Template talk:Infobox Christian leader/Archive 1

Infobox Christian leader/Archive 1
Papacy began	October 6, 1689
Papacy ended	February 1, 1691
Predecessor	Innocent XI
Successor	Innocent XII
Personal details
Born	Pietro Vito Ottoboni April 22, 1610
Died	February 1, 1691
Other popes named Alexander

Infobox changes

Well, Gerald, okay, but do you mind setting out your reasons for distinguishing the popes from just about every other type of person in Wikipedia? I'm not saying you shouldn't, just that I think you should give reasons so that interested editors can see where you are going with it.Grace Note 04:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gerald was just replacing older already existing summary boxes started by others on various articles on the popes with a sleeker, cleaner design. Click for an archived old version. Gerald's also making sure all the popes get the infoboxes instead of only a scattered handful, like there was before.

Also, there are several of us who don't think that it's "distinguishing" the popes in any special way when the Presidents of the United States, Presidents of the Philippines and several other such articles use the same infobox but use different designs. There's precedence for these boxes; that's why there hasn't been opposition to it for the longest time. --James Easton 05:09, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, James. I'm not having a go at Gerald or his work. The pope articles should all look the same, I agree. However, I have George W. Bush's page in another tab and his infobox is not headed with "President of the United States", nor is his name given in Latin. Nor does his father's, so that aspect of it still requires explanation.

And James, I should point out that the heading is new and does not have a precedent, which is why I'm discussing it with you here. There has been no opposition to it because it's new.Grace Note 05:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the offending text from the template for now.

Then you'll probably want to look over what other editors did with the Presidents of the Philippines. Examples: Ferdinand Marcos, Fidel V. Ramos, et al. --James Easton 05:52, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think those should be changed too but I don't really have the time. Unless the editors in question propose to change all articles on all heads of state to match, they really shouldn't do it in their pet areas. It doesn't add anything anyway, I reckon. What do you think?Grace Note 06:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Latin name

I don't pretty much care whether or not Latin is used or the office the person held was prominently displayed at the header of the infobox. You asked what my intentions were. Just to make my intentions clear with the new infobox, (1) I just wanted to make the infobox look nicer than it was and (2) add it to all the papal articles for consistency. The use of Latin was discussed at length by other Wikipedia editors somewhere else, I'm not sure where. You might want to discuss that decision with them.

I'm pretty much opposed to the use of Latin because it's sometimes redundant for most of the popes (i.e., English "Pope Pius XII" is Latin "Pius PP. XII"). I don't see the point of using both but it was already on the old infoboxes and that's why I added it originally to this new infobox. Eleassar777 noted that there was indeed a compromise to use it. All in all I pretty much don't care.

As a Wikipedia administrator, my only concern is that articles are aesthetically pleasing, have the basic information presented and whatever other information added is factually correct. I pretty much let concensus dictate design of infoboxes and photo layout. If they have concensus, I don't care. --Gerald Farinas 15:08, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's fine. I feel exactly the same. Thanks for explaining. Grace Note 16:48, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Design

I don't understand, though, Grace. Just because one box doesn't have a type of information doesn't mean that all should have it. I feel that the titles should stay on the top of the infoboxes. Now, we can start with the pope, and then move on to the other heads of state. We can't change them all at once. Leave the pope/president boxes as they were. Bratsche^{talk random} 22:48, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that it's a major change. I personally don't like it. I think it is a little bit silly, frankly. The page has the name of the person and the box itself says who the person is. The bottom line is that you have not extended it to other presidents etc., and I don't imagine you actually will either. It would be an enormous undertaking and you're not likely to get much help because you simply haven't made any good case for it. Still, I don't care enough about it to change it again.Grace Note 07:01, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But do keep talking. Convince me it's a good idea and I'll help do it! Sorry, I sounded a bit harsh and I didn't mean to.Grace Note 01:01, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea in cases where the title of the person is not in the article heading. For example, some person who didn't know who George Bush was, and just wanted his birthdates: He accesses the article, gets the basic/relevant information, and then notices that he was a president. Ok, so maybe that's not the best example, but you get the point.

Yes, I do but the first line says that or should. We should not necessarily treat our readers like idiots.Grace Note 02:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And if we agree, I plan to extend it to other infoboxes (not just the pope) if at least for the sake of universality. Bratsche^{talk random} 01:20, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

The Latin name is the official name of the Pope, not the English. You wouldn't translate a spanish name like José into John, would you? For that reason, the Latin should stay. Also, the Latin name was a previous agreement as Eleassar777 noted before. Bratsche^{talk random} 01:31, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Bratsche, we don't use "official names". How mad! Some places and people have the most astonishing "official names" (God forbid we should use the official name of Bangkok in a photo caption!), but what we use is the most commonly used name in English. In fact, we *do* translate names into English. Very much so! I think you should consult the page on naming conventions to help you understand how names are treated. We call Muenchen Munich, Roma Rome and we use transliterated names for characters such as the Buddha and Confucius (a Latin name, not even his Chinese name transliterated!)The Pope is commonly known in English by his English name. It's pure affectation to use the Latin name. We should not do it. Surely you are not suggesting that you will head all photos of heads of state with their full titles? The Queen's would run for half a page! Now, I'm not an edit warrior or anything like that, Bratsche, so I'm going to leave it at that. You can change the template back to reflect our policy or leave it as it is, as you choose.Grace Note 02:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You've got me there, Grace. Makes more sense now, especially with the example of a royal's name. I guess I've forgotten the conventions a little bit. We are in the English Wikipedia, after all. I'll rv the changes. Bratsche^{talk random} 02:53, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

