Wikipedia

Template talk:Infobox scientist: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Bunzil (talk | contribs)
2,188 edits
 
Line 1:
{{Permanently protected}}
LOL. I hope we can now settle about where to put the TfD notice. I assume Mackensen intentionally did put the notice inside the noinclude so that the notice doesn't show up in articles. I just hope the fans of that box are not surprised if it is deleted (if that should be the outcome of the TfD debate). --[[User:Ligulem|Ligulem]] 23:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
{{Talk header}}
*Yes, I ran across it on Werner Heisenberg and it looked ugly. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 14:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|
Hi Mackensen, I don't see why "ugliness" is an issue here. It's a temporary notice. Visibility is the real issue. Best regards, [[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 21:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Biography|s&a-work-group=yes}}
{{WikiProject History of Science}}
{{WikiProject Science}}
{{WikiProject Physics|hist=yes}}
{{WikiProject Plants}}
{{WikiProject Infoboxes}}
}}
{{Old AfD multi |date1=2006 September 8 |result1='''No consensus''' |link1={{canonicalurl:Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 September 8#Template:Infobox_scientist}} |date2=2020 March 19 |result2='''No consensus to merge''' |link2={{canonicalurl:Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 March 19#Template:Infobox academic}}}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
|maxarchivesize = 80K
|counter = 10
|minthreadsleft = 8
|minthreadstoarchive = 2
|algo = old(365d)
|archive = Template talk:Infobox scientist/Archive %(counter)d
}}
 
== Stupid revert warInfluences/influenced ==
[[Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion]] says "use {{tl|tfd|}} ''or'' {{tl|tfd-inline|}} ". I.e. use that which is best suitable.
 
I propose to remove these highly questionable infobox parameters that usually have unsourced lists never mentioned in the main text. The same change was done for Infobox philosopher, see [[Template_talk:Infobox_philosopher#Influences/influenced|discussion there]]. [[User:Artem.G|Artem.G]] ([[User talk:Artem.G|talk]]) 20:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
It should be made clear that a template is nominated for deletion. If the notice is put at the top of the page, how can we understand that it is the infobox that is up for deletion?
*'''Support''' These fields trivialize the relationships among people; they're trivia for the sake of trivia. [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 16:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 
*'''Support''' A successful scientific theory influences all that come after. Thus it does not seem like a good way of relating people. For a bad example of usage of both fields, see [[Albert Einstein]]. --[[User:Jähmefyysikko|Jähmefyysikko]] ([[User talk:Jähmefyysikko|talk]]) 18:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
[[User:Fred Chess|Fred]]-[[User_talk:Fred Chess|Chess]] 12:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as I don't think the Albert Einstein page should be used as a model. Please give a few more examples of less notable scientists, you might persuade me to change my mind. I do not remember seeing that much abuse of those infoboxes. [[User:Ldm1954|Ldm1954]] ([[User talk:Ldm1954|talk]]) 19:40, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I agre with Ldm1954, I do not see that much misuse. I have seen maybe a couple of articles that use it and those were not necessarily wrong.--[[User:ReyHahn|ReyHahn]] ([[User talk:ReyHahn|talk]]) 19:54, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 
* '''Examples of usage''' (feel free to add more under here):
But what is wrong with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_Scientist&oldid=74672254 this] version? I think it is the best. Can we agree on using it?
** [[Lord Kelvin]]:
:::''Influences'': Sadi Carnot, Rudolf Clausius, Julius von Mayer, James Joule, Humphry Davy. Here I would agree with Carnot as being a major influence, as Kelvin was basically a fan of his. Clausius was a contemporary and there was a more complicated interplay between them. The influence from the rest is mentioned in the text, but in the infobox we lose the context.
:::''Influenced'': Andrew Gray. He was Kelvin's assistant, published his collected scientific works, succeeded his chair, and continued his electromagnetic research. 'Influenced' is a mild way of putting it. But why include only this one person, since Kelvin's influence on various fields of physics was huge? [[User:Jähmefyysikko|Jähmefyysikko]] ([[User talk:Jähmefyysikko|talk]]) 20:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
::This does not look like abuse/fluff to me. Bardeen has one name, Schroedonger none, Heisenberg three. Let sleeping dogs lie, I remain opposed. [[User:Ldm1954|Ldm1954]] ([[User talk:Ldm1954|talk]]) 20:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
:::In Bardeen's case the 'influence' from Van Vleck is that Bardeen was his student and later recruited him. It is a significant connection between two nobelists, but one could also use the field ''Other academic advisors'', which would be symmetric with Van Vleck page where Bardeen is listed as ''Other notable students''. The people Heisenberg influenced were Döpel and von Weizsäcker. Von Weizsäcker was advised by Heisenberg (according to article), and can be included in the infobox under more accurate field. In Döpel's case 'influence' seems to mean that they collaborated in academia, and worked together in Uranverein. It is a very ambiguous field. [[User:Jähmefyysikko|Jähmefyysikko]] ([[User talk:Jähmefyysikko|talk]]) 21:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
::another examples are Newton and von Neumann. [[User:Artem.G|Artem.G]] ([[User talk:Artem.G|talk]]) 21:40, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 
* '''Comment'''. The removal of the field from <nowiki>{{infobox philosopher}}</nowiki> creates a strange situation in which the incluences between scientists and philosophers are still listed, even though they are not allowed between philosophers. An example is [[Hermann von Helmholtz]]. [[User:Jähmefyysikko|Jähmefyysikko]] ([[User talk:Jähmefyysikko|talk]]) 21:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
[[User:Fred Chess|Fred]]-[[User_talk:Fred Chess|Chess]] 12:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' – important influences can and should be explained in the lead/body. An infobox list of names without context gives absolutely no clear information and if anything gives the dangerously free ability for readers to interpret "influence" however they want. An infobox should be for simple, straight forward information that stands on its on. – '''<span style="font-family:Lucida;">[[User:Aza24|<span style="color:darkred">Aza24</span>]][[User talk:Aza24|<span style="color:#848484"> (talk)</span>]]</span>''' 00:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 
:'''Support''' - In consistency with the philosopher infobox and anticipation of any potential overlap; while this one may be less historically prone to abuse, I still don't really see any good reason to have it. [[User:Carchasm|&#32;- car chasm]] ([[User talk:Carchasm|talk]]) 18:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
PS. I semi-protected this template to avoid a disruptive revert war.
*'''Support removal''' per Aza24, who puts it well. [[User:Modest Genius|<b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b>]] [[User_talk:Modest Genius|<sup>talk</sup>]] 09:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per Aza. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|~~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 22:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Infoboxes are ok for clear factual claims and not good for anything nuanced and opinion-based like this. The "other academic advisors" and "other notable students" fields are better, because they are more specific. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 23:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 
*Probably too late, but '''oppose'''. If I had known that this discussion existed I would have said much the same as Ldm1954. I have never seen these entries abused, and I should like to see some examples of abuses. [[User:Athel cb|Athel cb]] ([[User talk:Athel cb|talk]]) 13:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 
{{Removed}} The "influenced"/"influences" fields will now disappear from the infoboxes. Articles which use them will appear in [[:Category:Pages using infobox scientist with unknown parameters]]. — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 23:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
* (A) It is the convention to put the tfd tag at the top. See other tfd cases.
* Is a bot tasked with clearing {{Clc|Pages using infobox scientist with unknown parameters}}, or should I get busy? — [[User:GhostInTheMachine|GhostInTheMachine]] <sup>[[User talk:GhostInTheMachine|talk to me]]</sup> 08:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
*:As far as I know, there is no bot that is going to clean up either {{Clc|Pages using infobox scientist with unknown parameters}} or {{Clc|Pages using infobox philosopher with unknown parameters}}. — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 08:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
*::[[User:PrimeBOT/30|There is]]. Now you know :-){{pb}}Other than {{para|influence*}} params, are there any major ones that need cleaning up? [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 13:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
*:::Thanks, Primefac! {{para|influence*}} are the only ones that are clogging up those categories. — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 04:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
*::::K, I'll add this to my to-do list. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 09:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
*:::::{{done}}. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 09:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 
=== Influences/influenced -- abuse of power ===
* (B) You understand what is up for deletion by clicking on the tfd tag link. In 90% of cases it is obvious, without following the link, as most of these articles only have one template anyway.
 
I am shocked at the haste with which a proposal made on 13th September that affects at least 3000 articles was implemented a mere 12 days later, with no attempt to broaden the discussion beyond the eight or so editors who voted (including one whose contributions in the past have seemed to me to be thoughtful and valuable). There was no serious evidence offered that these parameters were used abusively. Maybe one or two exist, but these have not been given as examples. Giving Kelvin as an example is absurd: the points raised in his case have nothing to do with abuse, but just disagreements between editors about what is appropriate to include (as can happen, and often does, with virtually any article).
* (C) Tucking away the tfd tag at the bottom of the infobox, makes it not easily visible. I myself did not notice it at all there and only stumbled on it by accident.
 
