Template talk:Infobox scientist/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Too much boldface

Why the name has a double boldface? It produces an unpleasantly overloaded visual effect... --'''Attilios''' (talk) 08:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Bug when using double dashes for italics

There is a bug see old revision when using '' to show the author abbr in italics. It then categorizes the article into Category:Zoologists with author abbreviations with a very weird sortkey of ">". I don't know how to fix this, any suggestions are appreciated. --Funandtrvl (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Why would you want to italicize that? BTW, as far as I can see from a Google search, he only used "Cleland" as abbreviation, Clelandia are genera (one plants, another animals) named after him. Note that some of the external links don't work correctly either. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure either that it is correct to list an abbreviation under "zoology", as I cannot find any taxa that were described by him. But I only did a rapid Google search, so perhaps I missed something. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Website parameter

Per Template_talk:Infobox_scientist#Website_attribute.3F, I would like to add the website attribute. Add the following after "|data22 ="

| header23 = {{#if:{{{website|{{{homepage|{{{URL|}}}}}}}}}|Website}}

| data24 = {{{website|{{{homepage|{{{URL|}}}}}}}}}

I tested this code at Template:Infobox scientist/sandbox and User:GrapedApe/Notes3 and it works.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't there first be a brief discussion of the proposal? While it looks uncontroversial, I think it would help to know which particular article and which website this is intended for, and there should be a couple of days allowed for comments from anyone watching this page. Johnuniq (talk) 05:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It has been discussed:Template_talk:Infobox_scientist#Website_attribute.3F and the idea received unanimous support.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep, it has been discussed and there is consensus for it, it appears. __meco (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I strongly support the addition of this attribute. But, waiting a couple of days before making the modification wouldn't hurt. (I can't imagine there being anyone to oppose the inclusion of such an attribute.) I'll also try to set aside some time to test the modified template. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 16:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this would be a fine addition. However, would be useful to have some standard about how it should be rendered (and clear documentation of that). Should it be passed as the url itself, and should that be rendered as a visible url string or displayed as "website" (a la {{URL|www.example.com/foo/dr.bob.html|homepage}}), or as an actual wikiformat link with optional text? Infoboxes are notoriously inconsistent about this sort of thing, so may as well set a standard since it's a new feature here. DMacks (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Some scientists have their own domain and website ("www.johndoe.com"), others only have a page on their university's website. Which do we link to and how do we display them? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone wanting this presumably has some ideas about where to use it first, so would they please present a couple of examples that would help clarify the good questions raised above. Because Richard Dawkins was converted to use {{Infobox person}} it has an example using wikitext website = [http://richarddawkins.net/ The Richard Dawkins Foundation]. Johnuniq (talk) 01:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Like as is mentioned at the top of this thread, an example: User:GrapedApe/Notes3--GrapedApe (talk) 02:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hans-Hermann Hoppe is another example. Currently, and since 2007, is has been solved using | footnotes = Website: hanshoppe.com. jonkerz ♠talk 09:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Can someone update the docs page. -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

 Doing.... jonkerz ♠talk 16:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done. jonkerz ♠talk 16:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks!--GrapedApe (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Alma mater

Shouldn't alma mater be italicized? See alma mater and Template:Infobox person. InverseHypercube 06:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

More significantly, this is an Americanism which is not in use in the UK, hence unsuitable for British scientists. As discussed at talk:Charles Darwin#Get a grip - get rid of the Alma mater, Tertiary education would be better. . . dave souza, talk 18:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I note that there was a move to merge this in Template:Infobox person with the 'education' field, discussed here with nobody opposing but there was no subsequent change to the template - maybe time to reopen the discussion there as well. Mikenorton (talk) 19:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Even worse than the less than desirable term in my mind is the fact that there is no way to specify field of study or type of degree received. This is a problem in the case of Darwin who studied medicine at Edinburgh and received a bachelor degree in theology at Cambridge. In general the template seems to make an implicit assumption that the scientist received a doctorate in a field closely connected to their work. This might be true of most 20th and 21st century scientists, but this template is used in articles on many important 19th century (and earlier) figures such as Darwin, William Buckland, Gideon Mantell, Charles Lyell, Thomas Henry Huxley, who received university degrees in fields such as theology, medicine, and classics that were far removed from the scientific fields they contributed to. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Minor clarification, Darwin gained an ordinary degree at Cambridge, not a degree in theology. Though theology was part of the normal course, what Darwin was studying was the ordinary Bachelor's degree, which was required before taking further training in theology to become a Church of England clergyman. The Tripos, the equivalent of an honours degree, was reserved for mathematics students with considerable ability, or for the sons of the aristocracy. Science teaching in Cambridge at that time was essentially extracurricular, so the section on academic advisors is also an issue: do we guess at the early 19th century equivalent of modern advisors? . . dave souza, talk 22:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I commented on the academic advisor issue on the Darwin talk page. What Henslow did for Darwin seems very consistent with the spirit of what is described in the academic advising article. Just because the term "academic advisor" may be used in a very specific sense in some contexts doesn't mean we can't use the common sense definition used in this template of a professor who goes out of his way to mentor a particular student. I suppose if you want you could use something like "academic mentors" instead, but I bet somewhere some college uses the term "academic mentor" in some very specific way (ie as some specific faculty member or graduate student assigned to mentor a particular student) so I am not sure the problem would be solved. Rusty Cashman (talk) 09:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Should Alma Mater include places where one did their postdoctoral work or would that go under work institutions?--Chrisvanlang (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Birth name

