Template talk:Infobox scientist/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Religion

I was curious about the religious affiliations of a few enlightenment scientists, and while they were all laid out in their biographies none of them there included in the infoboxes.

A fair number of other infoboxes include religion as an option, would anyone object if I added it to this infobox? Juno (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

see prior discussions. Frietjes (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

If it's important to show the subject's religion, use {{Infobox person}}, and embed this template as a module. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I see a couple of different discussions, most ending in different ways. Can we put it back so that the field wouldn't have to be added in future articles? Juno (talk) 09:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree Plz check Marie Curie (religion = none) reference : http://www.staff.amu.edu.pl/~zbzw/ph/sci/msc.htm : Pierre belonged to no religion and I did not practice any. I don't think {{Infobox person}} to be applicable. --IranianNationalist (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Other than a possible and mistaken belief that Curie was not a person, I can't see why. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I was trying to say "I guess", not "I believe" (Sorry, my bad in English). Each scientist is a person but it doesn't mean each person to be a scientist. There are some special attributes like Institutions a scientist has worked there which is different from Education. I don't guess sportsmen to work in the scientific institutions but both of them are person. I'm not sure about a scientist to work in a governmental office however (s)he may be a minister of science and education. However in "some countries" I know many people work in different unrelated positions.
Whether we want to merge scientist and person templates or not, anyway there is one common question : Having a Religion in the Infobox scientist, Why not?
As a web developer and DB designer I am, if I was familiar to wiki technical issues I would like to have a hierarchical structure of templates to extend scientist from person template or even a combinable mode of scientist and chairman to be able to present a mixed person. I think an OOP mode will be better than having a massive template like person having a vast set of attributes. --IranianNationalist (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Does this satisfy you? Alakzi (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done Ow That's right. Thank you. My problem was the absent of "Working Institutions" parameter in the guidance Template:Infobox person and its source code. But it works well, like something expandable number of parameters or attachable components. Thank you. I learnt a lot and must learn more :) --IranianNationalist (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Collaborators field?

Infobox scientist doesn't allow us to mention collaborators. For instance, at Albert Einstein, his "notable students" were called in the Infobox Rosen, Straus, Szilard. But they didn't formally study with him, they published etc. with him. Einstein didn't want teaching etc. obligations. (Pais: Subtle is the Lord, gives an overview of his collaborations.) I put them in the field "Influenced" which is no good either.

• So could someone add a field Collaborator to the Template:Infobox scientist plus documentation? I am not allowed to.

Thanks, regards, Hansmuller (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Just my thoughts (am not an admin or editor of this template): This type of information is more appropriate in the body of the article, not the infobox. Any given scientist could have dozens of notable collaborators, and listing all or any in the infobox is probably not warranted. Remember, an infobox is supposed to succinctly summarize the major aspects of a person's life, not shoehorn data just because it exists. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

You can suggest it at Wikidata. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Text not visible

The phrase 'cause of death' is not visible in the infobox. Compare Dian Fossey to Eric Christmas. Th4n3r (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Scientists Don't Have Parents?

Is it really true that scientists don't have parents? Not even Eve Curie? Garfield Garfield (talk) 02:11, 3 September 2015‎ (UTC)

Agree to add! --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

documentation says yes, source code says no ... ;( Dave Rave (talk) 08:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 31 May 2016

the upper Blank syntax and right column indicators do not mention "parents"
but the Parameters do, the guidelines don't but the template data does.... ?? Dave Rave (talk) 09:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC) Dave Rave (talk) 09:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dave Rave: As far as I can tell, the template has never supported a "parents" parameter. I have therefore removed it from the description and the template data. The documentation, by the way, is on a separate page, Template:Infobox scientist/doc, and is not protected. Any time you see mistakes in template documentation, you should find you can fix it yourself. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking modules and have used that before. Couldn't think of the name tonight. Dave Rave (talk) 09:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 14 July 2016

209.197.139.178 (talk) 05:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC) need to add his religion.

 Not done That attribute is not directly related to the general profession of "scientist", you would need to establish a consensus amongst editors that it is relevant (by continuing this discussion below) before it can be added. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

H-index

I would like to suggest that the H-index be added to the template, since H-index or i10-index are significantly more important than the personal information for a living or recent died scientist.--Sahehco (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Embedding in Template:Infobox officeholder

When the template is embedded in {{Infobox officeholder}}, the heading ("Scientific career") displays with a different style of heading than those used by the main template (for, e.g, "Personal details"). I've made a correction in the template's sandbox that should resolve this through the use of the parameter embed_officeholder. 207.161.217.209 (talk) 20:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

How is this any different than just setting |embed=yes? In other words, why not add the |headerstyle= #if statement to trigger off the embed param? Primefac (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

The Honourable Sir Mark Oliphant AC KBE FRS FAA
Oliphant in 1939
27th Governor of South Australia
In office 1 December 1971 – 30 November 1976
Monarch	Elizabeth II
Premier	Don Dunstan
Lieutenant Governor	Sir Mellis Napier Sir Walter Crocker
Preceded by	Sir James Harrison
Succeeded by	Sir Douglas Nicholls
Personal details
Born	(1901-10-08)8 October 1901 Kent Town, Adelaide, Australia
Died	14 July 2000(2000-07-14) (aged 98) Canberra, Australia
Residences	Australia United Kingdom United States
Sir Mark Oliphant AC KBE FRS FAA Alma mater University of Adelaide University of Cambridge Known for Co-discovery of tritium, helium-3 and nuclear fusion Development of microwave radar Awards Fellow of the Royal Society (1937) Hughes Medal (1943) Faraday Medal (1948) Scientific career Institutions Cavendish Laboratory Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory University of Birmingham Australian National University Thesis The Neutralization of Positive Ions at Metal Surfaces, and the Emission of Secondary Electrons (1929) Doctoral advisor Ernest Rutherford Doctoral students Ernest Titterton

