dig up some links to discussions soon. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I propose that alma mater no longer be used in an infoxbox due to its ambiguous nature. State explicitly what degrees a person has received and how they have received them. Clear, precise, honest.Stargnoc (talk) 04:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. On Village Pump, they opposed it more than supported it. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, some useful reliable sources tell us which Universities people attended but don't "state explicitly what degrees a person has received and how they have received them". How should infoboxes handle that scenario? - Pointillist (talk) 01:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I personally would just put the college in the "Education" field and in <small> put (attended) after the college's name, n that situation. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 04:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you give example infobox entries for Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Paul Dirac, Richard Feynman, Bill Gates and Larry Ellison based on your proposal? If it works for all of them, I'd find that very convincing. - Pointillist (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

What difference would it make in Bill Gates if that information was under "education"? Education doesn't imply graduation. All colleges and prep schools can contain parentheticals such as (dropped out) (incomplete) (honorary) and (transferred). --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to changing "alma mata" to "education"—in fact I think "education" is better because it can include multiple institutions. But Stargnoc wants a new, stricter, rule that the parameter should "state explicitly what degrees a person has received and how they have received them". In that case, I'd like Stargnoc to offer draft entries for Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Paul Dirac, Richard Feynman, Bill Gates and Larry Ellison, with citations, so we can see whether his/her structer rule is practicable. - Pointillist (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the merging of education and alma mater. The same must be done at Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder. It is confusing to have Latin in an English encyclopedia, it has to be blue linked so people understand what the field should contain and the blue link provides no explanation. It is also grammatically incorrect. Education runs from prep school to their highest degree or degrees. Which one of the potential four or five schools is their nourishing mother? Maybe we should include the name of their wet nurse. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Religious beliefs?

Greetings, I was examining the details in the infobox for Ayaan Hirsi Ali (which I've just updated) and I noticed the line, "Religious beliefs" where hers was specified as "Atheist". Atheism is non-belief. This "Religious beliefs" descriptor strikes me as a kludge. Perhaps code could be introduced to make this a two part specification like so:

religion= yes|no|system=

?

This way non-belief could be accurately described?

Thanks (→Netscott) 13:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikicode doesn't work that way (you can't have parameter=subparameter=value. Also, I have to strenuously disagree with your point. Atheism is a religious belief (i.e., a belief about religion). That is, it is an "adjective belief", implying no particular application of the adjective when more than one could appy (similarly, "traveling belief" might mean a belief about traveling, a belief held during travel, a belief that itself travels from mind to mind, etc.). Your interpretation appears to be that in order for something to be a "religious belief" it must be "a belief characterized by religiosity" rather than simply an opinion; that would be an overly narrow and seemingly willfully confused and confusing inference. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Political Party

Suggest changing from "political party" to "political party/faction," as I'd like to be able to list political factions previous historical figures were associated with. "Party" is a more modern democratic political construction, and by adding "/faction" it broadens the use of the attribute significantly. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 04:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You mean just a change to the documentation? Just do it, and if anyone flips out about it they can undo it and we'll hash it out. This seems like a reasonable alteration to me. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

nl.wikipedia

Please remove the interwiki to nl.wikipedia. Apparently the template has been removed on nl.wikipedia. Taketa (talk) 09:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've changed the nl.wiki link to "Sjabloon:Infobox persoon", which appears to do the same thing this does. If I've mistranslated its purpose, let me know and I'll just remove. Odd that there was no real reason for the original link's removal, just "weg" ("gone", I believe). — Huntster (t @ c) 10:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Note to Taketa: You can make changes like that yourself, as the interwikis are in the /doc page, not the template itself, here and at most other well-developed templates. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish, Thnx for the tip, I will do that in the future. @Huntster, it refers to a removal nomination at [1], where Mixcoatl nominates it as being useless and that a comparable template had recently been removed. Taketa (talk) 09:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Taketa, thanks for the explanation. Hopefully the link I replaced it with is comparable. — Huntster (t @ c) 09:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Signature

There is an ongoing discussion at Template talk:Infobox officeholder regarding whether we should keep images of signatures in infoboxes. MitchellDuce (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Language

• I propose that we include a "language" field that lists the languages the person speaks/spoke (with their native language/s labeled specifically in some fashion). Wolfdog (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Honours / awards / medals

How does one add the award of a medal to the infobox? I'm thinking of Barbara Jane Harrison, who was awarded a posthumous George Cross for her actions in the accident involving BOAC Flight 712. Mjroots (talk) 12:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Found it! - awards. Mjroots (talk) 12:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Additional hCard "nickname" parameter

