This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Infobox saint. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Melchoir, I just don't see what you're talking about. What's the problem? But now that I look around I see that numerous infoboxes omit a newline in that place; I have to assume some kind of widespread browser non-conformance. What browser are you using? TCC(talk)(contribs)04:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
If a template includes an extra newline at the end, and an article includes an extra newline after the template, then Mediawiki puts those newlines together and forces a paragraph break where neither editor intended. In the case of an infobox, that creates a big white strip between the title and the introduction, and the introduction is thrown out of alignment with the top of the infobox. I've seen it in Safari and Camino, and I assume that it's server-sided and universal. We can run tests if you really insist.
Now, ideally no one would use more newlines than they have to. In practice, it's easier and less painful to regulate the bottom of a single template, whose code is already esoteric, obscure, and largely static; than it is to regulate the tops of a hundred articles, whose code is highly visible, needs to be easy to read and edit, and gets screwed up on a daily basis. Therefore we don't put extra newlines in infoboxes. If you find any others, please fix them! Melchoir04:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
No, it's certainly a rendering issue. I just tried it out in my sandbox, and cannot duplicate the effect in either Firefox or IE. But we obviously have to accomodate it, and I hadn't even looked at Category:Infobox templates before where it says to avoid this. TCC(talk)(contribs)06:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, to be fair, I seem to have been the first to add an explicit warning to Category:Infobox templates in this edit back in May. But I'm sure that I saw such a warning elsewhere before, and it was already a common practice. So, you don't get a difference between [1] and [2]? Melchoir06:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
That's surprising. Regardless of the version of that test article, they're both referencing the current copy of the template in my sandbox, which has the newline. They should look identical. Also, at my preferred browser width the bottom of the template occurs at a section break, which would tend to conceal the problem if it existed. However, the current version cuts some material out of the template so that its bottom occurs in the middle of a paragraph, and it transcludes the current "production" template which lacks the newline. [3] The previous version [4] transcludes my sandbox copy, which has the newline. These also look identical to me, but if the problem is visible to you they should look different. TCC(talk)(contribs)07:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
No, your links look the same, because in order to cause the breakage you have to make two mistakes at the same time. In the template, you have to write
end code of bad infobox
<noinclude>
instead of
end code of good infobox<noinclude>
and in the article, you have to write
{{bad infobox}}
'''Test''' is a test...
instead of
{{bad infobox}}
'''Test''' is a test...
And the breakage doesn't occur at the bottom of the displayed infobox; it occurs at the top of the article, which is just after the infobox in the code. You're saying that my two links have the exact same spacing above the line "Saint John (Maximovitch) of Shanghai and San Francisco was a noted"? This is what I get:
Actually, it occurs to me that I named those images badly. They both transclude the same template, which as you point out contains the extra newline. It's the article code that's different. The point is that something happens. Melchoir18:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, that I do, but I don't think of this as breakage really. When I notice it I just remove the extra newline after the template transclusion. TCC(talk)(contribs)19:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
That works too, but it makes the start of the article's lead section a little harder to locate within the code. Melchoir19:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Prayer
I would suggest that the section for a "prayer by the saint, or a characteristic prayer to the saint" should be removed. Having this section makes editors think it needs filling and often this means that an arbitrary prayer attributed to the saint is given undue prominence by being included in the infobox. This is causing unnecessary friction in a number of articles where some editors are adding prayers (for the good reason that there is a space in the infobox to do so) and others are removing them (for the equally good reason that it makes it look like wikipedia is actually encouraging veneration of the saint rather than merely reporting facts).
There are prayers specifically prescribed by church authorities to be used in veneration of particular saints but these can very easily be mentioned in the article text if needed, as can any particularly notable prayers penned by the saints themselves. Putting it in the main text gives more scope for explaining context as well. --Spondoolicks14:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
If there's a choice of prayers, why highlight one by putting it in the box? It makes it look like it's one of the fundamental pieces of info about the subject like name, DOB, etc. As Atilios tried to say in the John Bosco talk page, it would be strange to have a random selection of a poet's work picked out and placed in the infobox and it seems to me to be the same here. Anything you want to achieve by putting a prayer in the infobox can be achieved better by putting it in the text and adding more information. --Spondoolicks18:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I put this into the template because it existed in the original infobox. There was actually an extended discussion of this on the project talk page, whether to include it in the infobox or not, that predated the creation of the template. The consensus (more or less) was that they were OK to include since they were illustrative of either the saint's spirituality or of how a faith community venerates the saint, but that to be useful for either purpose it must be attributed. This is why it does not display if the attribution field is not filled in.
