Template talk:Infobox scientist

Request

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

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

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

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

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

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

Using template wrapper

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

• Write a line of code that looks like |image={{{image|}}}
• Add a entry in the parameter list to Module:Check for unknown parameters

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 These fields trivialize the relationships among people; they're trivia for the sake of trivia. 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. --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):
  • 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? 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)

• Support removal per Aza24, who puts it well. Modest Genius ^talk 09:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Aza. ~~ 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:07, 25 September 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. — hike395 (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

• Is a bot tasked with clearing Category:Pages using infobox scientist with unknown parameters (1), or should I get busy? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 08:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

  As far as I know, there is no bot that is going to clean up either Category:Pages using infobox scientist with unknown parameters (1) or Category:Pages using infobox philosopher with unknown parameters (922). — hike395 (talk) 08:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

  There is. Now you know :-)

  Other than |influence*= params, are there any major ones that need cleaning up? Primefac (talk) 13:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, Primefac! |influence*= are the only ones that are clogging up those categories. — hike395 (talk) 04:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  K, I'll add this to my to-do list. Primefac (talk) 09:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)