Template talk:Infobox Individual

I just realized from Cessair that you can't really see links in the title. I suppose it won't be that much of a problem, but I still wanted to point it out. Azes13 16:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It's possible to change the colour of the links and/or of the box backgrounds. However, I personally don't think we should be putting links in the title anyway. --Mantrid 17:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Righty...I tried to undo the revision (admittedly not something I've done before) and..it's hasn't put it back to what it was...it's kinda still mucked up, which sorta stuffs up a lot of the pages on here. Some setting it back would be helpful, thanks. --Tangerineduel 12:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Checked between the old infobox and the changed one...um why? There are quite a lot of infoboxes to change, why couldn't we just have a new one and an old one and slowly move over to the new one?
 * --Tangerineduel 12:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Other actor field
Might it be possible to have another "other actor" field for cases like Winston Churchill, in which another actor played the character, but not on TV or audio? (Actually, I'm not sure whether there are any other cases like Winston Churchill, but the formatting of the "main actor" field on that page is all messed up, and I don't know how best to fix it without altering the template — which I'd rather not do myself, as my templating ability is extremely limited.) —Josiah Rowe talk to me 03:49, May 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah: I just realized that this probably has to do with the ongoing conversion to SMW. Presumably this can be tweaked, if necessary, after all the other fixes have been made by the bot. —Josiah Rowe talk to me 03:43, May 15, 2012 (UTC)

Remove Automatic Link from "Main Actor"
I strongly recommend that the two bracket things in the "Species" and "Main Actor" boxes of the infobox, which automatically link anything you type in it, be removed because they mess the infobox up on numerous articles. TroopDude ☎  16:22, August 9, 2012 (UTC)

You're grossly exaggerating when you say "numerous" articles are negatively affected by automatic variable linkage. Only the tiniest fraction of articles have any sort of a problem with auto-linkage, and just about every one of these has a ready solution. This is especially true with the variable, since there are additional variables –  and  — which take care of additional actors.

The advantage of having self-linking variables is that we can then manipulate the data on each page with a far greater amount of subtlety. For instance, we can now find out with a simple statement:


 * which actors played Time Lords in stories involving the Fifth Doctor
 * which stories particular Sontarans made their only appearance in
 * which televised stories did not have Time Lords in them

...and a whole host of other fairly sophisticated questions that SMW allows us to ask.

This flexibility is more than worth the inconvenience of having to very occasionally think whether it's best to call a person a human or a werewolf because you can't use human-werewolf any more.

Remember, the vast majority of characters have very straightforward species and actor values. We shouldn't make programming decisions based upon the tiny fraction of articles where things aren't quite as straightforward. 06:10: Tue 21 Aug 2012

Issue with images in Monobook
When viewing an article in Monobook, this template automatically squishes all images horizontally. --Neumannz (Talk) 21:50, April 17, 2014 (UTC)