I have come to be of two minds on the subject and therefore don't feel strongly about it either way. Perhaps it would be worth inviting wider participation in the discussion by re-opening it on the project talk page. TCC(talk)(contribs)21:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I just had a look back at the discussion you mentioned (in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Saints/Archive3) and much of it seemed to be about whether prayers should be included full-stop and I don't think the specific problems of having them in the infobox were sufficiently addressed. I'm copying this discussion to the project talk page to carry on there (and I hope it doesn't get as messy as last time). --Spondoolicks21:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Birth and death - Syntax bug
Several saints, including several of the Twelve Apostles, have only the country where they were born or died listed in their infobox. The current syntax of the infobox forces a comma before their country names, apparently expecting a city to be entered. See Bartholomew the Apostle. MrZaiustalk22:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I should add that the birth and death dates are clearly listed in the documentation as required parameters, so if you don't add something there you can expect odd behavior. You could put "Unknown date" in for it and that should work OK. But it's worth reconsidering whether they should be required, since there are many saints for whom these dates are not known. TCC(talk)(contribs)06:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there any chance of shrinking the default size of the entire infobox (without picture) by 50 pixels or so, and perhaps making the text (aside from the title) smaller? Also, 290px as the default image size fills half the page, and definitely takes the focus off the text, be it the main text or the infobox text, rather than being an additional visual aid. Aren't most others somewhere around 200px? I'm not sure what other differences there are, but this infobox seems generally huge, in comparison to others. -Bbik★22:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The image size was chosen to fill the available width. If in most cases that leaves it too long it can be decreased of course, but in the meantime feel free to explicitly set the size to 200px using the imagesize parameter anywhere you feel the image is too big.
The infobox itself is 300px wide, which seems middlin' based on a random survey of other infoboxes. If you like, we can try defining it in terms of em units, which will make it vary by the default font size. TCC(talk)(contribs)00:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I think I'm in slightly over my head, here. Default font size according to what? Wikipedia settings? Infobox settings (if it even has a default)? Individual computer settings? And if this box isn't one of the bigger ones, I guess I've just never come across bigger ones, or never noticed (Perhaps they didn't feel as big, even if they were? Don't know.).
Let me try with an example, though, to make sure I'm actually saying what I think I'm saying. MishaPan added the infobox to Lazar of Serbia earlier, and set the picture size at 250px. Because I'm used to seeing 200px in infoboxes, and because it felt like it overshadowed the text at that size, I shrunk it down to 200px, but after saving, I now see why it was 250px before -- even with the picture smaller, the infobox remains big enough for the larger thumbnail, rather than resizing itself. It's this wasteful extra space that prompted me to ask about shrinking the entire (pictureless) infobox a bit (nothing to do with the length of anything, just the width).
As for the default size of the image, when considered in relation to the infobox size, the 290px does make sense, even though I do still feel that's a bit large. However, seeing as it is possible to set the size to something smaller, that's a minor issue. It's mostly the white space that seems to need fixing. -Bbik★21:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
My apologies; I just saw your reply.
Default font size is based on a combination of your browser settings and the Wikipedia skin you're using. Your browser knows how to handle ems based on the information it has when it renders the page.
The thing about the 290px width is that the images' aspect ratio is preserved, which means it may become disproportionately high for either the infobox or the remainder of the page. After thinking about it, I'm inclined to shrink the default size to 250px.
Again, some infoboxes are wider and some are narrower. 300px seems about average. If you know of an example that looks more like what you want to see, please point me to it. But defining the width in terms of the font may fix your problems. If you use a smaller font size, the box will certainly seem too wide at a fixed size in pixels. TCC(talk)(contribs)20:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain all my font size stuff is the standard that came with Firefox, or at least, I don't remember changing that. And I know Wikipedia is the default skin, so I don't think either of those are causing problems with the display.
The first example that comes to mind is {{Infobox Biography}}, I'm sure I could quickly find a few more narrow ones if you'd like. (Though actually, clicking through a few pages it looks like it has the same white space issue I'm complaining about here, it's just aligned slightly differently and smaller in general so doesn't seem as obtrusive. Perhaps simply narrowing the right info column, rather than the infobox as a whole, would do the trick?)
