Template talk:Infobox academic

Adding ORCID numbers

Hi, I was wondering what people would think about adding ORCID numbers to this infobox? They are standarised unique numbers for individual authors and might help readers identify work better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamzze (talk • contribs) 19:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Code formatting problems for thesis link

Not sure why the thesis link inside the {{Infobox academic}} template is not displaying correctly for Ty Seidule but seems to work when the {{Infobox academic}} template is embedded inside another template when used in Carol T. Christ. -- 64.202.138.67 (talk) 02:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The title and url were reversed. Fixed now. MB 03:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for finding my stupid error (which I should have spotted in the first place if I weren't tired at that time of the edit) and for also fixing the problem. -- 64.202.138.67 (talk) 21:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Request to remove unsupported parameters

When editing an article containing {{Infobox academic}} such as Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, we see errors stating Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox person with unknown empty parameter "denomination", "salary", "weight" even if those parameters are not used in the article. Could someone please remove these unsupported parameters from {{Infobox academic}} to remove these errors? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Izno: Thank you for removing these (and many more) parameters! GoingBatty (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Other advisors

The contents of the academic_advisors field normally appear alongside the label "Academic advisors"; however, when the field is used alongside the doctoral_advisor field, it uses the label "Other academic advisors" with a non-breaking space after the word "Other". In most use cases, this has the unfortunate side effect of substantially increasing the width of the label column and decreasing the width of the content column. While the effect of this may seem minor in theory, in practice this frequently results in numerous additional line breaks in the infobox, substantially increasing the infobox's length.

To avoid this, I would suggest that rather than using the label "Other[ ]academic advisors" when the field is used alongside doctoral_advisor, we instead use the label "Other advisors" in such cases. As the field normally appears under the heading "Academic background", this label would be no less precise than the existing one. And the fact that we are referring specifically to academic advisors is further reinforced by the fact that the label would only appear when immediately followed by the doctoral_advisor field. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 04:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Can you show some examples of this problem? I finally found Thomas Nagel, where the two parameters are used together, but my browser does not show this problem in that case. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 04:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Thomas Nagel was what prompted me to suggest this. It's far from the most extreme example I've seen, but I count the addition of seven line breaks and the loss of one line break (as the doctoral advisor label never needs to wrap when the academic advisors field is present) for a net addition of six line breaks. I've posted the infobox with and without the academic advisors field in the collapsed boxes below.

{{Infobox academic}} already has a tendency to be on the long side, so the addition of six lines makes a difference (and, in this case, amounts to a 16% increase in the number of lines in the infobox, excluding headings and the image). And the effect has been even more pronounced in articles I have come across in the past, particularly articles with a significant number of names in the influences and influenced fields.

With academic advisors field

Thomas Nagel Nagel in 1978 Born (1937-07-04) July 4, 1937 Belgrade, Yugoslavia Nationality American Spouses Doris G. Blum ​ ​ (m. 1958; div. 1973)​ Anne Hollander ​ ​ (m. 1979; died 2014)​ Awards Balzan Prize (2008) Rolf Schock Prize (2008) Academic background Alma mater Cornell University Corpus Christi College, Oxford Harvard University Thesis Altruism (1963) Doctoral advisor John Rawls Other advisors J. L. Austin Academic work Discipline Philosophy Sub-discipline Epistemology ethics legal philosophy philosophy of mind political philosophy School or tradition Analytic philosophy Institutions New York University Princeton University University of California, Berkeley Doctoral students Marcelo Alegre Rebecca Goldstein Shelly Kagan Samuel Scheffler Susan Wolf Notable works The Possibility of Altruism (1970) "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?" (1974) Mortal Questions (1979) The View from Nowhere (1986) Equality and Partiality (1991) The Last Word (1997) Mind and Cosmos (2012) Notable ideas Panpsychism subjective character of experience what is it like to be a something References

Without academic advisors field

Thomas Nagel Nagel in 1978 Born (1937-07-04) July 4, 1937 Belgrade, Yugoslavia Nationality American Spouses Doris G. Blum ​ ​ (m. 1958; div. 1973)​ Anne Hollander ​ ​ (m. 1979; died 2014)​ Awards Balzan Prize (2008) Rolf Schock Prize (2008) Academic background Alma mater Cornell University Corpus Christi College, Oxford Harvard University Thesis Altruism (1963) Doctoral advisor John Rawls Academic work Discipline Philosophy Sub-discipline Epistemology ethics legal philosophy philosophy of mind political philosophy School or tradition Analytic philosophy Institutions New York University Princeton University University of California, Berkeley Doctoral students Marcelo Alegre Rebecca Goldstein Shelly Kagan Samuel Scheffler Susan Wolf Notable works The Possibility of Altruism (1970) "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?" (1974) Mortal Questions (1979) The View from Nowhere (1986) Equality and Partiality (1991) The Last Word (1997) Mind and Cosmos (2012) Notable ideas Panpsychism subjective character of experience what is it like to be a something References