For around the last 25 popes, the entire code is used, but starting at Pope Gregory XV I used the template including the latin name (does not show up, but in case you change your mind) could someone just check if everything is ok? --Astrowob 04:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I added the box for about 150 years more than the 250 years already there, and I intend to continue tommorrow if everything is ok with the template (much much faster than using the whole code) ;p --Astrowob 04:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know, I've removed those Latin names from all of the pope articles infoboxes. We can rest easy, now. Bratsche^{talk random} 23:12, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

What about including the Latin name in the text, after the English name? --Eleassar777 10:13, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can't see any reason not to, if it is an official title. It should not be bold though, I think.Grace Note 14:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are we talking about including the Latin name in the article text? Oh yeah, definitely include the Latin name, just not in the infobox :). Bratsche^{talk random} 20:28, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

I have already done it a few hours ago. However, I have had time to do this only for J.P. I and J.P. II --Eleassar777 21:06, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ed g2s changes

Changes made to the template by User:Ed g2s kinda whacked out the pope articles. They're not all uniform anymore. Could someone fix them, or revert the change until someone goes through all the articles to fix it? --James Easton 01:27, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Could you be a bit more specific than "whacked out", they look pretty uniform to me. ed g2s • talk 01:43, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I like this box, but it should include the position prior to being elected pope. For instance, it should say that JP2 was archbishop of Krakow, JP1 archbishop of Venice, etc. Just my $0.02. 01:29, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

More simple design?

Hey, let's not make big changes without discussing them, especially when someone has put a lot of work in. Let's talk about whether there should be a simpler or more ornate box and what's involved in fixing articles that use the template. I've reverted the template just for now but let's say ed2gs' template is on the table for discussion, yes? Grace Note 03:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gerald's version might be a touch ornate, but that's not too bad for a position that used to be crowned with a triple tiara. Personally, I'd vote for the old version, but I'm open to Ed's comments. Bratsche^{talk random} 04:05, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the work you've put in, but Wikipedia articles are not the place for people to express their CSS creativity. The point of having a stylesheet is to keep page appearences consistent. The system of someone picking a style at random because they created the box is going to lead to a lot of inconsistency within the project. From what I can tell there was no in-depth discussion of how a pope infobox should look before you created it. I correct infoboxes to the in-house styling all the time, it's just routine maintenance. ed g2s • talk 13:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Bear in mind: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Don.27t_get_fancy. ed g2s • talk 13:23, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I actually think it's rather elegant and not too fancy. TheCoffee

I agree, but it still needs to use to stylesheet, not inline custom styles. A user should be able to come along and edit his monobook.css to make, for example, all the infoboxes green, or all bold text italic. The more we use inline style, the less this is possible - it's simply a case of separating appearance from semantics. ed g2s • talk 18:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then please post explicit instructions for Gerald, so that he knows where to go to make changes and what process you think he ought to follow to make them. Simply reverting his work is not helpful but showing him the way you think is best would be. Grace Note 22:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, the current design is a bit ugly; it's also not at all uniform with the vast majority of other infoboxes. I was in the process of changing it (as ed_g2s said, as a matter of routine maintenance) when I noticed this discussion, and since this sort of decision requires site-wide consensus, I think I'll revert to the default version. If you'd like to propose a change in the appearance of infoboxes, you might suggest it at Wikipedia talk:Infobox, and if you have community support, the toccolours class can be edited accordingly. — Dan | Talk 18:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree, current design is ugly, Gerald's is very clean and elegant, I think it's a great change and should be implemented. --Wgfinley 13:25, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Um, I think you've misunterstood him there. He was pointing out how it is routine to switch to the current "toccolours". Notice how he reverted Gerald's design ("Rdsmith4 (revert to version consistent with every other infobox)"). ed g2s • talk 00:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What happened to Gerald's design? It was a masterpiece of cool, crisp, visually exciting design. Instead it was replaced by a third rate mediocre design. So what if the 'new' version is closer to the original template? It is mediocre and unattractive. We should be using Gerald's as the basis for all the templates. It is a top class design years ahead of the dreary replacement. And there appears to be a clear consensus here that Gerald's design, not its hideous replacement, should be the one to use. Lets openly decide here on which one we want.

This really isn't the page on which to discuss site wide stylesheet changes. As I've already pointed out, there is no justification for Infobox pope to look completely different from every other infobox on Wikipedia, so if you really love Gerald's design that much, take it to the Infobox or monobook discussion pages. ed g2s • talk 00:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Where is it stated they all have to be the same?? The proper place to discuss a template is on its talk page, not some other page for a general group of templates. Secondly, there are deviations in layout and design for various templates {{battlebox}} is one that comes to mind as one that has some different formatting. Again, I think this change is subtle, clean, and attractive, I say go with it. --Wgfinley 07:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vote on which design to use

Gerald's design, influenced TheCoffee's work elsewhere

1. FearÉIREANN 22:35, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. Bratsche^{talk random} 22:42, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
3. Grace Note 23:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)Totally support Gerald's design. I don't see any sign that we use infoboxes particularly widely. Most leaders don't have one. The ones that do have different boxes. I say that if people want to standardise it, they should make Gerald's the standard and spend their days implementing it rather than trying to prevent editors from innovating and trying to improve the encyclopaedia.Grace Note 23:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

   Infoboxes are used on tens of thousands of pages (The succession infoboxes are used on >5000 (I didn't want the server to keep counting) articles alone). They have already been standardised in the stylesheet. If you want toccolours changed to Gerald's design go and lobby for it in the relevant places. ed g2s • talk 00:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