And just out of curiousity, why is the aspect ratio preserved at 290px, but not smaller? Or is that not what you meant? -Bbik★22:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
The aspect ratio of images is preserved at any width. But that means that an image with a smaller width also takes up less vertical space. I was talking about why you might want the image to be smaller by default even if the infobox was left at the same size.
I doubt you'll find many infoboxes narrower than 250px. Any smaller than than is usually too narrow to be useful. But I note that many are specified in ems, so let's see if that helps.
Ah, that makes more sense. I was a bit confused how aspect ratios wouldn't be preserved, when images change size in both dimensions, rather than just one.
A 250px infobox would probably be fine, even, it's the 300px that seems huge. Images are frequently 250px and those are ok, so the infobox should be fine at that size too. If the ems affect how that all works, though, and it's easier to work with, sure, why not!
The columns aren't given some sort of range or specific width in the code? Would have thought it'd be something like that, since sometimes forcing a line break makes the column, and thereby the whole infobox, narrower (but not with this box, already tried that). -Bbik★00:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Another one I just came across, in case you want/need another as reference, {{Infobox Company}} has a 250px image for Cirque du Soleil, and that seems to work alright, too. Admittedly, that image is a lot of white space, which makes it seem smaller, but perhaps the box has some helpful code. -Bbik★22:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
(undent) That box is 23em wide. Since yesterday, the Saints box has been 25em wide. An em is the width of a capital letter M in the font of the current style. I think the slight extra width here is justified by the relatively large amount of text this box typically includes. The image has been at 250px by default since then as well.
Just out of curiosity, what's your monitor resolution? I'm having real difficulty seeing how it could possibly be too wide at this point. TCC(talk)(contribs)23:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The size is fine now, sorry. I haven't had much time these past couple days, so haven't had a chance to keep up with changes; I added that extra link because I noticed it while looking for something else, and wasn't sure if you'd need it (since I hadn't seen you'd already updated the code). -Bbik★21:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Beatifiedby =/= Beatified by
I suggest that a simple space ( ) should be added before the word "by" in the "beatified" section to avoid any troubles.
In some articles the word "by" looks quite unusual as seen right after the word "Rome" in Frei Galvão's beatified-by section. It looks like "Romeby" rather than "Rome".
It also looks funny here (Germanyby), here (1923by), here (1988by) and finally, here (1995by).
Does anyone concur with the changes?
I had dreadful trouble putting an image into the infobox in Matt Talbot. Just doing what I was told gave me plain text (Image:Talbot). I have managed to show the image by putting a "]]" after the file name, but the text "center]]" appears beside it (I did not specify center anywhere). If I try to specify an image size, that also appears in text only. I really don't think it's me. Scolaire20:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for reporting that. It could have been worked around by either eliminating the blank "imagesize" parameter or assigning a value to it. For some reason, it was acting as if there was an invalid value there. I'm not sure why. The template is fixed now. TCC(talk)(contribs)22:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
It isn't really a self-reference. The portals are meant to giove readers a broader scope on the subject. The editor who made this edit shouldn't have done so without discussing it first. The portal was placed on the boc to help simplify the articles. That edit needs to be reversed. Philly jawn (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Philly jawn. The Portal in this case is less a message board for an internal Wikipedia group and more of an information bank for things like a calendar of saints, chronological list of saints and blesseds, list of canonizations, etc. --Polylerus (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Agreed with Secisek and Polylerus. In this case, the portal is a single "page" which provides additional information dealing with the subject of the template. Such links are fairly common among the older WikiProjects. John Carter (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}
If you look at the article on John the Baptist for instance, there is a wide gap in the infobox between the image and the caption sentence underneath it. There doesn't need to be and it would look more tidy if there was no gap. Please remove the gap. - Yorkshirian (talk) 10:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
It is the usual that parameters use lower-case (well normal case - ISBN should be caps and Köchel would be capitialised). Allowing both seems user friendly, but unless it were done universally it would encourage editors to use syntax which wonlt work and they might not spot. RichFarmbrough, 13:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC).