The initial decision (25 September) was bad enough, but then it was made much worse by not only telling the system to ignore the deprecated parameters, as happens with any other parameters that the system doesn't recognize, but also by removing the lines from the source files. That seems to be just spiteful, an attempt to make it impossible to reverse a bad decision. [[User:Athel cb|Athel cb]] ([[User talk:Athel cb|talk]]) 10:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
* (D) Why are we worried about aesthetics when it is only temporary? Visibility is the most important thing for such issues. [[User:149.167.200.118|149.167.200.118]] 12:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:The source lines can be easily restored from history, no [[WP:AGF|spite]] intended. I have reverted the edit to the template, and will let someone else implement the consensus. {{ping|Primefac}} take note. — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 14:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
::I'm happy to take note, but the bot has done its thing and I am not going to mass-revert it simply because one person objected. I would also note that it was not 12 days, but a month, later that the bot made its edits. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 14:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
:::By my calculation 25 - 13 = 12. That's the time it took from the proposal to the statement 'Removed The "influenced"/"influences" fields will now disappear from the infoboxes.' The bot came later, but I didn't say or imply otherwise. [[User:Athel cb|Athel cb]] ([[User talk:Athel cb|talk]]) 16:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
:{{tq|with no attempt to broaden the discussion beyond the eight or so editors who voted}} Not true, it was broadcasted on related Wikiprojects. See [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Artem.G&namespace=5&tagfilter=&start=2023-09-14&end=2023-09-14&limit=50 diffs]. [[User:Jähmefyysikko|Jähmefyysikko]] ([[User talk:Jähmefyysikko|talk]]) 15:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
::In addition, no one has yet provided an example of abuse. (Don't mention Kelvin, because nothing in that story suggests abuse.) [[User:Athel cb|Athel cb]] ([[User talk:Athel cb|talk]]) 16:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Kelvin was meant as an illustration of the usage of the field in cases which are not grossly in violation of its intended use. Even in such cases it involves a lot of interpretation. For abuse, see [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albert_Einstein&oldid=1177941238 Einstein]. But any single article could always be fixed. Instead of focusing on single articles, one needs to form an opinion about the usage of the field in general. For this, one may use the [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=PrimeBOT&namespace=all&tagfilter=&start=2023-10-12&end=2023-10-12&limit=50 diffs from PrimeBOT]. I don't find many instances where the usage is appropriate (e.g. in many cases 'influence' is taken to mean student/supervisor relation). [[User:Jähmefyysikko|Jähmefyysikko]] ([[User talk:Jähmefyysikko|talk]]) 16:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Combining what Primefac and Jähmefyysikko have said: the removal of the fields from the template was trivial to revert (and, in fact, has been reverted). Editors in 5 WikiProjects had an entire month to object before the more-difficult-to-revert bot run was executed, and readers had two weeks to notice that "influences/influenced" disappeared. I don't believe that there was any impropriety committed (since there was a rough consensus on 25 September, including arguments about consistency with {{tl|Infobox philosopher}} which I found most compelling).
::::However, since I have been accused of acting improperly, I will not remove the parameters myself, leaving it to some other templateeditor or administrator. — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 18:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 
:Consensus is not unanimity, and there was a clear consensus in the discussion above. The change should be restored. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 04:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_Scientist&oldid=74704706] (current version) is the best compromise I think. And I support the protection. Way too many edits here. Sorry to 149.167.200.118, but you did way too many edits here. Please try finding consensus on talk pages first for such a case. Templates affect a whole bunch of pages. --[[User:Ligulem|Ligulem]] 13:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 
===Remove? Keep?===
Go for it Fred, your idea of using [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_Scientist&oldid=74672254] looks cool. [[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 13:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 
The parameters were removed, all uses cleaned up and then the parameters were restored. What is the plan? — [[User:GhostInTheMachine|GhostInTheMachine]] <sup>[[User talk:GhostInTheMachine|talk to me]]</sup> 11:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
: Ok, I'll keep it as it is then. I still prefer the same version as Bunzil, but at least consensus finds this version acceptable, so am sticking with it for now. If you prefer the other version too, say so. / [[User:Fred Chess|Fred]]-[[User_talk:Fred Chess|Chess]] 14:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
:Barring any new opinions, you get someone uninvolved to re-close the discussion. Personally I find the consensus to be painfully obvious, but I try to stay somewhat neutral when it comes to template-maintenance discussions like this. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 10:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:: How do we invite somebody to do the re-close? — [[User:GhostInTheMachine|GhostInTheMachine]] <sup>[[User talk:GhostInTheMachine|talk to me]]</sup> 14:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 
:::[[WP:CR]]. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 03:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi Fred, your version at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_Scientist&oldid=74672254] still does not seem to be implemented. This is the best one to go with and has better visibilty. Best regards, [[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 21:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
::::Tried this, and it turned out to be a wrong venue. [[User:Jähmefyysikko|Jähmefyysikko]] ([[User talk:Jähmefyysikko|talk]]) 08:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
:::::I've removed the values again. The consensus in the main discussion is overwhelmingly clear, and the singular opposition posted later is not enough to overturn that. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 09:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 
== Edit request ==
:Hi Fred, time is ticking away and you haven't done the update as per your suggestion. Thus I have done it for you. Best regards, [[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 11:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 
{{edit template-protected|answered=yes}}
:: Ok, good. / [[User:Fred Chess|Fred]]-[[User_talk:Fred Chess|Chess]] 15:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
The discussion above at [[#Influences/influenced]] reached a consensus that the parameters 'influences' and 'influenced' should be removed from the template. [[User:hike395]] already removed them once, but then self-reverted when the action was criticized as hasty. It has now been few months, and I am asking for an uninvolved template editor/admin to implement the consensus. [[User:Jähmefyysikko|Jähmefyysikko]] ([[User talk:Jähmefyysikko|talk]]) 08:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
:{{done}}<!-- Template:ETp --> [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 09:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 
== Research collaborator ==
:Your welcome. Best regards, [[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 22:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 
I would like to propose a new parameter, ''Research collaborator'' -- quite different from ''Doctoral advisor, Scientific adviser, Notable students'', etc., because I mean well known collaboration between scientists of equal status, such as [[Stanford Moore]] and [[William Howard Stein|William Stein]]. Few biochemists think of Moore without immediately thinking of Stein, but infoboxes of neither mention the other. I realize that this could be abused, for example mentioning a coauthor of one common paper, so there needs to be a warning comment along the lines of ''Use only when the collaboration is itself well known''. [[User:Athel cb|Athel cb]] ([[User talk:Athel cb|talk]]) 15:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
==cleanup==
:'''Oppose''' it most certainly ''will'' be abused, & has too much nuance for an infobox. Warnings will certainly be ignored most of the time. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 15:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
If this survives TFD, we need to slim it down a bit. In particular, I don't think we should be encouraging triva like Erdos number and handedness; that sort of think devalues the rest of the information in the box as, as the number of items becomes overwhelming to the reader. It's just not very important. If editors really want to add that stuff, it can be done in the extra field at the bottom.--[[User:Ragesoss|ragesoss]] 13:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 
== Country of Birth and Death ==
:No problem with that. --[[User:Ligulem|Ligulem]] 16:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 
When dealing with biographies of individuals born in countries that have changed their name, structure, or form of government, which version of the country's name should be included? For example, in the case of someone born in Yugoslavia or in a kingdom that later became a republic. I’m asking this because some pages seem to adopt inconsistent approaches. What are your thoughts on this? [[User:Lord Ruffy98|Lord Ruffy98]] ([[User talk:Lord Ruffy98|talk]]) 21:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
I've removed those two. Now it's somewhat more focused, but still too much clutter in my opinion. I think we should also remove:
*spouse
*children
*website
--[[User:Ragesoss|ragesoss]] 17:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 
== Discussion: should '''known for''' be a short link or a phrase ==
:Not sure about that, but I wouldn't oppose. If we can gain a bit more support by the box dislikers, why not. Big boxes are indeed a bit ugly somtimes. The website could well go to the "External links" section of the article text, so we might need to migrate that first before simply removing it from the template calls. I could help doing that, if there is consensus (possibly using [[m:MWiki-Browser|MWB]]).
:However, it might be good to wait a bit with additional removals for other Wikipedians to weigh in. --[[User:Ligulem|Ligulem]] 17:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 
I noticed that [[User:WikiCorrector5241|WikiCorrector5241]] has been going through infobox scientist entries (e.g. [[Einstein]]) and changing the short link to a phrase with a verb, for instance changed "[[Gravitational wave]]" to "* Explaining [[Gravitational wave|gravitational waves]]". Leaving aside the question that adding "Explaining" could be [[WP:OR]], on general principle I feel that the prior short links are more than enough for an infobox.
::I withdraw my offer to help migrate data from the box into the text. I'll leave this task to those that want the box deleted. --[[User:Ligulem|Ligulem]] 09:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments please, I did not see this being discussed in any of the archives. [[User:Ldm1954|Ldm1954]] ([[User talk:Ldm1954|talk]]) 17:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
 
