Template talk:Author

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search


  • September 2006: Problem with section edit link | New header style? | Transition to new author template (2 subtopics) | intersource cs:.


I've been looking at the source for the template, and it looks like we are not automatically categorizing author pages anymore? Did I read the source code correctly?—Zhaladshar (Talk) 05:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

That should be fixed now. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 20:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


Please add interwiki for Slovenian Wikisource: sl:Predloga:Avtor Thanks, -- 06:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC).

Done. —{admin} Pathoschild 18:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Defaultsort key not working?[edit]

Looking at Category:Authors-B, it looks as if the "defaultsort" parameter on Template:Author is not working, as many (if not all) of the author pages listed in this category have the defaultsort parameter but are categorized all out of order.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The default sort magic word defines the sort key only for categorization when no other sort key is specified. The problem is the line {{{category|[[Category:Authors-{{{last_initial}}}|{{{last_initial}}}]]}}}. That line tells the software to override the default sort key and sort on the last initial. So all author pages in Category:Authors-B is sorted as "B". The order of all those "B" sort keys is more or less arbitrary. /EnDumEn 22:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
That is fixed in the new version proposed at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Overhaul_author_template. —{admin} Pathoschild 18:52:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"Quotations" not "quotes"[edit]

"Quote" is a verb, and it is very poor English usage to use it in place of the proper noun. Can somebody fix this? Brisvegas 03:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Quote is a valid informal noun form of quotation. The interwiki links box needs to be as small as possible, since it pushes aside the author description. —{admin} Pathoschild 19:55:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Chinese names[edit]

Is there a way to manage Chinese names, which place the family name first? Take a look at the page Author:Li Bai for an example of the difficulty; Li is the family name.Easchiff 23:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep; use the following parameters. Please leave in the comment in the name field.
 |firstname      = Bai
 |lastname       = Li
 |name           = Li Bai <!-- override parameter, do not use for most author pages -->
{admin} Pathoschild 05:36:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that an improvement over the advice the template explanation currently gives? LlywelynII (talk) 06:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Except the parameter name isn't there, and it wasn't working. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Categorizing with "Category:Authors"?[edit]

I've noticed that the template every now and then gives an author page Category:Authors. I'm not sure why it does that, but it's got to be in the template somewhere, as the actual author pages do not categorize themselves with that category.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the template that would cause that; if you see it again, link to it from here so I can take a look. —{admin} Pathoschild 05:38:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


The author template on French Wikisource is much better looking (see, for example, Charles Baudelaire), although it has less details. It would be nice if the English template could have its look improved. I would also point out that the image option is sort of pointless in the author template, since invariably the image is too big. Wouldn't it make more sense if the images were just added separately to the pages? — The Man in Question 11:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


When a birth and/or death year isnt known, it is customary to provides years when the person flourished (fl.), or was was known to exist. I think a "flourished" override would be useful, especially for the more obscure authors that we tend to find as editors and translators. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Support, it would allow us to document what date ranges the author is active in to avoid confusion especially when firm birth and death dates are not available. Jeepday (talk) 11:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Single names[edit]

The "name" option mentioned in the Chinese name discussion above does not seem to actually work. I do not see it in the template parameters, and it is ignored in favor of firstname and lastname. This should be included for use with authors only having a single name such as Plato or Socrates as well. --Parsa 17:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Last initial guidance[edit]

One or two letters?[edit]

I have started to see the field for Last_initial having two letters 'Xx'. If this is now the preferred methodology, if so would it be possible to amend the guidance in the template. Further, is there a plan to convert those existing with single initial? -- billinghurst (talk) 00:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I have raised this at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Two character Author initial. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

How about zero?[edit]

How about scrapping it entirely? It seems utterly superfluous for any use and the current template guidance — viz., "use the initial letters" — invites simply typing the last name over again? Certainly clarify that, preferably with some justification for using the field in the first place. LlywelynII (talk) 06:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It creates link to [[Wikisource:Authors-X#Xx]] and filters to [[Category:Authors-Xx]] — billinghurst sDrewth 13:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


