Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carcharoth (talk | contribs) at 01:10, 26 October 2006 (update). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Blank Syntax

{{Infobox Writer
| name        = 
| image       = 
| imagesize   = 
| caption     = 
| pseudonym   = 
| birth_date  = 
| birth_place = 
| death_date  = 
| death_place = 
| occupation  = 
| nationality = 
| period      = 
| genre       = 
| subject     = 
| movement    = 
| magnum_opus = 
| influences  = 
| influenced  = 
| website     = 
| footnotes   = 
}}

Similar Template

There is a similar template at Template:Author. Carcharoth 13:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I find the other template a bit lacking. -- LGagnon 15:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. But what should be done about it? It falls under the WikiProject Books purview, so I'll comment there. Carcharoth 19:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• In the case of Harper Lee, the implementation provides only 5 pieces of information, Four of which are covered more effectively by the opening sentence of the article. (And all of which are presented before one makes it halfway through the second sentence). In other cases, the infobox might be a nice frame for the author's photograph, but where none is available, I fail to see the point. --Dystopos 01:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Writing Period

Perhaps the definition of "period" should be more related to when the writing was actually done rather than published. It is particularly non intuitive with works that were published posthumously. Also with the publishing definition this window can, in principle, be extended every time some lost essay or collection of letters is found and published. --WCVanHorne 04:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

screenwriter

could this template be used on a screenwriters page? -- 216.232.214.23

I assume it could. It's meant to be very open for any type of writer. -- LGagnon 15:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Magnum Opus

This field is inherently POV; even in instances where we can find a reliable source to call one specific work by a writer his "magnum opus" or "greatest work," it will usually be possible to find another source to counter it. I suggest we remove the field. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe just reduce it to "Major work(s)"? This allows more than one book to be listed, or maybe, even better, just a link called "bibliography" to allow people to jump to the section where all an author's books are listed. Carcharoth 06:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with either of those solutions. Any objections? | Mr. Darcy talk 13:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

There are about 380 pages using this template, so the best thing to do, I think, is to remove magnum opus from places where you disagree with its use (you can tweak the template to detect the pages using the magnum opus field), and then change the magnum opus field to major works. The bibliography link would be a totally new parameter, and to kickstart that, someone will need to find a new articles with good bibliographical sections and use the field to link to them. I'm not brilliant with template coding, so hopefully someone else can do this sort of thing. Carcharoth 14:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

you can tweak the template to detect the pages using the magnum opus field OK, I'll bite: how do I do that? Sounds like a useful thing to know how to do. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it is as simple as changing the current link in the title of the field. At the moment, that points to magnum opus. If you changed that to something unique, like 425164361, and then waited several weeks for the "whatlinkshere" index to be updated, then you could see what links to that link you added. That's the theory. In practice, you have to do this in such a way that the reader doesn't notice. One thing people sometimes do is put a category tag in the template, so if the magnum opus field is used, the page is added to a category like "Pages using the magnum opus field in the Infobox Writer template". But that too disrupts the encyclopedia, as this category tag will appear at the bottom of the page. I'm sure there are much better tricks than the ones I mentioned above, and there is a really simple way as well. Click on "what links here" for the template (as I said before, around 380 pages. Then click on "what links here" for magnum opus (453 links). Then compare the two lists. The ones that appear in both lists are the ones you are after. There will be some pages where "magnum opus" is linked in the main text but not used in the template, but those can be manually weeded out. But the category idea is best. And that can be done without even creating the category. When you go to edit the category red-link, it will give you the list. You can then quickly copy the list, cancel the category creation, and revert the edit to the template. Hang on a mo. Carcharoth 16:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Category:Magnum opus writers is there now. And the category tag is at the bottom of George Orwell and J. R. R. Tolkien, two authors whose Infoboxes I know use the magnum opus field. But the category isn't populating. There is probably a reason why, but I don't know. I'll wait a bit (maybe someone will come along and explain what has happened), and then remove the category tag and put the category up for speedy deletion, as it is a bit of a silly category really. Carcharoth 16:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hang on. The category is populating now. Alex Haley has appeared in it (and now Jim Butcher). I guess there is a job queue somewhere that needs to run first. I'm a bit worried now, as I think I should have asked someone about this first. I guess it can't do too much harm though. I hope. Carcharoth 16:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

We'll clean it up. There are over 200 authors in that category now. Before either of us tries to tackle some of them - and I may post a note at the Pump to look for volunteers - we need to agree on what we're altering those entries to read. "Bibliography", with a link to the #Bibliography section? | Mr. Darcy talk 18:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit uneasy about leaving things in this state (I will be away over the weekend). This was only meant to be temporary, and the category tag really shouldn't be at the bottom of all those pages. With this in mind, I've turned that category into a list, and put it at User:Carcharoth/Magnum opus. Please feel free to copy or move that to wherever you think best. Carcharoth 22:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the magnum opus field from the master template; it doesn't seem to have broken anything, and in the absence of a viable replacement, we're better off without it. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The template still works, but you've removed the magnum opus infobox entry from hundreds of articles.I would have preferred the "major works" phrasing, as that is more vague and gives people less room to argue. ie. the parameter remains "magnum opus", but call it "major work(s)". I'll wait a bit though, and see if anyone turns up to object to what you've done. Carcharoth 01:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)