:I agree with @[[User:Ldm1954|Ldm1954]] that such expansion to long phrase descriptions is not appropriate for an infobox, whose entries must be kept brief. The links are enough. Also, {{u|WikiCorrrector5421}}, your additions seem to be own opinions about the work. For [[Albert Einstein|Einstein]] you expanded to: <!-- {{tqb}} can be indented, or it can wrap multiple paragraphs, but it can't both be indented and wrap multiple paragraphs. Sorry. -->
Hi Ragesoss, Spouse and Children are key parts of any biography and sometimes hard to find. Hence the reason for insertion in the box. In some very rare cases where a person has a prolific number of children (eg. Charles Darwin) the solution has been just to state the number of children and the editors of those pages are happy with that. With regards to website, it is a handy quick-to-find link especially useful for biographies of those alive. Don't forget some fields don't always have to be used in every article. Regarding Erdos number & handedness, I agree that these things would look better in a new template at the bottom of each article. So if the consensus is to remove these two fields, can you suggest how we go about removing them and transferring them to a new template without losing the information?....because the scientist infobox has propagated to over 100 articles and losing that info represents many 100s of hours of work (it takes huge hours to dig that kinda stuff up!). Best regards, [[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 21:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
{{tqb|
:* Coining the term ''[[unified field theory]]''
:* Describing [[mass–energy equivalence]]
:* Explaining [[Brownian motion]]
:* Explaining [[gravitational wave]]s
:* Explaining the [[photoelectric effect]]
:* Formulating [[Einstein field equations]]
:* Introducing [[Bose–Einstein statistics]]
:* Introducing the [[cosmological constant]]
:* Postulating the [[Bose–Einstein condensate]]
:* Proposing the [[EPR paradox]]
:* Proposing [[general relativity]]
:* Proposing [[special relativity]]
:}}
:and I disagree with most of those descriptions. He did much more than "propose" special and general relativity. Please stop doing this and remove the ones that you have done. [[User:StarryGrandma|StarryGrandma]] ([[User talk:StarryGrandma|talk]]) 21:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::Ping of [[User:WikiCorrector5241]] as they probably did not see [[User:StarryGrandma|StarryGrandma's]] comments due to a typo in the username. [[User:Ldm1954|Ldm1954]] ([[User talk:Ldm1954|talk]]) 03:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
 
== Suggestion—wrap [[Template:Infobox academic]] ==
:Because of the way parameters are specified within each article, changing the template results in no loss of information; it's still there in the markup, it just doesn't appear in the normal view. Thus, we can change the template as we see fit, and editors can move the info in individual articles at their leisure.
 
There's a lot of overlap between this and [[Template:Infobox academic]]; maybe it should wrap that instead of wrapping [[Template:Infobox person]] directly? [[User:Closed Limelike Curves|– Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk:Closed Limelike Curves|talk]]) 00:26, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
:Spouses and children can be an important part of a biography, but are not important enough to be a standard infobox category; they are ''not'' usually relevant to someone's career as a scientist. They should appear in the text like thousands of other potentially important details that do not belong in the infobox. The more concise the infobox is, the more focused on aspects relevant to the person's notability, the more effective it is (and the less of an eyesore).--[[User:Ragesoss|ragesoss]] 01:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:Can we finish discussing the [[Template talk:Infobox philosopher#Wrap Template: Infobox academic|infobox philosopher wrapping]], and then figure this out? It would be nice to keep {{tl|Infobox academic}} stable during that discussion, and I may need to change it again for this wrapping. — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 11:53, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
Hi Ragesoss, I respectfully disagree. Just because spouse(s) and children do not have a bearing on scientific career (and a spouse may well argue with you on that one :-) is not an argument for exclusion. By that argument we should exclude other biographical details such as month of birth....as they also do not relate to scientific career. So I submit that it is not "scientific career" that is only of relevance, but key biographical facts that lend human interest to the character as whole person. A biography serves to humanize a famous name that we know little about outside their scientific sphere, as well as summarizing their career acheivements. On the topic of conciseness, the present box has the same level of detail as many other well-accepted infoboxes....for example take a look at these [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_russell] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_kournikova] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Clapton]. I am really interested to hear what you think the difference is between these and the Scientist Infobox. I sincerely hope this discussion doesn't start a mass tfd surge on all these other infoboxes as they are all rather good :-) Best regards, [[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 05:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
::Sure, sounds good to me. I'm just trying to identify all the academic-related templates that could be deduplicated—the other one I know is [[Template:Infobox economist]], which should probably wrap this template. [[User:Closed Limelike Curves|– Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk:Closed Limelike Curves|talk]]) 16:05, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
 
== Add functionality from officeholder template ==
:How does simply naming (or numbering) spouses and children serve any constructive purpose? These things are important ''in context'', but not free-floating in an infobox. I edit many scientist articles, very few others, so I'm only asserting my opinion for this infobox; if people who focus on philosophers, sex symbols, or guitarists want a different standard infobox, that's fine. Trivial one-line details may be well-appreciated in many of those articles; I don't think they are for scientist biographies.--[[User:Ragesoss|ragesoss]] 15:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 
The scientist infobox doesn't have the ability to specify offices. I'd like to be able to add these to scientist like [[John Flamsteed]] who was the first Astronomer Royal. Something like
Hi Ragesoss, I'm happy to go with the consensus on the spouse/children argument. However, my reason for feeling they should be considered for inclusion is that it gives a snapshot of the scientist as a human (as I mentioned above). For example there is intense interest in the character of Einstein as a human: what type of father was he, was he married, what was his religious position etc etc? Seeing the list of spousal names and children (or lack thereof) gives a quick summary to the reader, who can then more easily find those names in the main article. An infobox often gives key facts of interest for the reader to "hook onto" for then digesting the article. I appreciate your help and effort you are putting into this. Best regards, [[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 22:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 
<code>| title1 = [[Astronomer Royal]]
:Most serious biographies of a person (even a scientist :-), will give significant attention to that person's relationship with their spouse(s), seeing these relationships as crucial to the subject's life. These are supposed to be biographies, not articles on their scientific work. Spouse and children are imporant elements of a person's lives and often significant to understanding them. So I'm with Bunzil on keeping them in. In fact I think they're more important for the info box than doctoral_advisor and doctoral_students, which I presume is an attempt to get at influenced by and influenced like the philosophers' infobox but I don't think it reflects the reality of most scientists' working lives. --[[User:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Orange">Siobhan</font>]][[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Blue">Hansa</font>]] 11:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
| order1 = 1st
| term_start1 = 1675
| term_end1 = 1719
| successor1 = [[Edmond Halley]]
</code>
 
I'm not sure if there is another way, if so please suggest. I am happy to try and figure out on the sandbox how to do it, but don't want to proceed if it's already been done or discussed. [[User:GrimRob|GrimRob]] ([[User talk:GrimRob|talk]]) 21:32, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
Agree with all Siobhan's comments on spouses and children. However, I would put greater importance on doctoral_advisor and doctoral_students than suggested by her. The "umbilical cord" between a scientist and his/her advisor is extremely important both from a historical perspective and in understanding the intellectual and political environment that the scientist was trained in. For example Einstein's advisor was [[Alfred Kleiner]], and the interaction between the two is fascinating. Einstein appears to have submitted a thesis to Kleiner, then withdrew it, and then produced another one...all in an effort to please him. On a political level, Kleiner also partly shaped Einstein's future by providing an entré to contacts that shaped the next step in Einstein's career. Once you begin to dig deeper, you begin to see that the advisor can be influential, not only scientifically, but also in terms of the socio-intellectual environment provided. Scientists themselves are totally fascinated by their "scientific ancestry" ...the culture amongst scientitsts is to find the advisor of the advisor, and so on, to see how far the "ancestry" can be traced. For example, [[John C. Baez]] can trace himself back to Gauss and Pfaff! People are fascinated by this sort of thing and the infobox provides the "succession" facility to follow those links. Following those links in themselves is a fascinating journey through science history, and I have learned enormously myself through such exploration. [[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 12:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:How about just doing the following? No need to modify any infobox code.
::Your Baez example is compelling. I think I bauk at these particular fields because so many scientists have greater influence from more informal mentors. This seems to put a false (to me) barrier on which influencers/ees should be displayed. I'm keener on keeping the spouse than getting rid of these fields, but I do think in general shorter is better! --[[User:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Orange">Siobhan</font>]][[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Blue">Hansa</font>]] 12:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 
{{Infobox scientist
Hi Siobhan, Your point about influence from other a mentors is a really good one, and the template does indeed allow for this flexibility. For example see [[J. B. S. Haldane]] who did not do a PhD, and see what was put there in its stead. Also the "footnote" field can be used to help out with any pathological cases. Best, regards, [[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 22:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
| name = John Flamsteed
| honorific_suffix = {{post-nominals|country=GBR|size=100%|FRS}}
| image = John Flamsteed (Gemälde).jpg
| caption = Portrait by [[Thomas Gibson (artist)|Thomas Gibson]], 1712
| birth_date = 19 August 1646
| birth_place = [[Denby]], [[Derbyshire]], [[England]]
| death_date = 31 December 1719<br>(aged 73)
| death_place = [[Burstow]], [[Surrey]], England
| spouse = [[Margaret Flamsteed|Margaret Cooke]]
| field = [[Astronomy]]
| work_institutions =
| alma_mater = [[Jesus College, Cambridge]]
| academic_advisors =
| notable_students =
| known_for = First [[Astronomer Royal]]
| module = {{Infobox officeholder|embed=yes
| title1 = [[Astronomer Royal]]
| order1 = 1st
| term_start1 = 1675
| term_end1 = 1719
| successor1 = [[Edmond Halley]]
}}
}}
 