Can the optional Signature field be added? Such as Image:Bill Clinton signature2.png.—Markles 11:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you thought about just adding it to the Notes field? For the vast bulk of the authors, we are not even go to have an image, so a signature file would be even less used. -- billinghurst (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Image description[edit]

Is there a way to change the default image description? T0lk (talk) 14:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Having a look at the script, you should be able to use | image_caption =One mean dude -- billinghurst (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't see the point in having a thumb style with a caption, or i don't like it - whatever. Can we have image_caption as an option instead. Cygnis insignis (talk) 09:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
??? I was informing of what is the existing name field for images, by default it picks up the author name, and this is the means to override the default. Nothing about thumb style captions. If you want to blank it I am sure that there is a means to utilise that field. billinghurst (talk) 09:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that adding a caption should be the option, the page title is already given: big, bold and in the url. Cygnis insignis (talk) 10:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I am ambivalent, though given a choice if it is there, I would centre it, however, the care factor is lacks significance to pursue it.

Link to Hebrew[edit]

Hebrew Wikisource has a parallel template. You may want to link to it:he:תבנית:מחבר

Yes check.svg Done billinghurst (talk) 12:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hidden maintenance categorization[edit]

Would it be possible to have the the template place the pages into hidden categories if the template is missing some parameters? Because of the large number of author pages we have, it is becoming difficult to browse through them to find those that are missing links to Wikipedia, Commons, or Wikiquote, or ones that don't have pictures. I think to help make this aspect of maintenance more scalable, we should have the template place respective hidden categories for these missing parameters.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Good thoughts, and I would add to this missing birth and death years, especially where there is not a death date, and the birth date is >110 years ago.-- billinghurst (talk) 14:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Minor tweak[edit]

"Indexes" should be "indexes". Moondyne (talk) 04:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


How do people feel about this recently added feature? My view is that it is nearly always non-functional, plus it masquerades as an interwiki link. I'd prefer it wasn't there. Hesperian 11:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

There does need to be more tweaking of the Special:IndexPages capability before it becomes useful through such a link. I think a discussion on how we provide better local customised finding aids would be beneficial, it may be indexes, or it may be a combination of items. billinghurst sDrewth 21:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

use of empty (defaultsort = ) is problematic[edit]

I have seen the behaviour where defaultsort is added to the header, yet left empty. This causes the name to be sorted under A presumably for Author. Is it possible that where the parameter is added, but left empty that it is ignored? billinghurst sDrewth 16:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Centering image text?[edit]

Wondered on people's opinion on to have the text that sits with an author's image to be centered rather than having the text left aligned. billinghurst sDrewth 03:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No objection from me. Hesperian 04:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Donebillinghurst sDrewth 12:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

1911 link[edit]

Is it possible to add a parameter here to link to 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Which way for the link? About from the page, or inbound to the page? There is {{EB1911 link}} from Author page to EB1911 articles. We would generally do that in a +++Works about author+++ section. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I referred to what you did at Author:Heinrich Friedrich Wilhelm Gesenius (thanks). If linking from the author page to 1911 Britannica is common, maybe it can be made more structured by putting it straight into the Author template. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I think that this is the preferred means, as giving priority to EB1911 isn't always superior to DNB, SBDEL, JE, CE, ..., see Category:Internal link templatesbillinghurst sDrewth 16:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Worldcat identities[edit]