@Primefac: I'm afraid that I'm not sure what you mean by your second question, could you clarify? But with respect to your first, it's different in that the "Scientific career" header in this infobox is styled differently than the "Personal details" header in {{Infobox officeholder}}. I've transcluded an example using the sandbox to the right. An example of the existing template can be seen at Ernest Rutherford. 207.161.217.209 (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, I answered my own questions, but your post here and my own digging have prompted some more (so don't worry about the earlier questions):

As near as I can tell {{infobox officeholder}} is rather unusual in colouring their headers. All of the examples found at WP:IEmbed do not colour their headers. This makes me wonder - is IB officeholder the only one that colours their header? If there are more IBs that colour their headers, then we'd have to assign a different colour scheme for every one of them. This is both tedious and bad coding. If it is the only one that colours the headers, then we'd still have to go and change every transclusion of {{infobox scientist}} being used as a child to use this new parameter.

At this point in time I'm not convinced that changing the code simply for the means of affecting one infobox combination is worth it. I'll leave the TPER open, though, in case others want to chime in. Primefac (talk) 02:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Apparently this concerns Embedding other templates, and Ernest Rutherford is an example which embeds {{Infobox scientist}} in {{Infobox officeholder}}. The issue is that "Scientific career" on the Rutherford article has a white background, whereas "Personal details" has a bluish bar. By contrast, the Oliphant example on this talk page embeds {{Infobox scientist/sandbox}}. I suppose the change is good but I don't have time to examine it now. However, I agree with Primefac that changing working code to suit one example may not be worthwhile.

• Template:Infobox scientist • Template:Infobox scientist/sandbox • different (diff)

Johnuniq (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@Primefac and Johnuniq: Given that {{Infobox officeholder}} has over 100,000 transclusions, this is not a matter of just a few instances that have the clearly inappropriate formatting. And as it stands right now, the "Scientific career" module appears as though it is a subsection of the "Personal details" section.

This makes me wonder - is IB officeholder the only one that colours their header?
— User:Primefac 02:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

There are other personal infoboxes that use coloured headers, but usually I see them embedded in {{Infobox person}} or a wrapper thereof (rather than {{Infobox person}} or a wrapper thereof being embedded in them). {{Infobox officeholder}} is a unique situation in that it can't be embedded in other infoboxes without a ridiculous-looking result (as I'm sure you can imagine).

If it is the only one that colours the headers, then we'd still have to go and change every transclusion of {{infobox scientist}} being used as a child to use this new parameter.
— User:Primefac 02:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

If you know of an easier or more efficient way to do it, then I'm all ears. But the idea that we should prevent people from gradually fixing an obvious error because it would take too much effort is without merit provided that (1) we do not have an alternative and (2) the proposed solution is not detrimental. 207.161.217.209 (talk) 03:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Another issue in terms of consistency would be using the formatting in boldface type of "Scientific career" from the live version in the sandbox version, which makes it inconsistent with the formatting of the "Personal details" header.  Paine  ^u/c 03:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: Will continue building consensus before readding the {{edit template-protected}} template. But, and perhaps I'm blind, but are both "Personal details" and "Scientific career" not both in bold in the example to the right? 207.161.217.209 (talk) 03:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, there doesn't appear to be a change in the visual output when I remove the bold from "Scientific career". I'll remove it, in that case, but I don't see a visual distinction between the two. 207.161.217.209 (talk) 04:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

And I see a difference from before in the ibox at right – both headers are now formatted the same.  Paine  ^u/c 04:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Just for the sake of argument, I have formatted "Personal details" in bold in the IBO sandbox. Can you see the difference?  Paine  ^u/c 04:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Yup. It's bold. Primefac (talk) 04:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The IP may have page purge issues, so here is a purge link:  Paine  ^u/c 04:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@Primefac and Paine Ellsworth: To be honest, I'm still not noticing the difference, but I certainly take your word for it. Did this revision help at all? 207.161.217.209 (talk) 04:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes I've found when I'm not logged in that my cache needs to be purged for me to see differences, so I've added a purge link to the top of this section. Try clicking on that link and see if that helps you to see the difference.  Paine  ^u/c 05:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Woah there. Let's break this down.

• Just because there are 100k transclusions of {{infobox officeholder}} doesn't remotely mean that we have an issue with the officeholder/scientist combo (IBO and IBS, for ease of typing). I would guess that less than 1% of all IBO have IBS as a subbox. Really, this would present itself as an issue with any infobox being a subbox of IBO.
• IB person does not colour their headers (hell, it only has one header, for the signature). Also, IBO can be embedded into other infoboxes (it has the functionality), though the headerstyle of the parent would probably need to be adjusted.
• My point regarding changing all instances of IBS embedded in IBO was not that it shouldn't be done, but that it would have to be done. A fairly straight-forward fix using something like AWB, but still a rather lengthy process.