:— [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 23:38, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
::I agree with Siobahn, scientists are influenced byt many, and many will have lots of students, which makes the template ridiculously long. If these facts are really important they will be added to the text by interested editors.--[[User:Petaholmes|Peta]] 11:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
::Thanks, just what I was looking for [[User:GrimRob|GrimRob]] ([[User talk:GrimRob|talk]]) 08:16, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
 
G'day Peta, As mentioned (below) "Doctoral students" is no problem. The intention here is only to list only the famous ones that have or should have a wiki article themselves. Usually a scientist will be lucky to have more than two. There are cases of more than 5 but these are very rare. At present I have erred on the side of putting in all students....this is with the intention of letting other editors decide which to delete consentually....I did not want to make that decision on my own. I was trying to be considerate in good faith. A little temporary bloat while things are evolving is surely okay. Perfection wasn't built in a day :-) Best regards, [[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 15:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 
==Discussion: How shall we clean up this template?==
 
What I'd remove:
* alma_mater
* doctoral_advisor
* doctoral_students
* known_for
* societies
* prizes
* spouse
* children
* religion
* footnotes
—[[User:Rotring|Rotring]] 17:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 
Hi Rotring, as per Siobhan, and the discussion above, the reasons for keeping Spouse/Children are clear. Female readers particularly want to see this there :-) Also I would personally argue for keeping in Students/Advisors as per the discussion above. Alma Mater is a good one to keep, as it is usually very difficult finding that info in the article and it is an important influence on the scientist. I agree that Religion is a hot potato, but I would retain it because biographies are intensely fascinated with the religious positions of scientists. For example, there is endless debate on Einstein's belief system. As for "footnotes", I'd keep that in for the odd pathological case. For example in the Marie Curie template it was used to mention that she is the only person with two Nobel prizes in different science fields.
 
Don't forget that fields don't have to be filled in; and on an article-by-article basis you'll see that most often the Footnote field has not been used and so does not appear. It has only been used for rare cases...but is handy for such cases.
 
So my conclusion is to keep everything, (even Erdos number and handedness, as per discussion on voting page) but delete:
*Societies
*Prizes
.....on reflection, these bits of information are pretty boring to the average reader. I would be happy so see these be just shifted to the main article. I suspect my strange like for handedness and Erdos number won't be supported by the consensus, so that will go in practice. So that's a delete of four items. This is a pretty good haircut and brings down the size of the template to below average compared to the other 13 people templates found at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Infobox_templates#People]. Best regards, [[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 22:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
:I agree that Societies and Prizes should go (at least).--[[User:Ragesoss|ragesoss]] 01:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:I'd keep alma mater at least, and delete spouse, children, and maybe religion. The doctoral advisor and students aren't vital, but my preference is to keep them for those cases when the influence is important.
:To elaborate, I think that spouses and children belong in the text, not in a box. The names alone tell you little outside of context unless one of the family members happens to also be known to the reader, and the more complete family information is usually found in a convienant section on personal / family life that's easily findable.
:So far as the religion goes, once there's a spot for a label, everyone feels compelled to insert one, whether it's particularly apt or not. Maybe I'm just prejudiced against trying to pick a simple religious label for historical figures in general, having spent too much time at [[list of United States Presidential religious affiliations]], where every label has to have extensive qualifiers about whether the person was a regular communicant or if they once expressed some contradictory views, usw. &mdash; [[User:Laurascudder|Laura Scudder]] [[User talk:Laurascudder|&#9742;]] 02:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 
Hi Laura, the names in the infobox (even though out of a context) provide "mental hooks" for the person when reading the article. Often people don't want to read a whole article and find it useful browsing an infobox first and then scanning down the article and reading chunks that have been flagged by the infobox. I take what you are saying about the Religion field presenting the problem of needing a never ending set of qualifiers. But remember the infobox is like an executive summary....the "qualifiers" are arrived at when the reader goes to the main article. Some critics may say "Ah, but what about people who only read the infobox and not the article and then go away without the full story?" (I have received this criticism on occasion). My answer is that people are people....we are not here to control their actions and force them to read everything. If you had an article without an infobox, I'm sure there will be many people who will not read the full story anyway! The infobox is just a way of making the article more user-friendly, acts a navigational aid, and whets the appetite as an apperitif for the main article. Scientists, after all, write 1-paragraph summaries at the beginning of every scientific paper. They are well-used to the idea of the executive summary and demand that in their own reading materials. Best regards, [[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 11:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 
::I understand the executive summary aspect. That still doesn't address the, "Oh, there's a religion field, well I'll go find out what this person's grandparents practiced because the historical record doesn't show him practicing anything." &mdash; [[User:Laurascudder|Laura Scudder]] [[User talk:Laurascudder|&#9742;]] 13:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 
::I came into this from the Marie Curie article, so my view is definitely colored by her having such an impressive family. It might help us to think about the fields in terms of a prioritized list rather than comparing one field to another. We might at least find some agreement on what has to be there. Here's my take:
*Name
*image
*caption
*date of birth
*place of birth
*date of death
*place of death
*field
*Footnotes(1)
*work institution(2)
*nationality
*prizes(3)
*spouse
*societies
*alma mata
*doctoral advisor
*doctoral students
*children
*website
*religion.
 
::(1)Known for should be included in this field, (2)<s>Work institution should include country ___location so we can get rid of residence</s> (On Bunzil's reasoning below, I'd change this to put residence above.), (3)I think this should be limited - along the lines of only prizes as significant as the Nobel (or whatever standard), alternatively it could be merged with footnotes, but that could get messy for accomplished scientists.
 