The parameter Birth name works with this template (for example, Agnes Arber), but is not documented. Could someone please add this. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done! Nice catch, I added it to both the parameter and guidelines subsections, but not the blank example. In case you did not know, template documentations are usually not protected, even if they belong to protected templates. jonkerz ♠talk 12:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. This one seems to be protected: no "edit" option appears for me. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

You need to use the edit link to the top right. It looks something like this: "Template documentation ................... [ edit ] [ history ] [ purge ]"

jonkerz ♠talk 13:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Resting place

Please add resting place parameters, thus:

| label3     = Resting place
| class3     = label
| data3      = {{br separated entries|{{{resting place|{{{resting_place|{{{restingplace|}}}}}}}}}|{{{resting place coordinates|{{{resting_place_coordinates|{{{restingplacecoordinates|}}}}}}}}}}}

(modelled on {{Infobox person}}), and renumber subsequent parameters accordingly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Why? Has a discussion somewhere indicated that it would help the encyclopedia to add "Resting place" to the infobox of scientists? Is there an example of a page where such info would improve the article? Johnuniq (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

For the same reason we include it in {{Infobox person}}) and other biographical infoboxes; to allow a summary of pertinent information about the subject (and to foster greater standardisation of generic fields between such infoboxes). For example I noticed its omission from the infobox when I tried to add the fact that Sir Isaac Newton is buried in Westminster Abbey. The resting place of a notable scientist is of no lesser import than that of, say, a writer or politician. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done Please update the documentation page.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Updated. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The Resting place parameter does not work. Nothing appears in the infobox. A perusal of the code indicates that label3 is used for "Residence" and "Resting place" does not appear at all, which differs from the code snippet above. Can someone please restore the Resting place parameter. As others have indicated, it is an important parameter, useful to Wikipedia readers, and several articles about notable scientists. attempt to use it. Thanks, Truthanado (talk) 09:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Rohnjones edit was reverted without discussion by Prodego, the same day it was made. I've reactivated the request template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It was not reverted without discussion; it was reverted because there was an error with the code. See #Trouble displaying non-image fields below. Please make changes to the /sandbox, fully test them, and reactivate. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't discussed in this section; and the heading bellow is not clearly about this subject; nor referenced in the edit summary of the revert. I've nested the followings section below this one, to make the connection apparent. I'll investigate why the change didn't work when I have more time. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I reactivated the request. The "Resting place" field is not working (again?). Per Andy above and below, the label and data parameters need to be added and renumbered. (I'm adding the fields to Fibonacci Actually, it turns out Fibonacci's resting place is not known for certain, despite a monument in Campo Santo). Hoof Hearted (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Done It should be working now, but please reactivate the request if there are any issues. Andy's code was correct all along, but the code wasn't added to the template the first time around. This is a great example of why it helps to put proposed edits in the sandbox - if the code was in the sandbox 9 months ago there wouldn't have been any issues. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Trouble displaying non-image fields

I just added the Infobox scientist template to Mark Baker (linguist) using the same formatting convention I've used with success in the past for other scientist's pages. However, for Mark Baker, I'm not getting any of the fields aside from the name and image parsed. Any help would be appreciated! - mitcho (talk) 03:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Also occurred on John R. Ross - mitcho (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks like this edit (01:58, 2 January 2012) broke the template, and my guess is that when pages with the template are next edited, they will also display the problem. It seems that data23 now has {{{resting place coordinates| and the closing braces do not occur until data19. Johnuniq (talk) 05:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Please revert last edit (or fix it), as above. Johnuniq (talk) 05:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Prodego reverted the change, and the articles now display correctly. The issue of what was wanted in the edit needs re-investigation. Johnuniq (talk) 07:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The data was just cut and pasted from above - I checked a few pages at random and they seemed OK, but that depends on what fields was there in the first place. Maybe better in future for editors to make Template:Infobox scientist/Sandbox and test their edits first, like a lot of big templates do.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 12:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The request was "Please add resting place parameters, thus… and renumber subsequent parameters accordingly" (my emboldening). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Children