This is clearly something larger than just {{infobox officeholder}} and {{infobox scientist}}. I'm happy to continue the discussion, but I don't see this change happening without a lot more input and/or consensus forming. Primefac (talk) 04:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Primefac:

Just because there are 100k transclusions of {{infobox officeholder}} doesn't remotely mean that we have an issue with the officeholder/scientist combo (IBO and IBS, for ease of typing). I would guess that less than 1% of all IBO have IBS as a subbox.
— User:Primefac 04:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

At no point did I suggest that more than 1% of those 100,000 transclusions would use this template as a module – I would be surprised if more than 0.5% did. I'm merely saying we're not talking about just a handful of uses (or potential uses) of this combination (even 0.1% is still 100 occurrences).

IB person does not colour their headers (hell, it only has one header, for the signature).
— User:Primefac 04:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Where did I suggest that {{Infobox person}} had coloured headers? I was making the point that most personal infoboxes with coloured headers look perfectly fine when embedded (e.g, {{Infobox musical artist}}) whereas {{Infobox officeholder}} does not and, therefore, personal infoboxes with coloured headers, in my experience, tend to be embedded in infoboxes without coloured headers (e.g, {{Infobox person}}, which I am well aware does not have coloured headers). As a result, {{Infobox officeholder}} would naturally be more likely to be a widespread problem in this respect than other infoboxes.

Also, IBO can be embedded into other infoboxes (it has the functionality), though the headerstyle of the parent would probably need to be adjusted.
— User:Primefac 04:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I did not suggest that embedding {{Infobox officeholder}} was not technically feasible. I was merely speaking to the desirability of embedding it in the current context (i.e, without amendments to templates).

This is clearly something larger than just {{infobox officeholder}} and {{infobox scientist}}. I'm happy to continue the discussion, but I don't see this change happening without a lot more input and/or consensus forming.
— User:Primefac 04:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

As I said earlier, if you have any ideas about a better way to do this, then I'm all ears. And I'm certainly eager to continue the discussion to find how best to implement this. Any thoughts? 207.161.217.209 (talk) 04:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Alma_mater

"Alma mater" is singular so I would like to remove the wording that the field can be used for multiple universities as it is at the parent template "person". If the field contains a person's full education, it is then just a duplicate of the education field. We have the education field for a person's full education. See "template: infobox person". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

It appears that in this more specific template, readers might be interested in, at the very least, where a scientist received a master's and a PhD "at a glance". If received from different schools, then more than one alma mater can be listed. I think the ed. field asks for more detailed info, and if that detail is unavailable, then editors are asked to use the alma mater field instead. In short, while alma mater is itself singular, its application in this template and even in the Ibox person template sometimes requires more than one listing, so as to give readers useful at-a-glance info. Just a thought.  Paine  ^u/c 04:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Parents

Can someone add the code so "parents" displays. I see the data in about 50 templates, but it is not displaying. We have the odd situation where we link to children, but once there we are not linking back to parents. Every other biographical template includes it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I second this motion and will implement it if there are no objections by December 31, 2016. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

DanielPenfield, go for it. If someone objects we'll just roll back and start a discussion. Be BOLD! Primefac (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

By default, no, we shouldn't include this. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, I guess then that a discussion should take place. Primefac (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, what about this parameter are you opposed to? Primefac (talk) 13:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Typically parents are not notable, and the addition of such a field tends to attract bloat. Per MOS:INFOBOX, infoboxes are most effective when limited to key datapoints. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

In a similar situation, {{infobox person}} allows parents provided that they are notable. Would updating the documentation to require only notable parents be an acceptable compromise? Primefac (talk) 13:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I am concerned that in this case such a step would be insufficient to prevent problems - for example, there is already guidance in the documentation that non-notable children should not be named, and yet even experienced editors are adding the names of non-notable children. Indeed, non-notable parents have already been added in several cases, such as the one mentioned by DP. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

If people are adding information that shouldn't be in there, then it should be removed. It doesn't really matter who adds the information. If we explicitly state that parents should only be added if they are notable, then it makes it easy and non-negotiable to remove unlinked parents. Primefac (talk) 13:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Easy and non-negotiable? If the below is an example of what happens when we remove one such addition, I'd hate to see what would happen if we removed all of them. I completely agree that documentation should be sufficient, but my worry is that in practice, it has often proven not to be. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I am now being punitively edited by a high-volume editor apparently in connection with this discussion. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 06:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree it doesn't make much sense that Aage Bohr is in Niels Bohr's infobox, but Niels Bohr can't be in Aages, but actually I'm here because I miss a "relatives" tag, as I tried to add Joan Feynman to Richard Feynman's infobox. Moedk (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 11 February 2017

I added "image_upright" in the sandbox. I plan to use it in some articles. If inserted, I plan to update the doc subpage. George Ho (talk) 04:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho:  Done.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Religion field

The Chris Dobson article has a religion field that is not handled by the template (and unmentioned in the documentation, I also saw no alternative). As I'm rather new to infoboxes I thought I'd mention it here, so someone who knows better if the template should be updated, or page fixed, can possibly deal with this. Thanks, PaleoNeonate (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate, this is a perennial request, and the overall consensus is that we should not have a |religion= parameter in the infobox. Obviously, some people add it to the actual article, but it does not (and will not, barring an RFC) actually display. Primefac (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you very much, PaleoNeonate (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Academic Titles