Looking at this list, I have to say I think its too long and ought to be cut in half. Which would leave out spouse even if my own priorities won everyone over. But cutting out bloat means sacrifices sometimes :-) --[[User:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Orange">Siobhan</font>]][[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Blue">Hansa</font>]] 12:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 
::My vote would be to cut it down further by removing "prizes" and "societies". I would put "Residence" back in, because a person's main country of residence still stays the same even if he works in a foreign unversity for a couple of years. The idea of the "Residence" field is to clarify where the person mainly lives, so as not to confuse it with his/her nationality (which can often be quite different). This would then leave 18 fields under the caption. Now 18 is pretty unbloated compared to say Infobox Politician which has 34 fields!!!! Why don't those who voted "delete" send out a hit guy to put out a TfD on the Politician box? (Just kidding). Regards, [[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 14:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:::On the residence front, is this so valid? A scientist who is suitable for wikipedia isn't going to have just worked for a couple of years. Other than for a few edge cases, aren't their notable work institutions generally going to reflect their residence? --[[User:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Orange">Siobhan</font>]][[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Blue">Hansa</font>]] 14:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 
Hi Siobhan, my bad. I didn't explain myself clearly. What I meant was a scientist might work for 30 years in (say) Germany, but have taken 1 or 2 years leave and worked in a US university and then returned to Germany. His/her "residence" field would then only list "Germany" because the US part was a temporary stay. This is an easy example....in reality scientists flit around the world like yoyos working here and there, and its very difficult for the casual reader to work out where the scientist's main domocile is. Hence the need for a "residence" field.....actually maybe we should rename it to "Country of domicile"....would that make the intention clearer? Best regards, [[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 15:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 
::I see your reasoning Bunix. That does make the residence field more important.--[[User:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Orange">Siobhan</font>]][[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Blue">Hansa</font>]] 15:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 
And what about ''religion'', it seems to be the source of a lot of debates, was he/was he not Jewish? etc. Scientfically it has little weight. Science is suposed to be a meritocracy after all? --[[User:Salix alba|Salix alba]] ([[User talk:Salix alba|talk]]) 15:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 
::I really don't like religion in this infobox. It's a too much of a lightning rod for confrontation (nationality is bad enough) and unsourced claims. And from my perspective it's not something I'd look for about a scientist. --[[User:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Orange">Siobhan</font>]][[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Blue">Hansa</font>]] 15:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 
Hi Salix & Siobhan....BTW you both have lovely names! Those "S"'s go well together :-) My reasoning behind the "Religion" field is that people are totally fascinated with the religious position of Scientists. For example Einstein's postion on the existence of God is an endless source of debate till the cows come home. It's wonderful stuff :-) People want to know if a given scientist is an atheist, agnostic or follows some organised religion. Hence the need for this field so people can quickly find it in the infobox and compare with other scientists. Just because "religion" has nothing to do with science, doesn't mean we hide it. Remember this is a biography! The scientist is a human, and the reader wants to know the human side as a lover, spouse, parent, and possible religious adherent...these are all factors that are part of the scientist's story as a human. Everyone want to read about Einstein's lovers and love affairs....even though it is nothing to do with his science....it is part of his humanity. That is what a real biography is all about. Best regards, [[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 17:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 
==Alert==
Starting from when this TfD voting phase began, [[User:Pjacobi|Pjacobi]] and his suspected sockpuppet [[12.74.162.102]], see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=12.74.162.102], have been deleting Infobox Scientist from articles without waiting to hear the consensus from this TfD process or without obtaining consensus from the talk pages of the said articles. There have been about 15 deletes and the count is rising. Is there an admin out there who can mediate? [[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 22:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
:You should try to nicely talk to him about it first. He doesn't seem to be removing them particularly persistently or maliciously. [[WP:AGF]] &mdash; [[User:Laurascudder|Laura Scudder]] [[User talk:Laurascudder|&#9742;]] 02:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
::12.74.162.102 remved the infobox_scientist on Marie Curie. I reverted and posted to the talk page. [[User:JdH]] reverted me and posted this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMarie_Curie&diff=75108195&oldid=75098951|response]. I don't know if JhD, Pjacobi and 12.74.162.102 are related, but try as I might I don't see a lot of good faith in that talk page comment. --[[User:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Orange">Siobhan</font>]][[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Blue">Hansa</font>]] 03:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
:*Infoboxes don't add to article, except for a limited cases where structured information makes sense (species).
:*Infoboxes either provide redundant information or take away information from the prose.
:*Infoboxes make the information in our articles more complicated to be converted into different out formats, let alone accessable by screen readers and braille devices.
:*The "Scientist infobox" is an especially bad case, as it prompted it users to provide non-encyclopedic information for scientists.
:*If you wan't to do web design, design your website. Wikipedia's task is to create content.
:[[User:Pjacobi|Pjacobi]] 11:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 
Dear P, (i) See the discussion in the section above where we explain what an infobox adds to an article in terms of user-friendliness, (ii) It is never our intention to take away information from prose. By definition infoboxes add redundant information. If you study [information theory] you will see that some [Redundancy (information theory)|redundancy] is always a good thing and aids comprehension. (iii) Whilst it may present problems for braille readers etc, so do photographs and a bunch other things. Software that does these conversions is improving all the time. Our job is to move forward and the technology will surely catch up with us. (iv) See discussion in the previous section as to why we believe the parameters in the infobox are in fact biographical and hence encyclopedic. See also the discussion (above) on trimming the parameters down to make the infobox shorter...feel free to weigh in and tell us which parameters you specifically object to so these can be discussed for trimming. (v) The infoboxes have been indirectly creating content....they have provided a structure that has often reminded editors of articles that certain aspects of their biographies were missing in the main article. They then went away and fleshed it out. [[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 11:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:I've seen the discussion ad nauseam at [[:de:]] some 18 months ago, if I remember right. I'm very happy with the outcome on [[:de:]] to not use such infoboxes. I hope we'll go the same direction here.
:For content issues, I also very much disagree with the inclusion of ''spouse'', ''children'' and ''religion''. For most scientist's biographies we should not add such information.
:''doctoral_students'' will have too many entries to be practical for a infobox for quite a number of scientists. For some, even ''societies'' and ''prizes'' won't fit.
:For project focused on adding semantic metadata on biographies, as opposed to visual effects, see [[Wikipedia:Persondata]].
:[[User:Pjacobi|Pjacobi]] 12:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 
Dear P, (i) we explained why spouse & children are important parts of any biography (see above). Can you explain why you think they are not? (ii) "Doctoral students" is no problem. The intention here is only to list only the famous ones that have or should have a wiki article themselves. Usually a scientist will be lucky to have more than two. There are cases of more than 5 but these are very rare. At present I have erred on the side of putting in all students....this is with the intention of letting other editors decide which to delete consentually....I did not want to make that decision on my own. I was trying to be considerate in good faith. (iii) I agree with you, let's scrap societies and prizes. This can go in the main article only. I'm with you on that one! We do agree on somethings [[Image:smile.gif]]. Best regards, [[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 15:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 
== Back to step 0 ==
 
I was accused of not acknowledging the prior discussion. No I've read the entire talk page. I still don't know, what's the purpose of the infobox? Looking for example at [[Paul Dirac]] and withstanding the urge to throw it out immediately: Which important thing does the infobox tells the reader, that's already in section 0? --[[User:Pjacobi|Pjacobi]] 12:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
:The American and Swiss connections aren't mentioned in the introductory section. But infoboxes aren't about content, they're about information design. Take for instance, [[Marian Rejewski]], [[Barbara McClintock]], and [[Brian Greene]], all scientists whose biographies have been featured in the biography portal - these have virtually all the information that would be in an infobox_scientist featured in the introduction. But it's in different orders and surrounded by other information. This isn't bad writing, and good prose shouldn't be aandoned for an artificail order of facts. But the lack of consistency in order, and the adherence solely to prose makes it harder to find and compare particular pieces of information. The infoboxes don't make articles a better read for someone who wants an indepth look, but they can highlight major achievements for those who find prose hard to scan.
 
:So, what's it all about? It's about making the most notable facts about people's lives ''consistently'' available to all sorts of readers. --[[User:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Orange">Siobhan</font>]][[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Blue">Hansa</font>]] 13:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 
::Dear P, I agree with Siobhan's comments. Further to these, here is my spin on it: the purpose of an infobox is to provide a quick summary. In a sense it is a reader's navigational aid that provides "mental hooks" when reading the full article. That is what all summaries do. That is what an "abstract" does at the beginning of a scientific paper. It is a standard well-recognised writer's tool. I recommend you scan down the list of people who voted '''keep''' and see their reasons why they find the infobox useful. I think the root of the problem is that you are assuming "redundancy" is a bad thing. Redundancy is in the nature of providing an executive summary. That's what summaries do. Think about it. Then I think you'll see that some redundancy is not all that bad. Best regards, [[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 14:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 
::: Have a look at [[Wikipedia:Lead section]]. --[[User:Pjacobi|Pjacobi]] 14:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 
::::What's your point? --[[User:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Orange">Siobhan</font>]][[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Blue">Hansa</font>]] 14:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 
::Dear P, I think I see your point. You are saying the lead is a summary or abstract of the article. So there is redundancy in the lead....so this means you are happy with redundancy! However, let's not confuse the infobox with the lead...these are two quite different types of summary. The lead is in prose form and usually won't go into any detail on (say) all the universities the scientist worked at, the spouse etc etc. That's all too much there. However the infobox is able to provide a summary of these more fine grained facts because it list things out as one-word items. People find short one-word lists of key facts a very useful article navigational aid. That's why there so many thousands of infoboxes on the wikipedia...people love 'em! Now I can see your next objection is going to be that the date of birth/death comes first in the lead and first in the infobox and that is too much redundancy to bear. Sure. When I read any text book, the title of the book is repeated at the header of every page. That's lots of redundancy! I live with it. It appears that all wiki people infoboxes in all categories seem to follow that convention. So I personally just live it, like I live with text books. Personally, when I read a wiki article I am often in a hurry and skim till I find the fact I'm looking for...I only read a whole article if I'm very interested. Often I get what I'm looking for from an infobox without even needing the article. So I don't even need to look at the lead. Sometimes I check the infobox first as a way of seeing if I want to read the article in the first place. Sometimes, a fact in an infobox strikes my curiosity and then I go and read the whole article. Sometimes I click on the "doctoral advisor" of the scientist listed in the infobox, then I click on that person's advisor and so on....this takes me on a wonderful historical tour noting the influences and connections. This tour is impossible in a conventional encyclopedia and illustrates the unique power of the wikipedia. Best regards, [[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 14:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 
==Undermining of TfD Process==
 