   This is a relevant place. Why don't you stop barking at editors who are working in good faith and add something constructive? It's perfectly okay to lobby here and then lobby elsewhere.Grace Note 14:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

   It really isn't the relevant place. If you though all links should be red, you wouldn't override the colours, so that is out of style with the rest of the project, then take it to the monobook.css talk, you should go straight there. If all the infoboxes are using the same class, then we change the styling on to whatever design the community wants by making just one edit. The editors of papal pages does not reflect the opinion of the entire community, so this vote is in the wrong place. ed g2s • talk 16:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

4. Arwel 23:26, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
5. Wgfinley 23:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) P.S. - any way you can add a spot for an (optional) image caption? (to credit a photo or painting if needed)
6. TheCoffee 04:00, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC). We've been calling it Gerald's design, but I should note that it actually seems to have been inspired by Template:Infobox Philippine president (see Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo) that I made, which was based on Template:Infobox Philippine province (see Benguet) made by Seav which has been in use on Philippine province articles in one form or another since 2003.
7. Astrowob 14:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) I did prefer Gerald's design, the one currently in place is "OK", but nothing more, Gerald's one was much better looking and please FearÉIREANN could you explain to me in my talk page why you accuse me of changing it to the current form when the only thing I did was to add the infobox to some pope pages?????

   My error. I apologise unreservedly. I have also done so on your page. FearÉIREANN 22:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

8. [Stated reason deleted as a personal attack] - UtherSRG 03:44, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

ed_g2s version

1. Don't know if I'm too late here... — Dan | Talk 01:25, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. Or if I'm too late... ugen64 01:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

   I should think not. Not that I think this vote has any authority as this is a site wide styling issue. ed g2s • talk 09:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

   Yep yep. Methinks they should go petition to change the toccolours style or something. :) ugen64 14:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Votes are a waste of time and inherently foolish

1. We don't vote on everything. Indeed, except in extremely exceptional (aha! ;-)) circumstances, we shouldn't be voting ever. This is a mind-numbingly stupid vote to have, given that overall design decisions are, umm, not to be made on template pages. James F. (talk) 09:42, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Further comment

"toccolours" class

Here's a typical page for a country (Australia), full of infoboxes:

Notice how the use of a stylesheet makes everything fit together nicely. Discussion here should relate to the information contained within the box, not if we should use some random CSS on it because "it looks pretty". ed g2s • talk 20:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So? And how patronising is it to declare that you are giving everyone here a "class"! We will decide here what template to use on papal pages. FearÉIREANN 22:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't quite see your point about "class" - it is a technical term used in relation to the stylesheet, used to group like-styled objects together. I also don't understand why you think this template is so special that it should different from every other template in the project. As much as the editors of a given page may not like it, Wikipedia articles have to conform to the style of the rest of the project. What if the editors of Star Trek wanted to change the page background to black, and their text colour to white (no offence to trekkies intended)? ed g2s • talk 00:01, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey, good idea. I'll suggest the idea over at the Star Trek page. Maybe we'll go for green for all the Irish pages. BTW regarding conforming to style - that verdana font you use looks hideous on my screen and throws the text around it out. Any chance, in the interests of conformity, that you'd adapt the font everyone else uses? :-) FearÉIREANN 02:20, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please don't trivialise this discussion, it isn't very helpful - unless you seriously think we should make Irish pages green. ed g2s • talk 14:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh lighten up, Ed. You sound like a dog that has just swallowed a wasp! Its called sarcasm, or in Hiberno-English taking the piss. Or do we have do design a template do convey the concept to you. :p (A joke, by the way). FearÉIREANN 22:27, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) (But seriously, could you change your font, or at least make it a bit smaller!)

I am well aware that you were "taking the piss", but I would suggest you refrain from it in the future, as it's quite poor Wikiquette. ed g2s • talk 23:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. Personal abuse is against Wikiquette. Trying to point out the illogicality of a stance though tongue-in-cheek sarcasm is normal discourse on wikipedia. But you still haven't given a credible argument defending your stance. The queue agreeing with you has not exactly been long, has it? Last time I checked 8 people voted for Gerald's version against yours; none voted for your recommendation. Or is pointing that fact against wikiquette too? :p FearÉIREANN 23:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read Wikipedia:Wikiquette ("Be polite", "Be civil"). I also don't see how you pointed out any illogicality in my argument, and unless you haven't been reading what I've said, I can't see how my argument isn't "credible". It is fairly simple: The styling of infoboxes should match the styling of everything else. If you lookup the thumbnail design competition on meta, you'll find that the community agreed on that. ed g2s • talk 00:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And just to note, I have posted a message at the infobox talk page. As of now, no replies. Also, a reminder to everyone here to be charitable in their disscussion. Thanks. Bratsche^{talk random} 23:04, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Don't let User:Ed g2s pressure you into using toccolours. Each infobox is unique. There is no concensus as to whether toccolours should be used or if as the standard for all infoboxes. Just take a look on Wikipedia:Infobox and you'll see there is a large range of infobox styles and that the vast majority do not use toccolours. He tried to bully us on WP:TOL and failed. - UtherSRG 03:41, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

You are being extremely unhelpful. Standardisation towards the skin's CSS has been repeatedly affirmed on thousands of pages. There is clear consensus for using a single standard look, and working towards this is what Ed is suggesting. If you dislike the specifics of the look, you can complain on MediaWiki talk:Monobook.css.