Hi, I noted that neither this infobox or the academic infobox has fields for titles. Could these be added? I'd propose a field for Academic Title(s) and a field for Administrative Title(s) (which could also be labeled leadership position or leadership role). Examples for the former would be: assistant professor, project scientist, postdoc, etc. Examples for the latter field would be Chair, Dean, Director, Vice Chancellor, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokeweed (talk • contribs) 19:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Convert to wrapper

I would like to suggest to make it a wrapper of {{Infobox person}} -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 21:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Capankajsmilyo, you're welcome to draft up a sandbox version as proof-of-concept. Primefac (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

See {{Infobox scientist/sandbox/wrapper}} -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 21:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

See also Template talk:Infobox person/Mergers#Infobox Scientist -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 03:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Any chance of an analysis of what differences this will make? And a testcases page which shows differences? Would the documentation of the current infobox need any changes? Johnuniq (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I've covered all the params of current infobox in sandbox. Hence, I don't think much change would be required in a documentation. A simple {{Uses Infobox person}} would-be sufficient. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 02:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Similar proposals are at:

• Template talk:Infobox musical artist#Convert to wrapper
• Template talk:Infobox writer#Convert to wrapper

There were also two undiscussed edit requests at Template talk:Infobox officeholder.

The proposal to convert infoboxes should be handled one infobox at a time. Johnuniq (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Testcases

See Template:Infobox scientist/testcases -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 04:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the testcases but it is a bit awkward how each person wanting to review that page has to work out what changes have occurred. It is obvious that there is some re-arrangement of the items, but is anything omitted or is anything added? Also, as you have worked on the wrapper, could you confidently say that these testcases cover all potential changes that may be introduced by the new system? Johnuniq (talk) 07:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing deleted. Converting to wrapper is not that big a process, it is just making this infobox use parameters from Infobox person directly. The parameters of {{Infobox person}} are the only additional parameters added. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 14:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Finalise

I think it is ready for being converted into a wrapper. For code, see Template:Infobox scientist/sandbox and for testcases, see Template:Infobox scientist/testcases. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 07:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: You had initiated this merge before at Template talk:Infobox person/Mergers#Infobox Scientist. Would you like to help? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 03:34, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

thanks for the ping; seems ready to go to me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• Looking good. Nothing omitted, better maintainability - I'd be surprised if there is any objection. “WarKosign” 06:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support. The only thing that changed for the viewer is the order, template code is more readable and maintainable. --Info-Screen::Talk 12:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Close

There seems to be a concerns is on converting tmthis infobox to a wrapper. I don't have permission to edit this template. @Pigsonthewing: @Frietjes: You have the required permissions. Would you like to initiate the closure? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 10:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Capankajsmilyo, now updated. I temporarily saved the old version in the sandbox for comparison in the testcases. Frietjes (talk) 14:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Parameters required

Parameters are required for parents and relations. John George Children has a wikinotable parent and relative. Mjroots (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Sub-fields

I suggest adding |Sub-fields= to complement the current |Fields=. This would allow the later to describe the general field(s) in which an individual works (eg physics), and the new parameter would then be used for more specific areas (eg string theory and astroparticle physics). This would then match Infobox academic which has "Discipline" and "Sub-discipline" parameters. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 17:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Don't agree that this is necessary. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Changes

The box is now cut in half by "scientific career" being centered halfway through. This looks very strange when not much information is available about the scientific career and you have a line or two stuck below, and not all of the lines relevant to a person's scientific career are below the line (awards, known for, perhaps alma mater, etc). I think we should remove this. If is it an infobox for a scientist, there's no need to divide the career information from the rest. Natureium (talk) 14:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Do you have an example of a page where it looks particularly bad? Johnuniq (talk) 22:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think "Thesis" and "Doctoral adviser" (or any other parameter in infoboxes) should be wiki-linked. Someanon (talk) 23:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Nationality

In modern English, the word "nationality" often means the same as citizenship, like in Nationality: American, though even the population of the USA alone is racially and ethnically diverse - but those parameters could be termed race and ethnicity.

My question is: what meaning of the word "nationality" is used in this template? I am writing about a scholar from Russia, thus Russian in a broad sense, but not in the narrow sense: her father was of Ukrainian Jewish and of Polish descent. In modern Russian usage we have two different words for 1) members of population of Russia of whatever ethnicity (россиянин, россиянка; россияне) and 2) for ethnic Russians (русский,русская; русские). We also have two different words for Jews 1) ethnically (еврей, akin to Hebrew) and 2) religiously (иудей, from Jehuda, lit. Judaist) as in modern times a person may choose to be one and not the other. GregZak (talk) 16:04, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

This is nationality, rather than race. The infobox should give the country that the person originates from. Natureium (talk) 22:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

There are two cases when nationality is different to citizenships. The first is when someone has multiple citizenships or gain/loses citizenships over time: a scientist may have been born and educated in the UK and gained additional American citizenship through their career; citizenship = United Kingdom and United States, nationality = British. The other case is when a "state" is formed of more than one nation/country. So someone may have UK citizenship but a Scottish nationality, or US citizenship and a Navajo nationality. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 18:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

How to use this template in a translated article?

How to proceed when translating? I have found a similar template in the other language, but fields are all different, missing etc.