It appears that [[User:Pjacobi|Pjacobi]] is still continuing a mass delete of these infoboxes. Doing this in the middle of a TfD discussion appears somewhat underhanded... this is because removal of the template removes the TfD announcement tag from those pages. This therefore undermines the TfD process, and hides it from those editors who did not see the pages earlier. It unfairly deletes the TfD tag. Please can an admin look into this violation and revert the boxes so that the TfD tags properly appear on those pages that are affected. Or alternatively it would be nice if [[User:Pjacobi|Pjacobi]] would consider doing this himself, so as to maintain the validity of the TfD process. [[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 13:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:Deleting the infobox from the article immediately notifies the articles' watchers. So they can protest at the article talk page or raise their voice at TfD. --[[User:Pjacobi|Pjacobi]] 14:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 
::Given what happened on the Marie Curie page I think you're being disingenuos. --[[User:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Orange">Siobhan</font>]][[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Blue">Hansa</font>]] 14:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 
Dear P, And how will they know there is a TfD going on? Where is the TfD announcement tag on those pages, now that the box has gone? Please explain how the TfD process has not been undermined. Best regards, [[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 14:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:Did you ever notice the "History" button? --[[User:Pjacobi|Pjacobi]] 14:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 
Dear P, You are being naughty and disingenuous [[Image:smile.gif]]. The rule is that a TfD tag has to be visible on the front page of the article. Making it not visible (by whatever means) undermines the fairness of the TfD process. I think it would be a good idea if you could reinstate the boxes, otherwise a higher admin may come in and declare that this process has been biassed and reject the claim that "delete" won the consensus. So it might be in your best interests to put them back and let the process run fairly. Y'know, and if that means more "keep" votes come in as a result of you putting the boxes back, there is nothing to fear....the articles as they appear today will look totally different in 20 years time...they are all out of our hands in the long run....it's in the hands of the next generation. So let's be friends, have a beer, and let the votes fairly run their course. In the end, none of us ever have any wiki-permanence or wiki-omnipresence:-). It's all quicksand. Better to live with a clear conscience [[Image:smile.gif]]. Best regards, [[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 15:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:Sorry, this is pure nonsense. It would even have been better, to remove ''all'' infoboxes, then propose the orphaned template for deletion. Whether an infobox goes into an article will be decided by the article's editors, if no guidelines or policies are established.
:Also, the vote will most likely end with ''no consensus'', just because the infobox is still used by some articles.
:As per the ''higher admin'' issue: Please feel free to bring this to [[WP:AN]] or [[WP:RfC]] or whatever step in conflict resulotion you'd consider fitting.
:[[User:Pjacobi|Pjacobi]] 15:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 
Goodness gracious, [[User:Pjacobi|Pjacobi]]. There is a reasonable request for you to desist from deletion until the TfD is complete. I admit that I would not have noticed the TfD if you hadn't deleted the infobox. However, I would have noticed the change a whole lot sooner (i.e. without historical digging) if you had simply placed a message on the talk page indicating that you believed that the infobox served no useful purpose. [[User:Bejnar|Bejnar]] 16:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:: I think Pjacobi should careful look into the articles from which he removes the infoboxes, so that no important information that is solely in the infobox is removed from the articles. If anyone looks through the articles where Pjacobi has removed infoboxes from, and notices that important information has been lost, he should reinsert the infobox.
:: [[User:Fred Chess|Fred]]-[[User_talk:Fred Chess|Chess]] 18:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 
::: I checked, and found the only relevant information, which needed inserting into the article, to be the places of birth and death. I explicitely not checked whether ''spouse'', ''childs'', ''religion'' and ''students'' were in the prose. If that information was only added by the infobox insertion, I'll vote against its notability. --[[User:Pjacobi|Pjacobi]] 18:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 
:: Hi Fred, Pls can you comment on the point that the removal of the boxes also removes the TfD announcement tag from visibility? If TfD tags are removed from visibility, isn't that a bit like "vote rigging"? [[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 21:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 
==Let's move on and reach consensus on the individual fields so we can trim the box==
 
Here is a list of all fields with a reminder of their use and why they were put there. If you vote here, you are essentially voting to keep the whole template in abridged form. (If you are someone who doesn't want the template at all, then you should vote on the TfD page, not here). Please vote '''keep''' or '''delete''' underneath each heading. Hopefully we can then reach a consensus on how to best trim down the box.
 