207.161.86.162 (talk) 05:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done: yes, I see that does make a difference. I made the change in the sandbox and then added Nagel's ibox to the testcases page. Made it easier to see the benefit in your edit. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 07:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Paine Ellsworth! 207.161.86.162 (talk) 08:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

It's my pleasure! Paine  08:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Notes

burial_place

I have almost emptied Pages using infobox academic with unknown parameters. The few remaining articles need |burial_place= and/or |resting_place=. Since this is a standard parameter of {{infobox person}}, it should be available for academics just like most other bios. Frietjes or Jonesey (or anyone else), could you please add this. MB 03:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

okay, added. Frietjes (talk) 15:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Award parameter

Relevant and related discussion at Template talk:Infobox scientist#Award parameter. Skjoldbro (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Adding a parameter for "Published books"

It is better to added a parameter for the published books of an academician. Thanks, Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Fully wrap Infobox person?

In the sandbox, I have a version of the template that uses Module:Template wrapper, which allows any parameter in {{Infobox person}} to also be accepted here, while also accepting all existing parameters to this template. The downside is that all error checking is now handled by {{Infobox person}}, so parameter errors will show up in Category:Pages using infobox person with unknown parameters.

What do editors think? Should I make the sandbox template go live? — hike395 (talk) 05:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done --- I fixed it so that errors will show up in Category:Pages using infobox academic with unknown parameters. — hike395 (talk) 13:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

H-index and Citations

Can H-index and Citation (as in citation count) parameters be added to this Infobox? KD HU (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Removing the Academic background divider

The Academic background divider is often a bit obstructive for the many articles which have no other info that fits under that section besides education/alma mater, so it ends up pushing the infobox downward and overall looks awkward. Some of the parameters are also confusing and appear contradictory — i.e., Thesis goes under academic background but is thus excluded from Academic work, which sort of implies that a person's thesis is not a part of their academic work.

I think it would be great to have the infobox take on a similar formatting as Template:Infobox scientist, and it will provide the additional benefit of providing some consistency to readers. For example, Template:Infobox scientist actually puts Thesis under Scientific career, which is appropriate, and doesn't have any sort of divider at all; it would be less of an eyesore/confusion if Template:Infobox academic did the same.

I've attempted to replicate an example of what an article would look like without that large infobox divider in the GA John Hart Ely. GuardianH (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@Hike395 — I'm looking for some editors to chime in on the above proposal. Since you've worked on the template before, what do you think? GuardianH (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I would be in favor of just having one section header, “Academic career” with an ordering of fields that is compatible with {{Infobox scientist}}. I agree having two headers is too crowded. — hike395 (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree, and it seems more editors would too. Izno — since you've rearranged and removed some of the template parameters before, what do you think about this proposal? GuardianH (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I made a mockup of a single-header infobox at {{Infobox academic/sandbox}}, see the test cases for a comparison. I took the liberty of removing |influenced= and |influencing=, analogous to {{Infobox scientist}}. If editors object to the removal of those parameters, they can be restored. — hike395 (talk) 12:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Hike395 It looks absolutely perfect. GuardianH (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Hike395 I would just add that alma mater and education parameters be placed above the Academic career section as it is in Template:Infobox scientist. GuardianH (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed You're right, those should be parameters for {{infobox person}}. — hike395 (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The education parameter might also should be added back, as there are quite a few US articles with them that use it and some UK articles use the parameter to denote a subject's secondary education. GuardianH (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Both |education= and |alma_mater= are already handled by {{Infobox person}}. No need to add them to this template. See the (newly edited) first test case. — hike395 (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

hike395 As it is right now, I think most editors would agree wholly with the changes. But there were some qualms with the influences/influenced parameter, and I remember that there was a controversy within the last year or so when it was removed and a cohort of editors lobbied for its conservation. IMO maybe it would be best to leave it in for a separate consensus to determine its inclusion. GuardianH (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done --- restored |influence*= at the end of the infobox. — hike395 (talk) 01:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

hike396 Really great. The new infobox academic format looks good and I would of course support its current implementation. GuardianH (talk) 03:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