Should I copy this template to a version in the new language and then translate fields etc to make my own template in the new language, or is there a smarter way? Uffe (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Uffe, which template is it? We have a lot of "cite web" templates in various languages, I suppose we could create some for IB scientist. Primefac (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Primefac, the English template is {Infobox scientist} the Danish 'equivalent' is {Infoboks_forsker}. Uffe (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmmmmm.... two issues. The first being I don't know the translation between fields. Second is that it looks like da:Skabelon:Forsker is actually a redirect to da:Skabelon:Infoboks Wikidata person, which is a wikidata template.

I'm not saying that it cannot be done, but the first issue cuts me out of it and the second makes me wonder if a 1-to-1 translation will result in a lot of "missing" fields that would normally be added by WD. Up to you, though. Primefac (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Font size reduction violates accessibility MOS

Per MOS:FONTSIZE last paragraph, the template should not reduce font size for |thesis_year= or any other parameter. This is an accessibility issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The infobox uses {{smaller}}, which only drops the font size to 90%. Also, if you're going to fight against small font sizes, you'll have to go to {{infobox person}} itself, which sets the |above= at 77%. Primefac (talk) 11:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The infobox uses {{smaller}}, which only drops the font size to 90%. Ok, but that's 90% of 88%, according to this VPT thread (the infobox default font size is already reduced to 88%, before application of {{smaller}}). 90% of 88% is 79%, which is below the MOS:FONTSIZE minimum of 85% of page font size. Six percentage points may not seem like enough to fuss about, but I've found that small numerical differences mean very significant differences in readability. And we're talking about accessibility, which WMF and Wikipedia appear to take seriously, more than the usual MOS stuff.
I don't understand what you're saying about Infobox person; perhaps you could rephrase/elaborate? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Primefac, the 77% is within the 125% for above which equates to 96.25%, so seems not really relevant here. Frietjes (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) now-irrelevant comments removed... If you're looking to get rid of all smalls in all infoboxes, though, you might want to start a Village Pump thread and unilaterally deprecate all usage of {{small}} and {{smaller}} across all infoboxes, because this template is definitely not the only one that uses it. Primefac (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I boldly changed it to 97%. feel free to revert or replace with something else. Frietjes (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

We need an explicit community consensus to observe a guideline which has been in place for years and is presumed to represent community consensus? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Observe MOS:FONTSIZE in infobox templates. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Mandruss, I think what I wrote wasn't really clear. My point was more that rather than going to every template and saying "these need to be removed," it would be easier/more efficient to make a centralized posting so that a) there was a clear place to point to and b) you don't have to put in as many requests (i.e. I'm happy doing legwork, maybe even a bot run, to remove all instances). Primefac (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Primefac: Sorry for the misunderstanding, probably due in part to my past experience in trying to get obvious template changes made by the select few who are template-qualified (and template-authorized, in the cases of template-protection). Witness Template talk:Infobox civilian attack#image_upright—after one month, not so much as a reply, and justification for the change is roughly as clear as for this one.
If you're happy doing legwork for this one, that's great, and we could do with a dozen more like you.
I expect I'll let that VPR thread run for a few days and then close it if nobody beats me to it, unless there's still some useful discussion happening by then.
Thanks for the assistance. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

IB "Historian" redirects here

Why? Von Ranke may have begun the a scientific approach to history, but to say they're the same is a bit like saying a bus driver = tank driver... Can we split them up please? Someone reckoned above that having "Scientific career" looked wierd half-way through a scientist's infobox... imagine how it looks on a page for someone who never possessed one! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 21:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, you're talking about the result of a seven-year old TFD, which seems to imply that "historians" are "social scientists". I'd say it's a little late for a DRV, but if you can think of a better redirect target and can make a convincing case I'm sure it would go over fine. Primefac (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Nice one Primefac always glad to hear from you! :) "More or less the same as social scientists" my new hat :D thanks for pointing that TfD out though. Tbh, I wasn't thinking of another redirect, but an actual infobox. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 21:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

If you did want a redirect {{infobox academic}} would be another potential target - to set up a new infobox you'd have to make a case why neither of those would suffice for the purpose. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I would agree with the new target while a potential new IB is created. Primefac (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Serial Number, I just saw this and it was especially strange. I think just making the caption customizable, so it doesn't say "Scientific career", would already go a long way. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 08:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Moving science parameters down to "Scientific career"

I suggest to move the scientific-related labels down to the section "Scientific career". I.e. "Awards", "Education", "Alma mater", "Known for" and "Awards" should be moved down. The only reason they are in the top section is that they are in "infobox person" too, and when the wrapper was implemented the rest was just placed in the bottom. Christian75 (talk) 09:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, education and alma mater isn't always directly related to one's scientific career, nor are awards. Known for might be worth shifting though. Primefac (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Add ZooBank LSID?