Furthermore, your comments have been at times quite astoundingly immature, which has troubled me.

James F. (talk) 09:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Us" is an intersting word to use for yourself. Most of the new infoboxes use "toccolours" and the old ones are slowly being converted over, as Dan said, "as a matter of routine maintenance". ed g2s • talk 09:36, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another point with respect to "the vast majority (of infoboxes) do not use toccolours" is that the page (Wikipedia:Infobox) doesn't use the actual templates, but some old version. If you view the source you'll see they're all put in in WikiTax. Many of those do use toccolours now. ed g2s • talk 11:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

English name?

Why is the English name listed in the infobox. It is traditional for wikipedia to use the local name of a leader or country in an infobox. If there are no objections, I will change them all. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wait, stop. Read the entire sections above entitled Design and Latin Name. We have already covered this issues, and according to Wikipedia naming conventions, we don't use the official names. Bratsche^{talk random} 20:30, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

I mean for the template. The actual convention for templates is not to use the English name. That's why I have this problem. I am not suggesting the article should be moved. -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:41, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can you point us to this convention? I think we generally use the name of the article, with the addition of diacritics where these could not be displayed in the title. We don't by any means use official names for people and I hope we don't start. Some monarchs have extremely long official titles and, I presume, it's intended to add infoboxes to all of them too, in the course of time. How on earth would it aid the reader to head the infobox with a name that is entirely unfamiliar? If you absolutely had to, you could put the official name in the template between Name and Papacy began, but I'm not sure what you'd be adding. You would, I think, in fairness, need to commit yourself to going through the previous popes and adding in their Latin names.Grace Note 01:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind at all in changing them. Now, if you look at any article on a country you will see that the local name is used in the header of the template. Now, I assumed this is the same for people, and I made some templates maybe a year ago using this format. Here is a good example of what I found: Robert Kocharyan. As you can see, his local name was used in the template in addition to his English name. Thanks, -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, local name is a bit of a stretch. Italian is generally spoken in the Vatican City and its semi-official newspaper is printed in Italian. Yes, okay, it's right for Kocharyan, but very few heads of state use this infobox, Earl Andrew: compare Kim Dae-jung and Kim Jong-il, or Queen Elizabeth II. Actually, do look at QEII in particular. My reason for objecting to heading the box with the Latin name is twofold: first, that it really stands out and that's confusing for the reader, so you'd have to give both -- that's a lot of heading for what seems to be a picture (I have to scroll down to see that it's actually a box); second, people will fight over what name we should actually use. For QEII, it's a question of do you include every title she holds or do you just put QEII, do you give her family name, blah blah? And what happens when you extend it to princes, dukes and the like? Do you see?Grace Note 03:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The confusing argument falls, because every country uses it. Secondly, since Latin is the official language of the Vatican, it would obviously be in latin. One respected website, rulers.org doesnt even use the English name. We're not going for long names, here we are going for the local name. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I explained why it is not the "local" name. I explained why including the "official" name would be a problem. I don't see any value in simply repeating over and over that you're wrong. You're welcome to change the template as you see fit and add names in any language you like to the pages on the popes, I won't revert them or oppose you in doing so, but you still will be wrong on this issue.Grace Note 04:44, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How am I wrong? Perhaps I am not defining my terms properly. Are you denying that Latin is not the official language of the Vatican? It only makes sense that his latin name be used in the template, because it is his universal name, as well as the official language of the country he reigns over. I am not wrong, as many other Leaders have similar templates. There is no wrong or write answer. I'd appreciate if you did not resort in name calling. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Steady on. I haven't called you names. You simply didn't address the points I made and I don't want to go over and over and over it. I said you can do what you want but I want you to know that I think it is the wrong thing to do. No names in there. Yes, Latin is the official language of the Vatican. How is that even germane to the points that I made? It doesn't make the name an "official" name. I explained how it created a can of worms to start suggesting we use "official names". Latin is not the "local" language of the Vatican City. No one speaks it. They speak Italian. The Pope speaks Italian, not Latin. No one addresses the pope in that way. It is not either his "universal name". He is not called by it in other languages either! French newspapers do not call him Benedictus. Why would they?

Did you know English bishops also sign in Latin? They are also "officially" named in Latin. If they have infoboxes, will you insist they are all titled in Latin?

Many leaders do not have the same template, you know. It would probably be a very profitable use of our time to make sure they all do. Some that do, eg Indira Gandhi, do not give the name in all the official languages of the country. It's not that I'm not taking your point, Earl Andrew, it's just that I don't think it is justifiable to put the popes in Latin when they are, in fact, virtually never called that in English.

Look, I'd rather go about the business of putting other leaders into infoboxes to match than to argue any more about this. You can do what you want with the names. I simply suggested reasons for not doing it. Grace Note 05:25, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, everyone calm down. The facts are that the pope's "official" is in Latin, but on the other hand, virtually no one calls him anywhere. Let's come to a consensus. Bratsche^{talk random} 12:31, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Religious Leaders

I have proposed a new Infobox style at the Infobox standards page. Please comment there so we can adopt this simple yet elegant design. Trödel|talk 20:29, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There have been few comments - and no objections - so I proposed a color scheme, and think that going forward with the improved infobox as proposed above should go forward if there are no objections by 27 April. I picked the color:

Catholic

By using colorzilla to pick a color off http://www.vatican.va/phome_en.htm

What do you say to changing it to the yellow from the vatican flag (#FFE700)?