 Implemented --- Since the discussion has died out, I updated the main template from the sandbox. — hike395 (talk) 04:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, your changes are not an improvement. There ought to have been an RfC about this. Khiikiat (talk) 07:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Khiikiat: I would have reverted and discussed more given your objection, but now there's an RfC phrased in the negative. Would you be willing to cancel your RfC, I will revert, and we can discuss the issues that you have? — hike395 (talk) 12:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hike395: I have ended the RfC so please revert this edit. I started an RfC so that more editors would be involved in the discussion. I think it would be a good idea to start a new RfC about your proposed changes. Khiikiat (talk)

 Reverted @Khiikiat: was there parts of the proposed change you thought made the infobox worse? Or did you want more editors involved? Regarding the latter, I did notify Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia on 13 August, but no one responded. We can do a broader RfC before implementation. — hike395 (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hike395 How necessary is a reversal if but one editor has objected when others haven't? GuardianH (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, it was just you and me who were in favor, which is a very weak consensus. Even one objection means we don't have consensus and need to discuss further, or invite more editors into the discussion. — hike395 (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hike395: was there parts of the proposed change you thought made the infobox worse? Yes, your proposed change makes the infobox much worse. There is nothing wrong with the current version. There are three sections: a section for personal life (birth, death, spouse, children), a section for academic background (education, thesis, doctoral advisor), and a section for academic work (discipline, institutions, main interests, notable works). It is perfectly logical. Your change breaks the section for academic background in two. Education is moved to personal life, and the thesis and doctoral advisor are moved to the bottom of a new section called Academic career. It makes no sense at all. Take Avi Shlaim as an example. The reader would learn in the first section that Shlaim has a PhD from the University of Reading and then would have to scroll down to the end of the infobox to find the title of the PhD thesis. It is completely illogical. Or did you want more editors involved? I think a major change to an infobox used in approximately 16,000 articles should be supported by broad consensus. Otherwise, the status quo should prevail. Khiikiat (talk)

Per your feedback, in the sandbox, I moved |education= and |alma_mater= back into the academic section, just before the thesis information. I also made Shlaim a new test case. Does the proposal make sense now? @GuardianH: what do you think? — hike395 (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid your proposal still does not make sense to me. Education is usually something that is separate from and precedes one's career. Furthermore, the term "career" may not be appropriate for some independent scholars. As I explained above, in my opinion, the infobox is perfectly fine as it is. Khiikiat (talk) 10:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

The thesis of academics is usually part of their career/work. One example is that Claude Shannon invented switching theory for his Master's thesis.

I took "career" to be consistent with {{Infobox scientist}}, but can easily change it back to "work" (in the sandbox). — hike395 (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Hike395 No, I don't agree with the changes that @Khiikiat has proposed. One's academic career and notable academic work begins after their undergraduate and graduate education; it makes perfect sense, not to mention its parallel characteristic with Infobox scientist for consistency. The ironic thing is that Khiikiat's example of Avi Shlaim where The reader would learn in the first section that Shlaim has a PhD from the University of Reading and then would have to scroll down to the end of the infobox to find the title of the PhD thesis" absolutely makes sense, especially when the subtitle is pertaining to the subject's academic work, which a PhD thesis is. Education and academic work are related but not the same; parameters are appropriate. The reversion should be reverted back to its original form. GuardianH (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@GuardianH: I'm trying to see whether we can achieve partial consensus (i.e., whether we can modify the proposal to address specific concerns of Khiikiat), then we can open up the remaining disagreement to a wider audience. I've made two changes:

• I moved |education= and |alma_mater= back into the academic section, and
• I changed "career" to "work" in the header.

Are either (or both) of these changes acceptable to you? — hike395 (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Recent changes to Infobox academic

Should hike395's recent changes to {{Infobox academic}} be reverted? Khiikiat (talk) 07:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Procedural close - No effort to discuss this was made before creating a RFC. A RFC is the last resort and isn't necessary for every change. Nemov (talk) 13:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, there is no indication of what "hike395's recent changes to {{Infobox academic}}" might be; we should not be made to search.

Furthermore, six RfC categories is over the top. It's completely outside the scope of |style, |policy and |prop, barely within |proj. About the only truly relevant ones are |bio and |tech. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Bad RFC No attempt is made to describe what these changes are, and there was no attempt to discuss this beforehand. Please close this RFC and discuss the issues with hike395 instead. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Faulty RFC. Like others have appointed above, there was no effort for anything in WP:RFCBEFORE. GuardianH (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)