Currently feast is a required parameter, and it shouldn't be. If the feast is omitted now an extra title appears. Letuño (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I added an optional quote parameter to the template documentation, but apparently it needs an admin to actually add it to the template. Assuming that this is an ok addition, can an admin give their imprimatur? See Symeon the New Theologian for an example of a quote that has been added to the infobox (although it isn't showing up on the live page yet, because the template here hasn't been changed). First Light (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Edit request 2
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Trying again - I would like to have a new optional parameter added, for a quote from the person. See Symeon the New Theologian, where I added a "quote = "...." (though it doesn't display currently). I think this option would add value to the infobox. Thanks, First Light (talk) 04:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
p.s. I've seen this somewhere in another bio infobox, but can't remember where it was. First Light (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Not done: It seems to me that in most cases it would be difficult to find one quote that is appropriately "representative" of the person to justify including it in the infobox, and at the same time would open things up to edit warring over which quote to arbitrarily choose. If you really want this to happen, try getting a strong consensus for it from WikiProject Christianity and/or WikiProject Saints. Anomie⚔16:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response and the suggestion. I'll pass on taking this further, seeing as how difficult it is to get consensus on WP sometimes even for non-controversial new ideas. First Light (talk) 02:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Home_town and residence
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The Template:Infobox person has provision for home_town= and residence= parameters. We need those in this template also. Just because someone is "of" a certain place does not necessarily mean the person was born there. Case in point: Jesus of Nazareth, but birth_place=Bethlehem, and his change of residence=Capernaum, after his former neighbours sought to kill him. It is probably not a good idea to use "birth_place=" where we don't know for sure if the place a person is associated with is also the place of birth. Thanks. —Telpardec TALK 23:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. There is a display problem. The 2 additions (hometown and residence) need their own labels in the left column between birth place and death place. Thanks. —Telpardec TALK 06:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
You are all doing such a wonderful job on this template, I really want to extend my gratitude! Again, Thank You and God Bless!! Twillisjr (talk) 10:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Date Hyperlink
Hello, I was reviewing "Feast of Guardian Angels" and "Saint Cecilia" article pages, and have generated a request. Is it possible to have Saint Cecilia's "November 22" Feast Day made into a hyperlink via the template? It is a hyperlink on the template for "holiday" on other pages. It is my belief that hyperlinks with dates are more suitable for Saint Feasts. Thank you, and God Bless! Twillisjr (talk) 09:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Just noticed, it was repaired when information placed within the infobox out of order was repaired. Please see "View History" with line, "Patron saint of musicians and church music" as other Saint infoboxes may be effected from similar errors. Again, Thank You, and God Bless! Twillisjr (talk) 11:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Twillisjr it will only autolink if there is an article that exactly matches the input. the more robust way is to manually specify the link, i.e. | feast_day = [[February 3]] (Roman Catholic). Frietjes (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the response Frietjes, I was simply hoping something on the back-end of this template could do it automatically for (parenthesis) :) Twillisjr (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
autolinking is generally bad, since it can have unintended side effects. I would support removing the autolinking feature completely. Frietjes (talk) 18:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Infobox Christian Leader
I am not sure if it is accurate, but I recently learned that Saint Jude had a child. If this is true, it is likely that a "|children" section should potentially exist on the "Saint Infobox" article infobox. Anyone else agree or know if this is accurate? I also believe that a |parents section should be added, as his parents were "Clopas and Mary of Clopas, with St. Peter's page having more information, it should be known, anyone else agree/disagree? Twillisjr (talk) 12:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
WP:PBUH and this [Thomas_Aquinas] (and predumably other) applications of this info box?
I am surprised that this field is not available in this template, as it is in Template: Infobox person. Given how many saints are members of religious communities who have changed their names, this should be available in the infobox. Can someone add it? Daniel the Monk (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
"Honoured in" or "honored in" is bound to spark perpetual warfare between proponents of the British and American spelling - besides, venerate is the more appropriate word under any circumstance ("treat with respect, honour;")
I recommend adding a field named "Monastic vows", for monastic saints. This would be the date of their tonsure, either as a monk, to the Small Schema, Great Schema (Schemamonk) or Hieromonk. The Polish Wikipedia Infobox Template for saints, has this category, called "vows" (Śluby zakonne)- https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szablon:Duchowny_infobox Similarly, there should be a fields for "Ordained to Deaconate", "Ordained to Priesthood", "Consecrated Bishop". These dates are important for such saints, and it would be appropriate to include these (or similar) fields as options in the template. Please include, thank-you. ΙΣΧΣΝΙΚΑ-888 (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