{{editprotected}}

Please add an additional hCard microformat parameter by changing:

| data1 = {{#if:{{{birth_name|}}}|{{{birth_name}}}<br />}}{{#if:{{{birth_date|}}}|{{{birth_date}}}<br />}}{{{birth_place|}}}

to:

| data1 = {{#if:{{{birth_name|}}}|<span class="nickname">{{{birth_name}}}</span><br />}}{{#if:{{{birth_date|}}}|{{{birth_date}}}<br />}}{{{birth_place|}}}

Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

 Not done A birthname is not a nickname is it ? If anything if both {{{name}}} and {{birthname}}} are specified, then {{{name}}} is the nickname is it not ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

hCard uses the nickname parameter for any alternative name to that used as the formatted name (fn). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The wiki says that the n key is to be used in those cases. The obvious problem of course being that we don't separate all elements of the name, making usage of the n property rather difficult. It however says nothing about using nickname in such cases, does it ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The microformats wiki gives no definition of "nickname",; nor indeed does the hCard spec. The vCard specification from which hCard is derived defines a Nickname as "[a] descriptive name given instead of or in addition to the one belonging to a person, place, or thing". I'm also basing my proposed use of it in this template on extensive experience of using microformats in hundreds of templates on Wikipedia; on applying microformats to other websites; and my experience of the behaviour of microformat parsers; and the fact that no other "alternative name" parameter is available to us. "n" is not appropriate in this instance because, for example, the birth name of many married women is not the name they currently use - there is, again, no other hCard parameter available to us for "pre-marriage" names. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm personally of the opinion that it's better to have data NOT tagged, than to have it tagged "incorrectly". Also X-MAIDENNAME is a common vCard extension for maidenname for instance, and this is exactly why such extensions to the vCard spec are allowed. As the poster of this blogpost says: "Garbage in, garbage out". The nickname might be used as the "garbage bin" of names in vCards, but that does not make it a good idea to advertise this misguided behavior in my opinion. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said: there is no other hCard parameter available to us for "pre-marriage" names - vCard extensions are not available in hCard. In any case, a birth name ("Madonna Louise Ciccone") is not a maiden name ("Ciccone"). Using nickname for this parameter is not incorrect and your use of "scare quotes" when describing your personal opinion suggest that, at least subconsciously, you are aware of this. Nickname is already used as the hCard parameter for |birth_name= in numerous other such templates, without problem. Such usage is not what is described by the cited blog post. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You seem to read what you want to read. Like I said, nickname should be for nicknames, not for "random shit we can't put anywhere else" (even if it is common). I'm a big fan of microformats, but in my opinion, you take these things to their extremes and far beyond their "proper" usage at times. If there is no good definition on how to format certain information with microformats, then just don't format it. I don't feel for this change and I won't be talked down into agreeing with you. I will not execute the change. Any other admin is welcome to make the change. I just won't agree with it and I won't make it. Garbage in, garbage out. Better no tags, than tags that won't mean shit for re-users. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Any other admin is welcome to make the change.. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course we have not reached a consensus, so the likelihood that another admin will actually make the change is rather small at this moment. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

When you said Any other admin is welcome to make the change. I took you at your word. I apologise if I was wrong to do so. In which case, I shall address your other points. Your opening remark veers close to WP:NPA, and certainly crosses WP:AGF. In this case, there is a good definition of how to format birth names: use nickname. This is not shit for re-users; but valid semantic metadata; complient wothte relevant specification, the vCard specification from which hCard is derived, which I cited above: "[a] descriptive name given instead of or in addition to the one belonging to a person, place, or thing". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not share your interpretation of the vCard specification of the "nickname" field Andy. You are right that it CAN fit within the definition, I just don't think it was ever intended to be the spirit of the specification. We can discuss this as long as you want, but it is as simple as that we don't agree. By following your route, we are making a "link" of information and meaning of this information. I consider this link of information and meaning to be of such a low quality that I prefer not to see a link being made at all. This may be common practice in the microformat world (and perhaps even in many of our infoboxes because you put it there), but as Wikipedia we should strive towards quality. I think putting the birthname in the nickname field simply because the current hCard and vCard specifications don't have better accommodations for this information at this point in time is a mistake. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Please get consensus before making such requests.  Skomorokh, barbarian  07:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

See above. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Please work out your disagreement with TheDJ before requesting an edit. Sincerely,  Skomorokh, barbarian  01:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Unresolved

This simple change, to implement a mode used widely elsewhere on - and off - WP, remains to be done. Can we now move forward with it? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Far better solution

Just implement a |nickname= parameter and attach the hCard value to it. This would greatly facilitate the migration of a bunch of infoboxes for sportspeople and other celebrities, many of which support such a parameter, to this template. I'm frankly totally frakking astounded that this field is missing. :-/ |other_names= doesn't really work for nicknames, only for aliases and pseudonyms. Agreed with above comment that given names are not nickanmes, but neither are most values that would appear in |name= (someone suggested this as the target for the hCard nickname element). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Clearer instructions

The template:infobox musical artist has the following clear instructions for ordering birth dates and death dates on the death date line, thus:
<!-- {{Death date and age|YYYY|MM|DD|YYYY|MM|DD}} (death date then birth) --> .