===Field#1: Birth Date ===
*''Mode:'' Insert date of birth: month, day, year
*''Reason:'' It's here because this is standard to all people infoboxes.
*'''Keep'''. It's standard. Sets period context. [[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 23:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per above. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 00:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' because it's standard. Would like to see date and place in the same box for space reasons though (some of the more interesting stuff gets pushed down the page, and it would be nice to have more [[above the fold]]!). --[[User:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Orange">Siobhan</font>]][[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Blue">Hansa</font>]] 11:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' [[User:Bluap|Bluap]] 13:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 
===Field#2: Birth Place===
*''Mode:'' Insert place of birth: town, city, country
*''Reason:'' It's here because this is standard to all people infoboxes.
*'''Keep'''. It's standard. [[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 23:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per above. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 00:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' as standard - but see comment for Date of birth. --[[User:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Orange">Siobhan</font>]][[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Blue">Hansa</font>]] 11:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' [[User:Bluap|Bluap]] 13:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 
===Field#3: Death Date===
*''Mode:''(Insert date of death: month, day, year)
*''Reason:'' It's here because this is standard to all people infoboxes.
*'''Keep'''. It's standard. [[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 23:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per above. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 00:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' As standard. As with birth, I'd like to see place of death and date of death together. --[[User:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Orange">Siobhan</font>]][[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Blue">Hansa</font>]] 11:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' [[User:Bluap|Bluap]] 13:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 
===Field#4: Death Place===
*''Mode:''(Insert place of death: town, city, country)
*''Reason:'' It's here because this is standard to all people infoboxes.
*'''Keep'''. It's standard. [[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 23:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per above. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 00:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' as standard. See comment in date of death above. --[[User:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Orange">Siobhan</font>]][[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Blue">Hansa</font>]] 11:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' [[User:Bluap|Bluap]] 13:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 
===Field#5: Residence===
*''Mode:'' Insert countries where scientist has lived. If some are minor, select key countries only
*''Reason:'' Main coutry of domicile can often be different from nationality. This quickly unwraps the potential confusion for a lot of readers.
*'''Keep'''. It navigates readers for distinguishing domicile and nationality.[[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 23:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per above. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 00:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Remove''' should be obvious from associated institution.--[[User:Petaholmes|Peta]]
:: '''Comment.''' Peta, it's not so obvious where the main domicile is when there's more than one insitution across counties. [[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 00:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
:::'''Response.''' Then the person probably has had multiple residences (across space and time) and this will become another bloated field.--[[User:Petaholmes|Peta]] 00:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
::::'''Response.''' Not usually that many. The are over 100 articles out there with the template...if you browse through a few by clicking on "links" on the TfD page you'll see that they are not bloated at all! (Some are temporarily bloated, awaiting trimming from local editors...but don't let that affect your opinion of the template in general). Remember the "Politician Infobox" has 34 fields!! We are doing really well compared to that box and I notice you haven't put out a TfD on the politicians :-)[[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 09:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Weak Keep''' I see the importance, but think other things beat it out. --[[User:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Orange">Siobhan</font>]][[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Blue">Hansa</font>]] 11:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Weak Keep''' [[User:Bluap|Bluap]] 13:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 
===Field#6: Nationality===
*''Mode:'' Insert nationality of scientist
*''Reason:'' It's here because this is a standard piece of bibliographic data.
*'''Keep'''. It's standard. And people like to know where science 'stars' are originally from.[[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 23:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per above. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 00:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Remove''' there is already an extensive category system fro nationality.--[[User:Petaholmes|Peta]] 00:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
::'''Response'''. While there may be a category, those are at the bottom of the page. The idea of the infobox is it is at the top of the page and provides a consistent structured checklist for people who need to scan down it quickly. Some redundancy is a good thing. [[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 09:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' as standard. --[[User:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Orange">Siobhan</font>]][[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Blue">Hansa</font>]] 12:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Weak Keep''' [[User:Bluap|Bluap]] 13:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 
===Field#7: Field===
*''Mode:'' State if they are a physicist, chemist, biologist, mathematician, engineer....
*''Reason:'' If a reader is unfamiliar with that scientist this gives a fast snapshot of what broad field the scientist is working in.
*'''Keep'''. Important for reader 'navigation'. Remember, not all readers are at the education level of the editors who wrote the article! [[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 23:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per above. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 00:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
::'''Comment.''' There is something seriously wrong if the first sentence of an article doesn't state what the person did.--[[User:Petaholmes|Peta]] 00:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
::'''Response.''' People often scan the infobox only for making quick comparisons between articles and also as an entré before they decide to invest time in reading the whole article. Editors often make the mistake of assuming the average reader is at the same level of education and has the same reading behaviours as them :-) Try to see things more broadly guys! [[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 00:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
:::'''Response.'''It is also covered by categories.--[[User:Petaholmes|Peta]] 00:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
:::'''Response.'''Disagree. (i) They are too limiting when a scientist crosses more than one field, and (ii) they are way down the bottom of the page anyway.[[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 00:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
:::'''Response.''' First sentence and bottom of the page, pretty hard to miss in either case.--[[User:Petaholmes|Peta]] 00:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Remove'''. Notable scientists tend to be polymaths. Also, this info is usually in the first sentence of the lead ("X was/is a 19th/20th century immunologist/nuclear physicist/..."). No need for it in the template. - [[User:Samsara|{{{2|Samsara}}}]] ([[User talk:Samsara|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Samsara|contribs]]) 08:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
::'''Response.''' In reply to both Samsara and Peta, the idea is that there are a large group of people who scan the infobox only. The idea it the infobox is a consistent checklist. Having the field in there is very useful for a fast snapshot. [[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 09:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' If you're searching for a scientist you're not sure you've got the name right on, this is one of the first things you'll want to check. To me it's a classic example of the value the infobox provides.--[[User:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Orange">Siobhan</font>]][[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Blue">Hansa</font>]] 12:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' [[User:Bluap|Bluap]] 13:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 
===Field#8: Work Institution===
*''Mode:'' Insert key companies and/or universities where they are/were employed. Leave out minor ones.
*''Reason:'' A reader usually wants to know where this scientist did his/her stuff.
*'''Keep'''. Important for reader 'navigation'.[[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 23:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per above. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 00:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Scientists, especially modern day ones, are frequently enabled by their institutions as much as by their genius. I think this is an important field. --[[User:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Orange">Siobhan</font>]][[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Blue">Hansa</font>]] 12:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' [[User:Bluap|Bluap]] 13:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 
===Field#9: Alma Mater===
*''Mode:'' Insert universities where scientist obtained degrees
*''Reason:'' Key biographical fact to assist understanding early influences
*'''Keep'''. Important for reader 'navigation' and readers usually want to find this quickly. [[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 23:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per above. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 00:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Suggestion''' this might be more useful if merged with the advisor field.--[[User:Petaholmes|Peta]] 00:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
:'''Response.''' Good idea. I concur.--[[User:Ragesoss|ragesoss]] 00:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
::'''Response.''' I like the way you think, but it doesn't work as a person's undergrad Alma Mater may be different to their Postgrad Alma Mater. Thus I vote to keep.[[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 09:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
::'''Comment.'''I should also add in connection with this, that while PhDs are issued by universities, there are cases where the recipient technically does their thesis work outside the university - and in connection with somebody who also isn't from the university (this set up is pretty common in Australia - and I'm assuming occurs elsewhere). How would the box reflect such a situation? Alma mater implies attendance, which may not be the case.--[[User:Petaholmes|Peta]] 02:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
:::'''Response.''' It's not a problem really. For example, Einstein's Alma Mater was ETH, but his doctoral advisor was at Univ. Zurich. So "ETH" goes in the Alma Mater field and "[[Alfred Kleiner]]" goes in the Advisor field. No problemo. This is another good reason to separate those two fields and not merge them. The Alma Mater is always the issuing university...if the person did not actually attend and did the work externally then this will be explained in the full article. [[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 09:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
:::It is also a problem of terminology, most cultures don't use the term.--[[User:Petaholmes|Peta]] 11:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Neutral'''. Less important than PhD supervisor, and fairly unspecific. It would be better to name the research group or similar affiliation (e.g. "Nuclear physics lab at Berkeley", "Vienna Circle", "Miller research group", "Bay Area Biosystematists", etc.) - [[User:Samsara|{{{2|Samsara}}}]] ([[User talk:Samsara|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Samsara|contribs]]) 07:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
::'''Response.''' Not really. Alma Mater is very specific. Research group is too fine-grained and won't have a wiki link. [[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 09:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Weak delete''' I'm not so much opposed to the field as opposed to bloat. I think Alma Mater can verge towards trivia. Scientists who did important work during their PhD or undergraduate time can have these institutions listed under work institutions. --[[User:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Orange">Siobhan</font>]][[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Blue">Hansa</font>]] 12:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. If kept then '''Rename''' to a more international name. Presumably this refers to where they did their PhD, but I feel that the Doctoral Advisor is more important. Anyone interested can check the text - I don't feel that it is important enough to include in the infobox. [[User:Bluap|Bluap]] 13:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
::'''Response'''. (i) You can't get more international than using Latin :-), and (ii) Alma Mater means any university you graduated from....so it applies to any degree, not just PhD. I think it is very important to keep in the infobox. The public are greatly interested in quickly looking up who went where...especially if they have kids they are thinking of sending to university :-) [[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 14:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 
===Field#10: Doctoral Advisor===
*''Mode:'' Insert doctoral advisor. If only to masters level, then use masters advisor. In special cases can insert other major influence.
*''Reason:'' Scientific 'ancestry' is part of understanding biographical influences as well as being of popular interest.
*'''Keep'''. Important for reader 'navigation' and provides a quick link to a related biography.[[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 23:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per above. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 00:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
::'''Comment''' implies a very dull scientific genealogy, scientists have a variety of influenes during their careers, the extent of any influence should be described in the text - in the context of the persons career.--[[User:Petaholmes|Peta]] 02:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. More detail can be given in main text. - [[User:Samsara|{{{2|Samsara}}}]] ([[User talk:Samsara|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Samsara|contribs]]) 07:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Weak Keep''' I like the navigation/web-building aspect, but am concerned about the limiting nature of the field title. (Despite the mode "instructions", because of the field's title I think this will be used to list doctoral advisors over more influential mentors). --[[User:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Orange">Siobhan</font>]][[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Blue">Hansa</font>]] 12:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep''' This field provides a very useful navigational tool. Without it, the entire template becomes redundant. [[User:Bluap|Bluap]] 13:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 
===Field#11: Doctoral Students===
*''Mode:'' If any, insert their key doctoral students. Does not have to be exhaustive. The intention is any students that aren't notable enough to have their own wikipage should be deleted.
*''Reason:'' Scientific 'ancestry' is part of understanding biographical influences as well as being of popular interest.
*'''Keep'''. Important for reader 'navigation' and provides a quick link to a related biography.[[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 23:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per above. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 00:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Neutral'''. For some scientists, this is going to be a very long list of individuals, only some of whom will be notable in their own right. - [[User:Samsara|{{{2|Samsara}}}]] ([[User talk:Samsara|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Samsara|contribs]]) 07:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
::'''Response.''' See notes above under ''Mode''. Only notable ones are included....cases of more than two notables are very rare. At present, some boxes have temporarily erred on bloating this as a "place holder" to give editors a fair chance to reach consensus on which are notable.[[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 09:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep''' If we're going to have Doctoral Advisor for navigational purposes, then having Doctoral Students allows navigation in the reverse direction. [[User:Bluap|Bluap]] 13:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 
===Field #12: Known for===
*''Mode:'' Insert key topics/areas of science that made them famous.
*''Reason:'' Very useful for readers who are unfamiliar with the scientist to quickly find keywords relating to the scientist's area of acheivement.
*'''Keep'''. Important for reader 'navigation'.[[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 23:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per above. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 00:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Remove''' to variable with respect to POV. It also seems to be another major source of excess detail in the temaplte making it longer than is really required.--[[User:Petaholmes|Peta]] 00:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. Peta's rationale does not ring true for me. Should we be taking features away because some people can't use them? Because some people feel obliged to fill every field? This seems to point to weakness in the Wikipedia process rather than problems with the template itself. The kinds of problems mentioned by Peta should be resolved by editorial discussions imho. - [[User:Samsara|{{{2|Samsara}}}]] ([[User talk:Samsara|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Samsara|contribs]]) 07:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Again, to me, this is exactly what the infobox is good for. The instructions may need to include strong guidance on limiting size though. --[[User:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Orange">Siobhan</font>]][[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Blue">Hansa</font>]] 12:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. Perhaps rename to "Achievements" [[User:Bluap|Bluap]] 13:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 
===Field #13: Societies===
*''Mode:'' Insert scientific societies where they have risen to level of Fellow.
*''Reason:'' Provides a quick lookup for a item scientific biographical interest.
*'''Delete'''. Possibly not of great value/interest to the average reader. This is better off in the main article.[[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 23:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Mode and Reason. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 00:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Remove''' most scientists will belong to at least 5 societies, quite useless and duplicates categories tat exist for several major organizations.--[[User:Petaholmes|Peta]] 00:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Remove''', per bunix.--[[User:Ragesoss|ragesoss]] 00:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' This is one of those things where I wish there was more interest. I love this stuff, but I don't think there's enough of an audience for it to justify being in the infobox. --[[User:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Orange">Siobhan</font>]][[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Blue">Hansa</font>]] 12:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Remove'''. These can be mentioned in the text, and categories exist for fellows of most major scientific societies. We need to cut down many of these extraneous fields to make the template more streamlined. [[User:Bluap|Bluap]] 13:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 
===Field #14: Prizes===
*''Mode'': Insert notable prizes and medals
*''Reason:'' Provides a quick lookup for a item scientific biographical interest.
*'''Delete'''. Possibly not of great value/interest to the average reader. This is better off in the main article. The average reader probably is only aware of the 'Nobel prize' and something of this magnitude can be indicated in the Footnote field, perhaps. [[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 23:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per Mode and Reason. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 00:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', major prizes have categories.--[[User:Petaholmes|Peta]] 00:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Remove''', per bunix.--[[User:Ragesoss|ragesoss]] 00:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' I think non-science readers are more interested in prizes that are well known in the mainstream - the sorts of things that get into mainstream papers - than they are in institutions and doctoral advisors. For someone who isn't that familiar with the science world, this is a key piece of information. --[[User:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Orange">Siobhan</font>]][[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Blue">Hansa</font>]] 12:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Remove''' Having these in the infobox doesn't really provide much additional benefit, and we need to streamline the template. Perhaps reserve to Nobel Prize equivalents, but these would be mentioned in the opening couple of sentences of the article anyway. [[User:Bluap|Bluap]] 13:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 
===Field #15: Spouse===
*''Mode'': Insert spouse(s) and year(s) of marriage
*''Reason:'' There is an intense public demand to see the human side of the scientist, which is part of the human story of necessity in any biography. This field provides a quick lookup of information normally hard to find.
*'''Keep'''. Important for reader article 'navigation' and demanded by public.[[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 23:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per above. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 00:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Remove''' demanded by what public? Should be in the body of the text, multiple spouses bloat the box.--[[User:Petaholmes|Peta]] 00:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Remove'''. This is primarily important ''in context'', not free-floating.--[[User:Ragesoss|ragesoss]] 00:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Remove''' per Peta. - [[User:Samsara|{{{2|Samsara}}}]] ([[User talk:Samsara|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Samsara|contribs]]) 08:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
:::'''Response.''' The public wants to see the human side in any biography. This is significant. Zsa Zsa Gabor was not a scientist, and so far in 100 articles we have never encountered more than 3 spouses (and even that was rare). There is no significant bloat here.[[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 09:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Weak delete''' Not against the field, I agree with the rationale, just don't want the box to be too large.--[[User:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Orange">Siobhan</font>]][[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Blue">Hansa</font>]] 12:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Remove''' How many scientists have wives with wikipedia articles? The only reason I can think of for keeping this field is that its in the main Biography template. [[User:Bluap|Bluap]] 13:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 
===Field #16: Children===
*''Mode'': Insert names of children
*''Reason:'' There is an intense public demand to see the human side of the scientist, which is part of the human story of necessity in any biography. This field provides a quick lookup of information normally hard to find.
*'''Keep'''. Important for reader article 'navigation' and demanded by public.[[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 23:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per above. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 00:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Remove''' this is something for the text. Not relevant to an infobox unless the child is significantly notable to have an article.--[[User:Petaholmes|Peta]] 00:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
**'''Keep''' for that reason. Again, this should be weighed by the editors. Field will be useful if children notable. - [[User:Samsara|{{{2|Samsara}}}]] ([[User talk:Samsara|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Samsara|contribs]]) 08:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Remove'''. Simply names and numbers will convey ''no'' important information to the reader.--[[User:Ragesoss|ragesoss]] 00:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
::'''Response.''' As with all infobox entries they act as an entré to entice the reader to read the artcle. Seeing the names of the children act as mental "place holders" for when reading the article. [[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 10:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' There's too much else that's more important. --[[User:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Orange">Siobhan</font>]][[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Blue">Hansa</font>]] 12:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong delete'''. These aren't even in the main Biography template. Multiple children simply bloat the infobox. [[User:Bluap|Bluap]] 13:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 
===Field #17: Religion===
*''Mode'': Insert religious belief system/affiliation
*''Reason:'' There is an intense public demand to see the human side of the scientist and the scientist's religious belief system (if any), which is part of the human story of necessity in any biography. This field provides a quick lookup of information normally hard to find.
*'''Keep'''. Normally hard to otherwise find and of significant public interest.[[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 23:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per above. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 00:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' categories cover this, there is also an issues with biographies of living people and verification of their religious beliefs.--[[User:Petaholmes|Peta]] 00:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
**'''Neutral'''. If verification is a problem, field should be left blank. - [[User:Samsara|{{{2|Samsara}}}]] ([[User talk:Samsara|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Samsara|contribs]]) 08:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Too much other stuff is more important. Also, the reality of wikipedia is that this becomes a lightning rod for POV pushing and unverified claims. Until that settles down I'd prefer it not be included. --[[User:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Orange">Siobhan</font>]][[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Blue">Hansa</font>]] 12:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong delete''' Largely irrelevant to their scientific achievement. [[User:Bluap|Bluap]] 13:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
::'''Response.''' Don't forget this is a biography. This means looking at the person as a human as well as a scientist. The public are intensely interested in (say) Einstein's lovers, wives, children and religious position. This is all good stuff for a good human story. The science is only part of the story. [[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 14:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 
===Field #18: Erdos Number===
*''Mode:'' Insert Erdos number
*''Reason:'' Provides one measure of 20th century influence. Influential 20th century scientists usually have a low Erdos number. Probably will get more and more popular, so better to include now to predict future public demand.
*'''Delete'''. Possibily too esoteric. [[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 23:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' if this does have reasonably widespread recognition. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 00:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''---[[User:Petaholmes|Peta]] 00:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Remove''' - no way.--[[User:Ragesoss|ragesoss]] 00:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. Important in emergent fields across the social sciences (complexity theory, etc.), as well as pop-culture interest. If you delete it, a lot of painstakingly compiled data will be missing. I really don't think removing the number would improve the article in any way. '''[[User:Omphaloscope|Omphaloscope]]''' ''[[User_talk:Omphaloscope|talk]]'' 03:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Remove'''. This one really is too serendipitous. - [[User:Samsara|{{{2|Samsara}}}]] ([[User talk:Samsara|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Samsara|contribs]]) 08:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Trivia. Also, interest is limited to a pretty niche audience, which (in my opinion) is not what an infobox should be catering to. --[[User:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Orange">Siobhan</font>]][[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Blue">Hansa</font>]] 12:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Weak Remove''' [[User:Bluap|Bluap]] 13:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 
===Field #19: Handidness===
*''Mode:'' Insert whether left or right handed or ambidextrous
*''Reason:'' There is public interest in the relationship between left-handedness and mathematical ability. Provides quick visible lookup of information that is normally hard to find.
*'''Keep.''' This is fascinating to do something a little different sometimes and not be too conservative. Wikipedia is more sexy than Britannica :-) [[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 23:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Not key information. Should be in the text if relevant. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 00:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' trivial.--[[User:Petaholmes|Peta]] 00:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Remove''' - this implicitly places undue weight on the supposed relationships between handedness and cognitive abilities.--[[User:Ragesoss|ragesoss]] 00:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Remove'''. This *may* deserve an article in its own right, which could include a list of well-known right- vs. left-handed people. Inclusion in a template in this manner corresponds to a sample size of 1, not informative. - [[User:Samsara|{{{2|Samsara}}}]] ([[User talk:Samsara|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Samsara|contribs]]) 08:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' At best this is trivia. At worst, given the lack of uncontroversial, well accepted scientific theories about handedness and genius, this is OR and POV pushing. I'm very strongly against it's inclusion. --[[User:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Orange">Siobhan</font>]][[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Blue">Hansa</font>]] 12:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong remove''' !!!
 