I advocate that we add a section for children. This already exists in Template:Infobox writer, which makes sense because it is an important piece of biographical information and it nicely complements the "spouse" section.CurtisNaito (talk) 02:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Please create (optional) fields for children and partners. The former would be especially nice for scientists who have notable children. Please add: | label22 = Partner(s) | data22 = {{{partner|}}}| label23 = Children | data23 = {{{children|}}}. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 08:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. Please update the documentation as well. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Centering the signature and website

Does anyone know why the signature and website fields are centered in the info box instead of left justified? Having all of the fields left justified creates a 'cleaner' look and is also used by other popular user boxes like officeholder info box. Is this something that can be easily changed or was there a specific reason for this? --Triesault (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

We should have consistency between all our biographical infoboxes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

COinS metadata

When details of a thesis are entered, it should be possible to emit them using [{COinS]] metadata. Can someone make this happen, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Need new slot for postdocs

Like doctoral_students, to list post docs of a scientist. Jshrager (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Native name

I wish this template to incorporate native_name and native_name_lang parameters of {{Infobox person}}. --Fukumoto (talk) 08:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

No dissent; please copy these fields from Infobox person and renumber subsequent parameters accordingly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Marking this as answered for now per my comment below. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Age

Is there any reason why this template does not show the person's age (as a function of their date of birth) as is common for other templates, e.g. Template:Infobox officeholder ? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, forget this question I have realised that it is the Date and age template rather than the infobox itself that is generating this. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Other names

Please copy |other_names= from Infobox person and renumber subsequent parameters accordingly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you add the code to the sandbox? That would make my job a lot easier, and reduce the chances of mistakes. A like to {{infobox person}} would also have been nice. :) Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I've marked the request as answered for now. Please reactivate it when you have put the code in the sandbox and tested it per WP:TESTCASES. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Deployed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for always saying "thank you" :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Honorifics

It's time that we brought this template into line with other biographical infoboxes, and the MoS, by adding |honorific prefix== and |, as used on {{Infobox person}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. There's a key difference between the "dame" in Dame N'Doye and Dame Maggie Smith but you wouldn't know it to look at their infoboxes. (Neither is a scientist but you see my point). --Xiaphias (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Please see #Module, below. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Religion field

Is it possible that a religion field be added to the infobox as per other biographical infoboxes? James ^{(T • C)} • 2:33pm • 03:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

No. Obviously the topic has arisen in the past, and searching the archives will show lots of long discussions on the topic, with a solid consensus against labeling scientists with a religion. Where the religion of a scientist is important, it should be covered in the article with mention in the lead. Johnuniq (talk) 04:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I was unfamiliar with the history behind this, pardon me. Thanks kindly for clearing this up! James ^{(T • C)} • 10:00pm • 11:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Please see #Module, below. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Parents?

Can we add the "parents" field here? It's listed in the documentation but (unlike spouses and children) it's not actually included in the template's code so it isn't actually appearing on the page. If you want a use-case for this, I was attempting to add Marie Curie and Pierre Curie to Irène Joliot-Curie's infobox. --Xiaphias (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I think there would need to be more than a few articles where "parents" was significant for a scientist before a field should be added. One strong point in favor of adding the field is that it is objective information, and for any article where adding the parents was reasonable, it is very unlikely that there would be a dispute about the accuracy of the information. However, what about pages like Richard Dawkins where his parents are known, but not necessarily notable? There are editors who regard an empty infobox field as a challenge, and since "parents" can often be determined by a little digging, we may see a flood of "Parents: X and Y" being added to articles where there is no reason to believe that X and Y had a particular influence on the subject's work, other than the usual influence of a parent. That gives misleading infoboxes and unnecessary disputes. Currently the mood is to remove debatable fields, not add them: see this RfC to remove influences/influenced and this MOS discussion (with the latter ending with suggestions that "religiion" should be removed from all infoboxes). Johnuniq (talk) 00:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Not sure how this is a controversial request, the infobox already contains fields for children, spouses and relatives for which these same provisos equally apply. But if you really want a few more articles for which the "parents" field would be of particular significance then Francis Darwin and Bernhard Caesar Einstein come to mind.--Xiaphias (talk) 05:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned, the extremely favorable part of the proposal is that a parents field would contain readily verifiable facts. The only editorial judgment would concern whether listing the parents in a particular case was useful (and what if one parent is notable, but the other is not). I gather you agree that the parents of Dawkins should not be in his infobox? I don't object to the proposal, I was just letting you know there is a current mood on some pages to prune out non-essential fields. Let's wait a few days and see if anyone else has an opinion, or you could start an RfC. I hope an admin would want more than our discussion before deciding to add fields to a well-used infobox, but you could also try adding {{editprotected}} and see what happens. Johnuniq (talk) 06:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I don't really have a strong opinion about cases like that of Richard Dawkins, though I suppose I would say that the names of his parents are probably no less trivial than those of his children. Thanks for the advice, I will go ahead and add the {{editprotected}} tag here. Actually I think Andy Mabbett's suggestion below is a better path forward. --Xiaphias (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Please see #Module, below. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)