How about adding Zoobank ZooBank LSID (identification number) to the template? Or maybe just a field for "Identification"? Dan Koehl (talk) 10:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I made a sandbox test version with Linnean naturalist Carl Peter Thunberg. Dan Koehl (talk) 06:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Home town

Could the home town parameter of {{Infobox person}} (| home_town = {{{home_town|}}}) be added for cases where the subject's home town is different from their birth place? This would be in line with {{Infobox person}} and {{Infobox academic}}. Thanks, 142.160.89.97 (talk) 01:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

What would be the value of that parameter for a scientist biography? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The same as it is for any other academic biography – or any biography generally. It's key to having a full portrait of their background. In cases where the subject's home town differs from their birth place and their main residence (i.e., the only cases in which the parameter's use is permitted), it is much more pertinent than their birth place. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 04:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done Enterprisey (talk!) 06:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Chinese Name Parameter

Hi all. I'm a bit new to Wikipedia's editing community, so please bear with me. I've been working on C.-T. James Huang's page for awhile now. One thing that I would really like to have in the infobox is his Chinese name, and I'd like to do so in a way that will help non-Chinese scientists and readers absorb this information better than the current |native_name= and |native_name_lang= combination can deliver. The following parameter in Template:Infobox Chinese-language singer and actor accomplish this perfectly (example shown for Mandarin Chinese traditional characters, Template:Infobox Chinese-language singer and actor also has parameters for simplified and pinyin romanization):

{{#if:{{{tradchinesename|}}}|<span class="nickname" style="font-size: 120%;" lang="zh-Hant">{{{tradchinesename}}}</span> <small>([[Traditional Chinese characters|traditional]])</small>}}

For a live example of its implementation in context, see the infobox on Jia Zhangke.

While I know that suggesting such a narrow modification to Infobox_scientist is unprofitable, I would like to know how to accomplish this. In particular, I believe that many scientists' pages and the communities that read them (especially readers who speak that scientist's native language) would benefit from the ability to display native names more flexibly. In the case of Chinese, which has multiple orthographies (in addition to the most crucial distinctions: Traditional vs. Simplified (the standard in Mainland China) characters, and Pinyin romanization for non-speakers), this is an absolutely crucial range of featuration when one chooses to display Chinese language names.

Now, since my technical skills are novice at best, I'd like to ask whether there any recourse for my proposal, besides taking the issue to Infobox_person and arguing for a more widely-adapted solution which would vacuously satisfy my request.

Thanks for reading. – Mczuba (talk) 7:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Since

• {{Infobox_scientist}} is a wrapper of {{Infobox_person}};
• the functionality you want is in {{Infobox Chinese-language singer and actor}}; and
• {{Infobox Chinese-language singer and actor}} is to be merged into {{Infobox_person}} as a result of discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 November 26#Template:Infobox Chinese-language singer and actor (waiting for action at WP:TFD/H)

I'd be inclined to wait for that merger to take place, at which point the change you want will just be a simple matter of exposing the underlying parameters in {{Infobox_person}}.

Just my 2¢. Cabayi (talk) 12:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

PS, do you mean vicarious rather than vacuous? Cabayi (talk) 12:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Mczuba use {{Infobox chinese}} - put: module = {{Infobox chinese|child=yes|c = ... in the infobox Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

This infobox doesn't play nice with multiple modules

I've noticed a few discrepancies when editors attempt to use this infobox with multiple modules. One example would be what happens at Steven Novella. Because this gentleman is both a scientist and a physician, editors attempted to use the module template:infobox_medical_details to add physician details to the infobox. But, as a result, the "Medical Career" heading is off-center. The only reason this is necessary is that the infobox also includes a module for a voice recording. I fixed this temporarily by putting the voice parameter as a separate infobox inside the infobox instead of as a module, but this is a bandaid. Can someone enable multiple modules inside this infobox as exists with template:infobox_medical_person? Thank you. I can imagine there are other physicians/scientists who could have voice recording sections in their infobox, as well as a number of other small modules.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Title parameter

Could someone please add the "title" parameter from the Infobox person template? Thanks. -- Rohini (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Title of what? Natureium (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

"Title" as defined in Template:Infobox_person title = Formal/awarded/job title.-- Rohini (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 15:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Rohini (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Moving "Alma mater", "Known for", etc. down to "Scientific career"

I want to support Christian75's suggestion from 25 June 2018 to move "Awards", "Education", "Alma mater", and "Known for" under the "Scientific career" header. Could someone please do that? --bender235 (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

To quote myself: Well, education and alma mater isn't always directly related to one's scientific career, nor are awards. Known for might be worth shifting though. I also changed the diff to an archive link. Primefac (talk) 16:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Redundancy with {{Botanist}}

I've started a discussion about consolidating the functionality of {{botanist}} into this infobox template. If you have an opinion on this, please comment at Template talk:Botanist#Reducing redundancy. Kaldari (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit request

Please add this TfD notice to the template itself. Thankyou. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC) {{Tfm/dated|page=Infobox scientist|otherpage=Infobox academic|link=Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 March 19#Template:Infobox scientist|bigbox={{#invoke:Noinclude|noinclude|text=yes}}}}

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Residence parameter

I've removed this parameter as {{infobox person}} no longer supports it (see discussion at Infobox_person#Residence_parameter). I note that some infoboxes such as {{infobox officeholder}} still use this parameter, but that template doesn't wrap {[tl|infobox person}}. If there is a desire to retain the parameter, the template would need rewriting along similar lines using {{infobox}} directly. Personally, I see no need. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

hello @Jts1882: can you please remove or update it as deprecated on documentation page, please excuse 16:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Occupation field

The infobox for persons has an occupation field, but there seems to be nothing corresponding to that here. Might such be added? --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Move "Alma mater," "Known for" under "Scientific career"

The organisation of this infobox as it is right now doesn't make sense (see, e.g. Stanisław Łojasiewicz). Clearly what a scientist is known for is part of his scientific career (except maybe for corner cases who are known for appearing in a movie or something). --bender235 (talk) 22:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