Has adding a field to the template for Worldcat Identities been considered? We use a template for that when appropriate in Wikipedia (in External links), but I would think it would be even more useful in Wikisource for Authors. Flatterworld (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a possible thing to do, how accurate and how many variations would be required? I am thinking that we have variations in speelingwink, dates and pen names, so we may need several variables to do the job accurately. What output would you want displayed? Also, should we also consider openlibrary.org in that mix? — billinghurst sDrewth 08:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Addendum, you can always add it as a standalone template that can be entered into the Notes field, just like {{OCLC}}. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
For an example of what it would look like (wherever it lives) I added '[/lccn-n94-112934 Barack Obama] at WorldCat' to 'See also' at the end of Author:Barack Obama. I also added the relevant WorldCat Identity link to Author:William Shakespeare and Author:Samuel Langhorne Clemens, the latter as an example of how WorldCat Identities apparently combines real names and pen names into a single 'identity'. Adding openlibrary.org (or anything similar) is fine with me, as long as it isn't just replicating the WorldCat search under its own name. I did find http://errol.oclc.org/laf/n94-112934.html is the OCLC 'Linked Authority File' for Barack Obama, and noted the similarity with the WorldCat link. For whatever that's worth. ;-) Flatterworld (talk) 23:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Forgot: I couldn't find an example of a page with a 'Notes' field for an author, just for specific works, so I'm not sure what you meant by that. Flatterworld (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
My oops. The _description_ field is what I was meaning, as it pretty much covers additional notes, and additions of sister links and additional components like {{edition}}. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're talking about. 'Edition' has nothing to do with an author, it's only relevant to a specific work. I'm talking about a parameter for Template:Author because WorldCat Identities are for people (including every author), not individual works. Flatterworld (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Yep, it was early morning and the cells were freewheeling and not gripping. We put a number of descriptive components in _description_. I believe that the requested addition is a significant move within the author header. As the link can be added without addition as a field, that for the discussion for the addition that there should be an indication of the benefits that would be expected by the change, and if the discussion is to take place that it should be announced to the community at Wikisource:Scriptorium. My major concern is that at WorldCat they have duplicates of some authors, and that component of Identities is still in beta. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I emailed OCLC to ask how long they expect to remain in beta. Do you have an example of duplicate identities for some authors? I was looking for such, but I found the opposite: a list of 'other names' in the righthand column of the one Identity page. Flatterworld (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
1 for 1 … http://www.worldcat.org/identities/find?fullName=william+trollope
I see the confusion. :-) He only has one - http://www.worldcat.org/identities/lccn-nr93-40387 - although there are many search results. That's the only one I'm talking about (lccn in the url, orange 'Controlled Personal Identity'). The other icons are just ordinary 'Personal Identity' icons. ('Corporate Identity' and 'Controlled Corporate Identity' are other icons I've noticed.) btw - I found this about NACO, which may be what the Authority File is about. There's a link about pseudonyms listed as 'New'. Flatterworld (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
At this point in time, my suggestion would be to build a template that can sit within the description field of the author template, that locates itself nicely and unobtrusively, and does not impact upon the sister links. If it works; is useful; and meets community approval, then in can be incorporated into the author header. At that time we would get a bot to do a merge of the separate template and header to make it seamless. If it doesn't work in the header, then we can amend the header and get a bot to run through and put within a See also section. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Sounds great! We now have Template:WorldCat id, example at Author:William Shakespeare, based on Template:OCLC as used in Fables (La Fontaine/Wright). Thanks! :-) (edited: I posted on George Orwell III's Talk page because after he reverted my Barack Obama example, I thought he would leave it alone once he knew we were having a discussionabout it. Since he insists on deleting it, I changed the example. Hard to have a discussion about an example without the actual, um, example. ;-) ) Flatterworld (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- This sort of external pointer belongs at the end of the list of hostable works if at all. George Orwell III (talk) 15:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose to add any new link inside the author template. It must go, iff we accept that sort of link, in the body of page. Phe (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

C-SPAN et al[edit]

I would also suggest adding fields to the template for any major sources of video or audio speeches. For example, many U.S. national and state politicians are on C-SPAN. For example, Barack Obama. I would think this would be helpful for anyone wanting to watch a speech as well as read the wikified transcript. Flatterworld (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