Catholic

JDG 00:12, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Final Version

Per the vote taken here (7-0 in favor of the "Gerald" version), the lack of further comments, and the discussion on infobox talk, I have reverted back to the above version, and changed the heading color to the one chosen on WP:Infobox. Bratsche^{talk random} 21:55, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

I fully approve. Good move. FearÉIREANN 23:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As do I. --Wgfinley 23:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I didn't want this to linger in vote/consensus limbo forever, as some votes do. Bratsche^{talk random} 23:27, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

The papal pages look superb with the new box. I've just been in a few making some changes to a couple of papal pages and was struck by how good they look visually. Wikipedia really has a nice design throughout. Not alone do we have some articles of superb quality, but they are brilliantly laid out. I'm proud to be associated with such a project. FearÉIREANN 23:46, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it looks brilliant in use, JPII is the first one that comes to mind. It's all about a nice clean useful layout and not something that is cobbled together like the old one was, a little bit of style. Personally, I can't believe that someone like me, who comes from a long line of Orange Irish would be this concerned with the Pope infobox! :P --Wgfinley 23:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I still disapprove. You have still yet to show why this infobox shouldn't use the standard stylesheet styling other than "we think it's prettier". ed g2s • talk 23:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disapprove of the horrible template pushed by Bratsche. —Cantus…☎ 00:16, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Bratsche is not pushing any template. He is only implementing a vote of users. As to why we should not use the so-called standard stylesheet. The answer is simple. It is crap. FearÉIREANN 00:40, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I tried adding class="toccolours" to the template in different ways to see if there could be some kind of compromise - and I was surprised at how aweful it looked. I then realize that this is the class for the toccolors - which I have not liked anyway. I also don't understand why aesthetics i.e. "we think it's prettier" is not a valid argument for stylesheets - not all stylesheets at Wikipedia:Infobox use the toccolors style and I don't think we should here - I am going to change my skin and see if it looks substantially different with different skins. Trödel|talk 01:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

More info - the toccolours style does not match with other skins where the table of contents is color #F7F8FF (basically a blue gray) - and the regular gray (#F9F9F9) doesn't match very well it is almost the same color but just looks off. So I am convinced that we should stay without using toccolours as it is 1) not aesthetically pleasing, and 2) does not match skins other than Monobook. (An interesting aside is that browsers with 256 colors will render the background white (#FFFFF) - the same as in the new infobox.) Additionally the fonts in the new infobox are better for communicating the text Trödel|talk 01:30, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I always wondered why things looked so ugly in some skins. That would explain it. I think the arguments for using toccolours are dying by the minute. FearÉIREANN 01:35, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BTW my flatmate just came in while I was in the Pope Pius IX page. I asked him for him impression. (He is a graphic designer.) He said that

• the page was very well laid out;
• the infobox looked very professional and clean. (He wondered if the person who designed it works in design professionally. He said that if they didn't, they should.) FearÉIREANN 01:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Stop the fighting. I didn't think this would create such a mess. While I like this box, I'm not trying to push it forward without consensus. My reasoning for rv'ing back to the "Gerald" design was thus:

1. All of the votes on this page were in favor of such as move.
2. No further comments were being made on this page.
3. No user had commented on my post on Wikipedia talk:Infobox, first created a week ago.
4. No user had objected to Trödel's post on the above page, made just under a week ago.
5. No one had objected to the template for all religious leaders being added to the main Infobox page.

If this is really that bad, then let's talk about changing toccolors, let's talk about putting toccolors on the page. I think that is the only objection of the content. Please discuss this civily, too. Thanks. Bratsche^{talk random} 12:13, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Original basis of Gerald's new design

I was alerted to this discussion regarding the new design of the popes' infoboxes. I will admit that the design was originally mine (at least the header, the left border and the horizontal rule separating the images from the infobox facts). See the original usage way back in 2003 here.

I designed it because I really, really find the country infoboxes too ugly. I'm not a professional graphic designer (just an amateur), and decided to "improve" the country infoboxes, first with my country's article. At first I was disturbed by the fact that I'm using inline styles to coerce the look I wanted. But I decided that eventually Templates will be implemented which should mitigate the cons somewhat.

So when Templates were implemented, I then took my proposed design and made it into a template for the articles on my country's provinces. TheCoffee then took the design and made it into a template for the articles on my country's presidents, but with an additional table. Apparently, Gerald then decided to use the same design on the pope's infoboxes.

Anyway, that's mostly the whole story. If you're taking me to task for not following the styles of the other infoboxes, just take a look at all the infoboxes in existence. There is no common style or color scheme at all (unless you consider tables with borders on, a common style). I approve of the new look, although I'm biased, of course :-) --seav 15:47, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the background - I think it is best to continue to conclude this discussion over at the MediaWiki talk:Monobook.css and Wikipedia:Infobox. Thank you for creating a very attractive (and not fancy) infobox for use with people. Hopefully we can get a more attractive style implemented there - in the mean time we should continue with this attractive solution. Trödel|talk 16:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

F Word in Edit History

I couldn't help but notice a user scattered the F-Word through the edit summaries in the article history. Can we get this removed? That was clearly uncalled for. -Husnock 08:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Not unless you implement a word filter in Wikipedia, which will be completely rejected. —Cantus…☎ 19:07, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

dead=dead requirement

This is silly. There is only one living pope. To make this painful requirement for all the other pages (which incidentaly adds extra processing to each render), is silly. This template will work find for all popes except one, so let's just handle that one as an exception and move forward. This was needlessly complex. -- Netoholic @ 02:34, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

Is there any way to keep the current set up, and just add a "not dead yet" tag onto Benedict's page? Bratsche^{talk random} 03:11, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