===Field #20: Webpage===
*''Mode:'' Insert a homepage (if alive) or a key informative website (if now dead)
*''Reason:'' Useful quick link.
*'''Keep.''' This is pretty standard across all people infoboxes.[[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 23:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' if standard. Otherwise external links covers it. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 00:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' not included in any people infoboxes that I can think of, works fine in the obvious external links section.--[[User:Petaholmes|Peta]] 00:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Remove''' - this belongs in external links.--[[User:Ragesoss|ragesoss]] 00:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Remove'''. Prefer external links. - [[User:Samsara|{{{2|Samsara}}}]] ([[User talk:Samsara|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Samsara|contribs]]) 08:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
::'''Response'''. Many other "people infoboxes" appear to have this field. It keeps the box self-contained and provides a quick link to the reader. It's worth keeping. People don't always want to look at the article....they want to go straight to the infobox and click on links there.
*'''Delete''' I went through the templates at [[Wikipedia:Infobox_templates#People|Infobox templates, People]] and found only two had a website field. Since there is a place to put this in external links that is standard on every page ''and'' it's not standard in bio infoboxes, I'm not in favor on keeping. --[[User:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Orange">Siobhan</font>]][[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Blue">Hansa</font>]] 12:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
* '''Remove''' These can be listed elsewhere in the article. Having it in the infobox is unnecessary. [[User:Bluap|Bluap]] 13:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
::'''Comment.''' An infobox is like a kitchen pantry of goodies. There's no point having some goodies in the garage. They need to be centralised in the pantry, otherwise it slows you down when you are cooking dinner.[[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 14:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 
===Field #21: Footnotes===
*''Mode:'' Insert any extra details here. Idea is not to populate this field very often. Only use in special cases where some special thing merits addition.
*''Reason:'' Useful for a quick explanation if there is something out of the ordinary.
*'''Keep.''' This is pretty standard across all people infoboxes.[[User:Bunzil|bunix]] 23:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per above. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 00:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Have seen it used to great affect on articles. --[[User:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Orange">Siobhan</font>]][[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|<font color="Blue">Hansa</font>]] 12:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' [[User:Bluap|Bluap]] 13:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_scientist"