Perhaps this idea could be implemented on this template too? --Diannaa ^TALK 02:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Mergers, redux

I'd like to draw everyone's attention to the section at the top of this talk page, about potential candidates for merging with this template. In particular, {{Infobox actor}} has no parameters not used by this template, though there are some differences in the use of underscores in parameter names; and {{Infobox chef}} has only four three other parameters, two one of which television and education could apply to many subjects of this template. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Infobox revolutionary

{{editprotected}} I propose that {{Infobox revolutionary}} be merged into this template. Please will somebody put the necessary flags on the two templates? [end of {{editprotected}}]

The differently-named parameters of Infobox revolutionary are:

• dateofbirth (matches birth_date)
• placeofbirth (birth_place)
• dateofdeath (death_date)
• placeofdeath (death_place)
• alternate name (other_names)
• prizes (awards)

and the parameters unique to Infobox revolutionary are:

• movement
• organizations
• monuments
• influences
• influenced

all of which would seem at home in this template. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

See also #Additional parameters, below. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: I've placed {{mergeto}} on Template:Infobox revolutionary as requested. I can't really see the purpose in putting a tag on this template as anyone watching it will also be watching this talk page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Additional parameters

Table

Parameter	From	Explanation	Possible re-use
|television=	{{Infobox chef}}	Used when the subject has presented television programmes/series	Heather Angel (photographer); Peter Scott
|style=	{{Infobox chef}}	Cooking style	Other types of style (e.g. architectural)
|charge=	{{Infobox criminal}}	Criminal conviction	Geoffrey Archer
|penalty=	{{Infobox criminal}}	Penalty for the above	Geoffrey Archer
|status=	{{Infobox criminal}}	e.g. at-large, in prison, on parole, released, dead (specify if executed), etc. Note possible clash with status (for, e.g. "marital status"; renaming suggested).	Geoffrey Archer
|agent=	{{Infobox journalist}}	Agent	Anyone who notably employs an agent (e.g. public speakers)
|influences=	{{Infobox revolutionary}}, {{Infobox scientist}}, {{Infobox writer}}	People who notably influenced the subject	Anyone
|influenced=	{{Infobox revolutionary}}, {{Infobox scientist}}, {{Infobox writer}}	People who were notably influenced by the subject	Anyone
|monuments=	{{Infobox revolutionary}}	Monuments commemorating the subject	Anyone who is commemorated by a monument (other then their own grave)
|movement=	{{Infobox revolutionary}}	Political movements in which the subject was active Should be labelled "Political movement" and placed below "Political party".	Feminists, environmentalists, trade unionists etc.
|organization=, |organizations=	{{Infobox revolutionary}}	Organisations of which the subject was notably a member.	Anyone

(more to follow)

Discussion

I should like to add the above parameters, already used in other biographical templates, to increase standardisation and to facilitate those templates calling this one; or being merged into it. Any comments; or other suggestions? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a well-worked plan to me. Did we ever get a conclusion on whether or not the master template should allow for collapsing sections or not? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

EditProtected

{{editprotected}}

Per the above table and discussion, please implement the changes I just made to the sandbox (I've also added some additional hCard microformat classes, chiefly class="org" & class="category"). The three "criminal" parameters have been renamed |criminal_*= in accordance with consensus at {{Infobox criminal}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you say which parameters you're adding, which you're removing, and which you're changing? It's quite hard to see what's what from the diff you gave. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 06:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I think they are all listed in the table above. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I see, but this is going to need some fixing. In particular, label15 is being used twice. There might be other bugs, but I will have to check a bit more. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Well spotted. That's been fixed; and re-checked. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, it was still incorrect, but I believe I fixed it. I also tweaked the criminal labels a bit since status can be misleading. Please revert if this causes a problem. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. It should now be possible to merge (or convert to call this template) those listed directly above. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Colour

While we're all here, can I make a quick suggestion, tell me what you think. Now that we are incorporating all of these other infoboxes, it still might be worth our while to differentiate between the different people. Something, like what's done with {{Infobox musical artist}} with the colour scheme. This would brighten up this drab box that sits around on BLPs making them all dark and gloomy. Start the Wiki Campaign For Colour! Make the reader want to know that Mr What's his Face from the Moon was born on 87th of December 2034. Make them glare intensively at their computer screen looking for more. We need colour now! Many thanks, —  Cargoking  talk  18:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I rather think that the opposite is how Wikipedia is trending; the arbitrary use of different colours to differentiate different types of infobox is confusing and often distracting. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well then instead of having multiple colours, just have one. —  Cargoking  talk  09:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Right, just use the standard default color used by other templates. No need for "Skittlespedia". Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)