This is obviously a waste of time for this particular template, and I warned the user who was pushing for it to just a different template for this particular living pope, but he never listened. —Cantus…☎ 05:22, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

The current system works, and isn't a significant resource drain. Putting the current pope on a separate template makes life unnecessarily complicated, and having a field (albeit empty) for death an place of death would probably look disrespectful. ed g2s • talk 11:13, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

We don't need to use a template to cover one pope and we shouldn't worry too much if the formatting drifts. Heck, I'd even support an intentionally different format altogether. -- Netoholic @ 16:33, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

Is there a definative answer as to how much more resources this takes with the dead "subtemplate"? It it isn't a big hit - it would be nice to keep it for consisetency. From what I understand (and IAMNAP) the use of "inclusion pages" require the page to be rebuilt for the squids each time the template is changed but once the page is built there would be no extra work in serving that page, only when the page changs - is that right? Trödel|talk 18:51, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it really isn't a server drain, and the whole point of having a template is to keep them consistent, it also looks less confusing in the page source. ed g2s • talk 02:47, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree, keep it. This server business is silly: clearly, utility should trump any worries about minor server drain. — Dan | Talk 02:54, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I also agree, having a "death date" section on Pope Benedict's page looks kind of odd, considering he's not dead. I noticed that this is found on the president infobox, and several others, too. Bratsche^{talk random} 02:57, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there is a server drain, like there is with many things, but in particular with regards to templates because any change expires the caches expires the page caches, and they must be rebuilt. During that time, extra database calls must be made for each rebuild to both the template and any sub-templates. It is best to find a simple solution (in this case, use one template for all the deceased popes, and something different for the one single living one). See Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates for a technical description provided by the project's main database developer, User:Jamesday. -- Netoholic @ 05:23, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

Maybe I am misunderstanding something, but from what I just read on Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates, the concern is the use of a template the is inserted into multiple template. e.g. Template A has special formatting to keep all infoboxes in place and is inserted at the front of 30 Infoboxe templates. Now if Template A is "touched there is a cascading effect of some type that causes alot of pages to be marked as "touched" and the delay is significant. However, the dead template is not a meta template but will cause 1 extra database call and page load everytime a change is made - that doesn't seem like too much of a drain. Am I missing something? Trödel|talk 15:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Protected

To curtail further edit-warring until a decision is reached, I've protected this template. Since I don't want to put the notice on the template itself: {{protected}} — Dan | Talk 21:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Term start

Apparently, the date given for the "term start" is the date a pope was elected. How about adding also the date of a pope's enthronement? The table at [1] might help... Lupo 07:18, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is important because an user from Philippines was changed the election dates to the enthronement dates. Maybe enthronement dates will be adding too. There is a disturbance about these dates because about before 795 year a pontificate began in the consecration day (after the confirmation by Emperor of Byzantine, his Exarch or the Frankish King), but later these rules changed and it has been election day.Kask 16:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The return of the toccolours

Please read discussion above - going to a toccolours (or a toccolours derivative) style could not reach concensus and the current style for this template is elegant, fits within the overall scheme, and was supported by a most wikipedians. Therefore it should remain. Anon:64.12.116.196 10:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

This is the infobox class, for infoboxes. It's side-wide implementation will show the consensus to use it. You can resist the changes if you want, but the argument for this infobox to be different to the rest, when all the rest are using the infobox class, will start to wear thin. ed g2s • talk 22:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I can see you are in this fight that "everything in Wikipedia must be as ugly as the table of contents" for the long haul - and unfortunately, most editors are not - so I applaud any progress you have made.

For newcomers the design of this infobox includes lines that match the lines of the standard style - they are similar width and color - the open nature of the box on the top, bottom and right, is not that unusual and concensus was reached to leave it open. I agree with the other anon 205.188.116.202 02:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Uh, anon, did you actually bother to read the class we are using before reverting?! We aren't using toccolors! We are using an infobox class. Sheesh. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I can read plenty well. This derived style (from toccolors) is fine for infoboxes in general - and quite frankly more attractive than toccolors imho); however, the users of this infobox agreed that they would leave off the lines on the top bottom and left. Additionally, this infobox style is not substantial different and has similar design elements - so there is no need to change it as this infobox looks fine next to the new ones. 64.12.116.196 00:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

P.S. having one the left border (alone) with a grey border is not elegant. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

And no comment. Reverting - again! - Ta bu shi da yu 23:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

You have been reported for breaching the 3RR and for abusing your admin powers on this page. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I can't be sure if the page was protected when Ta reverted it. For some reason tonight my screen is showing some unprotected pages as protected (and doing other weird things, like showing an entire page with strike throughs!!!). I've reported the problem to the technical people. As I cannot be sure of the accuracy of the allegation, lest I make an unfair accusation I'll withdraw it. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

It was not. If it was locked I would not have edited it. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Then I accept you in that. As I say Wikipedia seems to be sending strange messages right now. One of them is saying that unprotected pages are protected. When I hit the button to see if it was right it asked me if I wanted to unprotect the page, hence the confusion. Apologies for any offence caused. It was due to false information on the screen. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:21, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Guys, let's assume good faith. We all want what's best. I don't mind either way which design this template uses. They both look great to me. Coffee 02:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Its hard when legitimate anon changes to a page are described as vandalism. 64.12.116.196 02:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Here, I'll add the template here:

There. All done according to policy. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 02:29, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

I removed the template and unprotected as there doesn't seem to be any active discussion or dispute here. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 10:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Uglybox

"Hi, left line! How's it going? Where's your friend, right line? Oh, he ran away? I'm sorry to hear that. Hopefully you can find your right line friend soon, because by yourself, you look unbalanced and ugly. Take care!" -- Quasipalm

As I see it, there are two issues:

• What should the standard infobox class look like?
• Should the Pope articles (or indeed, any and and all articles) use the standard infobox class?