REQUEST for Post-Nominals

Can somebody please add the 'Post-nominals' option to infobox scientist. On normal infobox person you get to add any text, e.g. "MD" and "Phd" below their name at the top of the box which looks good. Sxologist (talk) 10:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sxologist: Not sure I follow the request. The |honorific_prefix and |honorific_suffix parameters are already avialable, e.g. at Ada Lovelace and Alan Turing, respectively. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah lol, thanks for clarifying. Different names. My bad Sxologist (talk) 21:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sxologist: Sorry, I was a bit slow on the uptake yesterday. I've added the alias names so it takes the same parameter aliases as {{infobox person}}. Now |post-nominals= should work. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

para display

|native_name= is valid, documented, and accepted with no error but it doesn't seem to actually display. See Artem Alikhanian. Frietjes? MB 16:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

MB, technically a bug in {{infobox person}}, but fixed here (and fix being discussed at template talk:infobox person). Frietjes (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

thesis parameter?

It seems like there should be more options besides thesis_url like using a parameter instead of a URL like ProQuest template, doi, hdl, etc.  — Chris Capoccia 💬 13:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Students parameter consistency

Infobox scientist has the following description for its doctoral_students field:

If a student does not have a wiki article, then comment the name out. It can be reinstated once such an article appears. The idea is to list only those students who are significant enough to warrant their own article.

Whereas Infobox academic has the following description for its doctoral_students field:

Only include students who have been supervised at doctoral level by the academic and are notable enough for WP articles. Should be explained in the main text of the article; Those that are not mentioned in the main text may be deleted

The two agree that non-notable students should not be included but differ in the recommended solution when a non-notable student has been included. I see no reason why one should recommend deletion while the other recommends commenting out. I think that commenting is a worse solution (in what other situations do we retain commented mentions of non-notable – and often living – people?). I suggest changing the text on Infobox Scientist to recommend deletion of non-notable students from the infobox. - Astrophobe (talk) 18:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

"Template:Infobox Academic" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:Infobox Academic. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 16#Template:Infobox Academic until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. PamD 11:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

No occupation field

This template doesn't have the occupation field from {{infobox person}}. It could be assumed that the person is a scientist, but that doesn't actually get displayed anywhere in the infobox (except indirectly as the Scientific Career heading. There is no place to say the person was a professor, corporate researcher, etc. I think the occupation field would be helpful as this is certainly "key information" about a person. The documentation even says that |field= is not to be used for occupation, but there is no place for occupation (without going to the trouble of using infobox person and embedding infobox scientist just to get occupation). MB 02:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Frietjes, can you add occupation please. MB 19:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

User:MB, okay, added. Frietjes (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Add the birth/death dates used in Infobox Person

Right now these descriptions are as follows: death_date: Date of death birth_date: Scientist's date of birth

I think it would be helpful to copy the descriptions from Template:Infobox_person so it is easy for people using the GUI to see the date templates and copy them. For example:

• Date of birth: {{Birth date and age|YYYY|MM|DD}} for living people. For people who have died, use {{Birth date|YYYY|MM|DD}}. If only a year of birth is known, or age as of a certain date, consider using Template:birth year and age or Template:birth based on age as of date.

• Date of death: {{Death date and age|YYYY|MM|DD|YYYY|MM|DD}} (if birth date is known) or Template:death date (if birth date unknown). See Template:Death date/doc for details on usage. If exact dates are unknown, consider using Template:death year and age.

Cheers RayScript (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done MB 20:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

"Template:Infobox scientist biography" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:Infobox scientist biography. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 4#Template:Infobox scientist biography until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Residence?

I have seen a few edits (incorrectly) adding residence as a parameter. Should it be added to the template or is citizenship enough? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 11:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

No, it should not be added - see Template_talk:Infobox_person/Archive_34#Residence_parameter. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 14:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Missing parameters

This template has spouse/partner/children, but not the other commons relatives (mother/father/parents/relatives). As in other bios, scientists can also have notable relatives. There are articles in Category:Pages using infobox scientist with unknown parameters trying to use these. I would like to clean these up without going to the trouble of embedding within infobox person. Jonesey95? MB 01:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe use {{Infobox person}} as a module? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 11:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I have added those four parameters, and they appear to work. They are handled by {{infobox person}}, since this template is a wrapper. Someone could add them to the documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

unused para check

|honorific-suffix= and |honorific-prefix= were not listed as valid parameters even though they were. I've changed all articles using them to the "_" version, so I guess they should be completely removed at this point. Frietjes ? MB 22:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I fixed the tracking since these are valid parameters in {{infobox person}}. Frietjes (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

"Scientific career" appears to be italicized, not bolded

There might be a missing apostrophe. Trilotat (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Looks fine to me? Primefac (talk) 11:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Spouse

The spouse parameter was deleted by consensus in 2006, for good reason, and then arbitrarily reinstated in 2011. It should be deleted again. There's no reason to be naming people's spouses in infoboxes, unless they are also notable themselves (which is rarely going to be the case), otherwise it's just an invasion of that person's privacy for no purpose. Richard75 (talk) 23:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Remove "update needed" tag from template page

The "update needed" tag on the template page is from October 2017, and seems to refer to the lack of parameters for spouses and family members in the template. As those are now included, the tag should probably be cleared? Thanks! PianoDan (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done - FlightTime (open channel) 23:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Since spouses were added six years earlier, it probably referred to something else. Richard75 (talk) 09:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Clobbered parameters