In the Author template, we have generally created links to works to sister sites for collective reference, where there is the chance for each field to be applied to each author. Alternatively in the body (outside of the template) we have had specific reference to specific works. Where a specific work is available at Commons in audio or video, there are templates {{listen}}, {{speaker}}, {{watch}} that can be used to identify such works. To add to the template it needs to almost be a universal option for all authors, and I don't think that your suggestion can be universally applied. There are other options &heelip;
We have allowed generous SEE ALSO links to specific collections, and I would think that would be the means top achieve what you are after, rather than addition to the template, especially where the vast bulk of our (dead) authors are never going to have their vision or audio, and never going to be available at C-SPAN. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I like the SEE ALSO idea - didn't realize that existed. :-) As these are collections of 'works', they do belong on the Author page and that sounds like a good grouping label. Since I started this discussion using Barack Obama as an example, I went to Author:Barack Obama and added 'Barack Obama at C-SPAN' at the end of the page (I changed the 'Sources' to 'See also', assuming it was left over from an older format - I also wikified some fields in the previous links.) Is that what you meant? I can create a Template:C-SPAN (I assume the format is about the same as those in Wikipedia), or one multi-purpose template depending on how many 'collections' we might want to include. The advantage of the latter - something like Template:Collections - is that it would act as a sort of 'checklist' so nothing important is left out. otoh, at this point I don't know of any similar or even vaguely related links, so unless you know of any I should perhaps just create Template:C-SPAN for now and we can keep the alternative in mind if things change? Flatterworld (talk) 00:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
created {{cspan link}} and added it to Category:External link templates. Just the basic information that you had, which can be amended as necessary. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Just as well, as Wikisource input and output formatting for Templates is apparently quite different from Wikipedia's. Flatterworld (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by that as numbers of our templates are direct lifts at a point of their evolution at WP, though sometimes they don't evolve once lifted; so if you think it is important, you may wish to elucidate. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Updating to embed Template:plain sister?[edit]

The template {{plain sister}} has recently been embedded into {{header}}, and it has been suggested that we could look to embed into {{author}} to allow for a few extra sister links and to synchronise on the shorter linking format (sans _link). I don't have a concern, though maybe the architects of the template have opinions on adv/disadv. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The more that I see plain sister in action, I do prefer its output compared to the earlier presentation form we are currently using in Author. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I would also like to see this changed. The way I would execute the change-over is as follows:
  • Modify the template so that both "wikipedia_link" and "wikipedia", etc are valid parameters, and add all fields piped into {{plain sister}} Yes check.svg Done
  • Also cause using "_link" parameters to sort into temporary tracking categories, so we can pick up any stragglers.
  • Maybe also consider having tracking categories for the new parameters, so we can use category intersection to find pages with and without links to other wikis. Yes check.svg Done
  • Modify the preloader to use the new parameters in all new author pages. Yes check.svg Done
  • Change the author templates (of which there are about 8000) to use the new parameters. Yes check.svg Done
  • This would probably be done by bot, since the changes are straightforward. I have a nice script for extracting and parsing header templates, it wouldn't be hard to convert to formatting author templates.
  • In the process, "commons_link" entries would be made into "commonscat" or "commons" depending on whether or not it is preceded by "Category:"
  • Once all author templates are done (check the cats), change again so that "_link" templates are no longer valid. Perhaps a changeover period when using "_link" templates throws an error to "train" users. Yes check.svg Done
Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 05:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I must confess, I'm not partial to either implementation, but I'm not opposed to a change if others like the new one. I like the smaller real estate used in the original implementation ("See biography" vs. "sister projects: Wikipedia"). But if we do decide to implement it, I think Inductiveload's is a pretty good manner of doing so.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
The change is complete. Pages using the old categories will sort into Category:Author pages using deprecated parameters Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 02:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
All pages are also categorised according to which interwiki links they do or don't have. This will presumably be helpful for people wishing to compile lists of authors without links. See Category:Author maintenance. The old parameters no longer work, but they do throw an error message. This can be removed at some future time when Category:Author pages using deprecated parameters has been empty for long enough. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 02:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Parameter "invert_names"[edit]