My opinion, for whatever it may be worth, is that the first question should be addressed, but not here, and the answer to the second question is an unqualified "yes". -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 17:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The decision has been taken on the template being used for popes. If other pages want to use inferior design that is their problem. The design for this page has been chosen. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 07:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Just saw that there has been some edits back to infobox class; however, I think the improvements by Netoholic that replace the transclusion of /dead /alive were useful. Can we incorporate those some how. Trödel•talk 20:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Although I've restored most of the ugly "missing borders" design, I completely prefer the simple plain infobox style. Hard-coding CSS as we are limits the ability of users to customize their own view. For example, if you don't like the plain default infobox style, you can modify your own personal stylesheet to make it look however you prefer. The problems come when people make hard-coded decisions because then you are locked out of personal customization. -- Netoholic @ 20:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Is there someway we can get an infobox derived style incorporated in the stylesheet - that inherits from infobox and leaves off the borders - so that if someone makes customiziations it will look that way - I am assuming the missing borders will still be missing unless the user customizes the new style. That way we can have the best of both worlds and those that dislike the missing borders can overwrite that in their personal stylesheet. Trödel•talk 21:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I would say the best solution would be for those that specifically like the missing borders to customize. Generally, we wouldn't want styles added to the main stylesheet which only benefit one single template. Could you imagine the chaos if every template's fans wanted that? The main stylesheet should hold good generic classes that apply very broadly. So far, this pope infobox seems like a one-off which not a lot of support either way. -- Netoholic @ 21:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

This is why I gave up on this last March - when I tried to figure out where to go to get some kind of help I was told - don't bother. I don't want all the boxes without borders - personally I think the biography infoboxes look better that way - I don't see a problem with a biography style. I disagree there would be chaos - a limited number of variations would be good for creaters of infoboxes to use, but a one size fits all seems anti-wiki. Trödel•talk 22:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

3RR Warning

To all editors: Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Imposing a new Style

The continued attempts to impose the toccolours type style on this infobox is annoying. Those that are contributors to religious leaders articles have supported the infobox style without lines on the top/bottom/right for over half a year of continued use in those articles. Attempts to change the style are never discussed in advance; they are just made, and the few people like me or Jtdirl who watch this page have to revert. The anonymous AOL user(s) who also edit this template are insulted even though they make frequent substantive edits to the Pope articles. When is this going to stop?

I have tried to incorporate the changes made by Netoholic (and others) to use the infobox style with minimal changes so that the custom stylesheets will work with this infobox, while retaining the customization designed for this biographical infobox. Attempts to get a biography style incorporated in the stylesheet to allow those that use the custom stylesheets and hate the missing lines to keep them by customizing their stylesheet (since they are among the small minority of users of wikipedia who even know how to do this). However, that suggestion was met with scorn. (from above) "Could you imagine the chaos if every template's fans wanted that?"

Therefore, I plead with all that are trying to force this change, to not keep reverting the religious leaders style customizations. If you want, please inform us of new devleopments like the better way to handle missing parameters (even Be Bold in making those changes directly). However, the authoratitive attempt to force us to change is 1) annoying, and 2) not true (there is no authoritative command that we can't have some customizations). Trödel•talk 20:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree totally. It is annoying when a small number of people (actually there have been two main culprits, ed and Netoholic), just try to bulldoze their way onto pages and make unilateral changes, offer little in the way of explanation, ignore all opinions expressed, ignore debates, ignore consensus achieved and then abuse anyone who dares say 'hold on a minute'. Their approach simply drives people away and offends others. Wikipedia is meant to be a community, not a dictatorship. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

If you like the way the box looks, with the uneven borders, you don't need to revert war over it... you can make that change to your personal stylesheet. If you use the Monobook skin, add this line to User:Jtdirl/monobook.css:

.infobox { border-top: 0px; border-right: 0px; border-bottom: 0px; }

This is why CSS classes are so powerful, they allow user customization. By "hard-coding" your preference into this template, you aren't giving other editors the same freedom. -- Netoholic @ 22:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

You have said that several times, Netoholic, treating us like children who can't understand the beauty of "the right way". however, as noted above, there is no reason that all boxes anywhere in any article have to look exactly alike. The suggestion that we create a biography style for boxes like this - with a colored backround behind the name, line between the picture and the information, and missing lines on the top/right/bottom; was met with scorn - something about chaos. These exact arguments were made regarding use the toccolours style, but because that thing was so ugly, somehow the infobox style got created.