Frietjes, this has |workplaces=, |work_institution=, and |work_institutions=. I happened onto one article that used two of these; there are probably more out there. As a highly used template, it's probably worth adding a clobbered parameter check. MB 05:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I can guess the logic, but what does the term mean? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 14:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

added, entries will show up in Category:Pages using infobox scientist with conflicting parameters as the server recaches the pages (assuming that I added the tracking correctly). Frietjes (talk) 15:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Ta. It would also be good if the warning message linked to the template (as for unknown parameters) — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 16:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

okay, [1]. Frietjes (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 29 June 2022

The "resting place" field seems to be misspelled "resting rlace" when I add this template to an article. Can that be fixed? 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 05:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: I see no indication that anything in this template is misspelled. Could you please point to a page (or two) where you see this happening? Primefac (talk) 07:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Primefac: Draft:Pierre-Louis Guinand -- Click "Edit" > Click "Edit" on the infobox > One of the fields is spelled "Resting rlace" 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 09:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

It looks like the fields are spelled properly when I edit the page, and it's not throwing a "bad parameter" error. I did fix a typo in the TemplateData, but that doesn't seem to have affected any pages. Primefac (talk) 09:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Weird. It definitely says rlace not place when I edit the page. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 10:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Award parameter

Currently the |awards= parameter is placed outside the "Scientific career", meaning that the awards aren't given as part of peoples' scientific careers. E.g. Svante Pääbo has been awarded a Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, but not as a part of his scientific career.

Proposal

Creating an additional "|scientific_awards=" (or something like it) within the "Scientific career", allowing for differentiation between academic/scientific awards and civil/chivalric orders. Alternatively, move |awards= down, so awards given for scientific works are included in the scientific career. Skjoldbro (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

There is some precedent for this with {{Infobox officeholder}} which has |awards= which is in the main section and |mawards= which goes in the Military subsection.

However, in this case, unless it is demonstrated that there are many cases where there are non-scientific awards, I think it is sufficient to just move awards down into the Scientific career section. I've noticed this myself but never said anything. The same exists in {{infobox academic}} and probably others. MB 19:43, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that was why I chose to make the initial suggestion, mostly for consitency. There are a few cases where a split might be suitable, such as Niels Bohr's Order of the Elephant or Albert Einstein's TIME award. But I wouldn't call it sufficient and would be perfectly fine with a simple move. Skjoldbro (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Notified: Template talk:Infobox academic. Skjoldbro (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

The addition of "honorific suffix" as a documented parameter

I know that "honorific_suffix" made be added via the source, but for the sake of convenience I am wondering if it made be made a documented parameter in the infobox—it seems many scientists have honorific suffixes which, among others, include titles such as FRS, etc. etc. GuardianH (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Thesis identifier instead of just thesis url?

to reduce potential for link rot and given that many theses have a standard identifier like hdl, doi, proquest, oclc, etc, should there be a place to put this identifier instead of just a url?  — Chris Capoccia 💬 14:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Mass-removal of residence parameter from existing infoboxes

Hi all. In 2019, consensus was reached to remove the residence parameter from the parent template, Template:Infobox person. This was completed shortly thereafter. However, today we are left with thousands of articles that clutter up Category:Pages using infobox scientist with unknown parameters. I'm here to seek consensus on whether we should have an automated bot task clean up the thousands of infoboxes that are using the now-removed residence parameter. This seems like a perfect task for PrimeBOT 30, which already has open-ended approval for removal of deprecated parameters. This would help significantly clean up Category:Pages using infobox scientist with unknown parameters, which currently has 4600+ articles, the vast majority of which are for the residence parameter. After doing a dry AWB run searching for anything with a residence parameter, I have determined that roughly 95-98% of the articles in that maintenance category can be fixed with a simple removal of the residence parameter. There is precedent for this type of bot work, as can be seen here. Phuzion (talk) 01:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there is a need for additional discussion, since the RFC was pretty clear and has not been challenged, AFAIK. Pinging Primefac for this request. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Sure. Any other big-number bad params that I can take care of at the same time? Primefac (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

None on this template. As far as I can tell, the only articles in the above maintenance category are just for use of the removed residence parameter. Phuzion (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Pulication item

Hi

I reckon this infobox needs and item publications like books and papers.

Cheers Shkuru Afshar (talk) 05:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on what you think this would look like? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Request

Please wrap the |footnotes= output in {{Center}} to center the tags within the bottom. BhamBoi (talk) 06:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. You have not given a reason for why the footnotes should be centred, and I cannot think of a compelling reason to do so. Primefac (talk) 10:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Don't think this improves the "Notes" section. Tested both the template and the div style in the sandbox here and here, but in both cases the "Notes" caption was forced to appear even when there were no footnotes, and the existing footnotes looked odd due to the centering effect. Even if the "Notes" caption could somehow be subdued when there are no footnotes, I would have to oppose this change. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I just think it looks better (see Template:Infobox government agency use on Hawaiian Volcano Observatory) BhamBoi (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

It might look a little better when the footnotes are enclosed in <ref></ref> tags, but I think it looks weird when the footnotes are written out, like they are on this template's test cases page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 17:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

What I had envisioned was exactly the way they are set out in the HVO article. See Draft:Kiguma Jack Murata where they are not centered, using this infobox. BhamBoi (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC)