Misplaced Pages

Template talk:Infobox scientist: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 11:51, 25 October 2023 editGhostInTheMachine (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers87,057 edits →Influences/influenced: confused← Previous edit Revision as of 10:25, 26 October 2023 edit undoPrimefac (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators209,994 edits →Remove? Keep?: reNext edit →
Line 91: Line 91:


The parameters were removed, all uses cleaned up and then the parameters were restored. What is the plan? — ] <sup>]</sup> 11:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC) The parameters were removed, all uses cleaned up and then the parameters were restored. What is the plan? — ] <sup>]</sup> 11:51, 25 October 2023 (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. ] (]) 10:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


== Add Google Scholar Entry == == Add Google Scholar Entry ==

Revision as of 10:25, 26 October 2023

Template:Infobox scientist is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.

Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.


This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Infobox scientist template.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 4 months 
This template does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconBiography: Science and Academia
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by the science and academia work group.
WikiProject iconHistory of Science
WikiProject iconThis template is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the template attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science
WikiProject iconScience
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience
WikiProject iconPhysics: History
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
This template is supported by History Taskforce.
WikiProject iconPlants
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant
WikiProject iconInfoboxes
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Infoboxes on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes
Articles for deletionThis template was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
  • No consensus to merge, 2020 March 19, see discussion.
  • No consensus, 2006 September 8, see discussion.

Using template wrapper

This template currently calls Template:Infobox person manually. For every parameter that is desired, an editor needs to:

I propose that we can enable all parameters currently Template:Infobox person for this while simplifying the code for the template, by using Module:Template wrapper (currently in the sandbox). This proposed change does not alter existing infoboxes: the appearance, warning messages, and error tracking categories remain the same. It just enables any parameter in Template:Infobox person to be used, with correct error checking. Further, if a parameter gets added to Template:Infobox person in the future, it will be inherited by Template:Infobox scientist without more editor intervention. The information box at the top of Template:Infobox scientist/doc will be updated to tell editors that any Infobox person parameter works.

What do editors think of this proposal? — hike395 (talk) 10:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

 Implemented --- no objections after 7 days. — hike395 (talk) 10:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Request to add a "Notable works" parameter

I request that a Notable works parameter be added to separate a subject's publications from being parsed into the "Known For" parameter. GuardianH (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Influences/influenced

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 discussion there. Artem.G (talk) 20:01, 13 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. --Jähmefyysikko (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2023 (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. 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.--ReyHahn (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Examples of usage (feel free to add more under here):
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? 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. 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. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
another examples are Newton and von Neumann. Artem.G (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment. The removal of the field from {{infobox philosopher}} 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. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2023 (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. – Aza24 (talk) 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. - car chasm (talk) 18:23, 15 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. Athel cb (talk) 13:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

minus 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. — hike395 (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Influences/influenced -- abuse of power

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).

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. Athel cb (talk) 10:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The source lines can be easily restored from history, no spite intended. I have reverted the edit to the template, and will let someone else implement the consensus. @Primefac: take note. — 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. 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. Athel cb (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
with no attempt to broaden the discussion beyond the eight or so editors who voted Not true, it was broadcasted on related Wikiprojects. See diffs. 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.) 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 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 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). 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 {{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. — 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. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Remove? Keep?

The parameters were removed, all uses cleaned up and then the parameters were restored. What is the plan? — GhostInTheMachine 11:51, 25 October 2023 (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. Primefac (talk) 10:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Add Google Scholar Entry

I suggest adding an entry that would look a bit like (for Einstein)

Google Scholar H-factor 125

where the "H-factor" would be automatically updated from Google Scholar. (I am not sure how to do that in whatever markup is used within WP, but it should be possible.) Ldm1954 (talk) 11:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no way to automatically scrape an external website from en WP (or the other language WPs). From what I've seen, someone needs to set up a scraping/importation script into Wikidata, then it can be gotten from there. Unfortunately, h-index is a dynamic quantity, so it's probably not appropriate for infrequent importation. (There are also well-known issues with h-index, which makes it somewhat problematic to enshrine into an infobox).
However, a link to a scientist's Google Scholar page seems like it could be very useful. What do other editors think? — hike395 (talk) 17:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
For reference there is a 2016 page on stack exchange here. You would just cron it weekly. Concerning issues, I am not excited by the paper you mention. There are others, but it is way better than nothing. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
There is no way to run a cron job within Misplaced Pages. I'm certainly not going to import anything into Wikidata myself: you are certainly welcome to ask for a bot if we get consensus.
Given Misplaced Pages's influence, I would claim that doing nothing is better than including a controversial metric in a prominent infobox. — hike395 (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
I have not yet formed an opinion, but Google Scholar is already included (although almost hidden) in the template {{Authority control}} that is placed at the bottom of the page. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Good point! The question is: would readers find a list of a scientist's papers useful enough to link in the infobox? — hike395 (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Categories:
Template talk:Infobox scientist: Difference between revisions Add topic