Rather than help find a compromise that would allow the customizations that have been agreed to here provide for user customization, you keep drumming the beat that we have to do it your way. Trödel•talk 12:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

In other words, everyone must accept pages your way unless they themselves opt out, even though a clear consensus said that they don't want your version! And you wonder why so many people have a problem with your attitude. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

You keep using words like "clear consensus", but do you have any notion of what that means? Obviously there is no consensus since this issue keeps coming back to the fore. My suggestion above is one way to work towards consensus. If you can agree that your personal preference can be satiated by my solution, then we can stop this. Do you have any better way to resolve this situation? -- Netoholic @ 22:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

We've had a consensus for several months now: just look above to the other talk page sections. The template remained unchanged until you yourself edited to the different version. No one else has brought the issue up except you. To me, that shows there is an agreemnt among all editors but one. I believe that demonstrates a consensus. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 22:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly -there has been concensess for a long time - amongst the editors or the articles in question. Coming here and forcing a change on us when you have made no changes to the articles where the template is being used, and forcing the template changes. You made the changes without any indication on the talk pages, etc. You have been involved in this discussion before - and yet think somehow if you come and make the changes every 3-4 months - you will get your way. We have even, in good faith, adopted as many of the changes as we can, but that is not good enough for you. Trödel•talk 12:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be a fair statement of it. I think this is a clear example of a clash that commonly happens: standardisers working in good faith clash with those working on articles. Both need to give a little to understand each other's aims. James James 23:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

However, I have a difficult time believing that Netoholic is working in good faith. He refuses to help standardize the customization. He comes here making the same tired arguments that he made before. He ignores those that tried to incorporate the standardization. He refuses to discuss on the talk page before making changes. If you read the responses to my querries above you will see he has made NO EFFORT to understand the aim on this infobox and accomodate it. Trödel•talk 12:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Except for the past week, I have never before been involved with the previous "missing borders" dispute on this template. I believe you have me confused with the several other independent editors that have come here over time. -- Netoholic @

I may have attributed to you more than one editor's comments. I am sorry I wasn't more careful in my comments; however, as noted by Bratsche below - you have edited the page amongst those discussions. Trödel•talk 01:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[2] You've been editing this template since May 11, 2005, including edits with summaries such as per the talk page, and indicating that your preferring style is supported by consensus. That is simply not true. This has consensus. Please stick to the facts. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 19:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

That edit, and the related ones from May, have nothing to do with the missing borders dispute. They dealt with entirely something else. I have edited this template before, and others before me have edited this template to re-enable the borders, but before this week I haven't edited this template to re-enable the borders. Please stick to the facts. -- Netoholic @ 20:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that's what I meant. Sorry if it didn't carry that across. The point is, however, that you have been editing the template against consensus. The "dead=dead" requirement was accepted by consensus, and you reverted that as well, though not recently. I think we can leave the template as it is now. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 02:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not worried, I was right about dead=dead, too. It's no longer part of this template. Anyway, this is on my watchlist, so when someone else comes and complains about the missing borders, I'll make sure to point out that there are others that feel the same way. -- Netoholic @ 04:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Other Popes named XXX

Would anyone object to me adding another line to the infobox which would place "Other Popes named XXXXX" at the bottom of the infobox (before the footnotes)? This would be an optional line and thus would not make a mess on popes with unique papal names. I would personally go through and add this becuase I don't know what script can use the page name minus the word Pope at the beginning and the Roman numerals at the end. I have seen some of the articles include a "See also" section linking to the disambiguation page for that Pope's name which I think looks kind of silly. This would be much easier. If you disagree with this addition, please just remove it, but contact me. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Added but I couldn't figure out how to center it across the whole template. If someone else could do that I'd be much obliged. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Done savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Consecration Date

Because there are a disturbance about "papacy began date" maybe it's better to insert to the Infobox also the "Consecration Date" (Crowning, installation, enthroned, or something what).Kask 08:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Feast Day

Would it be possible to add a field for the pope's feast day? Loyola 07:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Captions to the images

A portrait of a pope that doesn't give an artist's name, or date the manuscript illumination or tell whatever the reader is seeing, is jejune. Any illustrated book for grown-ups identifies what its illustrations are of. How can captions, which are essential info, be entered into this very bulky and intrusive "info"box? Would it be as simple as inserting "| caption = |" in the formula above? --Wetman (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

New Design

I believe that once again this template needs redesigning. I don't know if anybody has noticed but all of the other christian religous figures templates such as bishops, arhcbihsops, cardinals... have all had a recent makeover by myself in an attempt to modernize the templates. The template is the last one and will be styled as all the others with of course the additional requirments and modifications needed for a pope. Really this is just an enquiry to see if there is anything else that anybody would like added to the template so that when I 'rebuild' it it will be there waiting. I hope you like the new template when it is comleted. The Quill (talk) 13:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Problem with May 29 revision

Today's revision causes significant display problems on certain browsers/monitors, creating large amount of whitespace at the top of the article. On Pope John Paul II, for example, the page was completely blank except for the Infobox! I've reverted to the stable, pre-May 28 version until this can be straightened out. JGHowes ^talk - 03:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, we had the same problem with Pius XI, big time with Pius XII, Paul VI, to name a few. I am sure this can be solved and I appreciate all the effort which go into this template. Thank's--Ambrosius007 (talk) 08:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Birth name

What I see. No birth name

This used to have a field for a Pope's birth name/pre-papal name. Most Popes have that laid out in the template already. However, it was removed at some point, and I can't find a reason why. Could someone add the "Birth Name" field back in? Or is there a reason for its removal?--Tim Thomason 03:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That attribute is still present in the code and I've checked the code path to make sure it should be working: can you give an example page where it isn't working? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Every page. The example at the top of this talk page doesn't show his birth name. Any pope I check doesn't have it in the infobox, even though they all have it in the coding (Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict VIII, Pope John II, Pope Pius X, you name it). It seems to be in the coding on this page, but is it somehow connected to "Infobox Christian leader"? It seems to show up on other "Christian Leaders" but not any popes.--Tim Thomason 06:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why it's showing up on other Christian leaders, because these edits seem to have broken it everywhere (there can't be both a "header19" and a "label19". Simple to fix, which I'll do now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done Verified at Pope John Paul II. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)