I have added the new parameter for the cases where we want to display the author's name in the order of "Lastname Firstname" like Author:Li Xishen. The parameter takes a "yes" answer to work, all other responses should have no effect. Examples of the tests are in Template:Author/testcasesbillinghurst sDrewth 05:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Note. I have not identified other author pages are going to need this correction made to them. Others may wish to undertake that for pages that they know exist. I do not believe that there is any easy means to identify such pages beyond the eyeball test. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it kind of superfluous to add a new field, since the current template already manages without it? (See the advice above.) Although such a suggestion is a good example of why the template advice should be corrected. LlywelynII (talk) 06:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
It didn't, which is why I did the adaptation. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Recoding birth and death year catgorisation[edit]

I have changed the way this template categorises by birth/death year. It now runs through a subroutine/subpage of the template (Template:Author/year) which itself calls several other templates in order to cope with the various formats used with this template. I made this change because, while randomly browsing authors, I noticed that any year before 1000 AD wasn't being processed properly (it needed to be a four digit number and "BCE" was causing an error). I've taken the opportunity to enhance the functionality of the template while fixing this bug. The subroutine currently handles all years including BCE, decades, centuries and some approximate dates (all should be categorising by era as well, rather than dumping all non-numeric dates into Ancient authors).

There are still a few more things I have to do. However, I have made this change live now because the areas that need more work were broken in the previous version anyway. This version at least fixes some things that were broken without making the situation worse. The subroutine can technically handle "circa YYYY" dates but this needs to be implemented properly (it may require entering those years in a "circa/YYYY" format to be readable). The "YYYY?" format is not supported yet either.

If there is any other problem caused by this, please let me know. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Microformat issue[edit]

The use of class="label" in

<span id="ws-description" class="label">{{{description}}}</span>

is causing the wrong data to be included in the template's emitted microformat. I'd like to change it to class="note". Would that conflict with anything else? Is it used for styling? Pigsonthewing (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

This is still an issue. Pigsonthewing (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: I don't see that class=Label" is being used in common.css, or subsidiary files. I suppose the lack of reaction has been due to the lack of information to the nature error/problem, and the nature of the solution. I don't see an issue with the proposal, though css is not my area of expertise. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
The change was made here, and it referenced oldwikisource:Wikisource:Microformat, though that has no classes given as examples. fr:Modèle:Titre is cited for comparison at that page, though it uses different class names. I am not certain if any of them are used, or were added in anticipation of some use. I would think that if we were going to have classes that we would look to have familiarity of terms through the interlanguage wikis. If there is no dispute to that, then I would think that we could update. My question is though, is the problem the use of "label" or the requirement for "note"? I think that frWS use of classes that align more closely with the field has some value. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
[reply to both] This markup forms a Microformat; it conveys semantic meaning, and is not used by CSS for styling. Pigsonthewing (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done see new reply below - although I'm pretty sure a class definition named "notes" will turn up to be an issue one day, so I replaced "label" with "desc" AND "notes" for now. Personally, I'd rather mirror the {{{ }}} param in question and use that as the basis for "naming" - I'd go with just "desc" ( for (((description}}} ) in spite of the fact this case dealt with the blue notes field of this (& most other) header templates. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, but that should be class="note" (singular) not class="notes" (plural). The class names are defined in the hCard specification. Pigsonthewing (talk) 00:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Ah-ha! After reviewing the spec., I totally get it now and made the correction to note accordingly. Scratch my previous comment in light of that review as well. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

{{Str left}} - returning substrings since 2009[edit]

So, it seems that {{str left}} has been around since 2009, though the functionality may have been around in 2006. This template returns an arbitrary number of characters from the beginning of a text string. For example, the first two letters of the lastname parameter. D'oh!

I'm not sure of any real reason not to implement this code. It will increase server load a little bit on page saves, but the template/magicword is there to be used in cases like this, after all. It will save the silly busywork of re-entering the first two letters of the surname, and will also eliminate associated typos and mistakes. However, I'd like to ask if anyone sees something I'm missing. --Eliyak T·C 12:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The first two letters are auto-generated in the Author creation gadget, so I am not certain what is the issue that you raise. If you are talking about automating the presentation of those letter, then no, they are overwritten on occasions, so the lost of that functionality would not be desirable. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
You are of course correct. Obviously, I don't create that many author pages. So, never mind! -Eliyak T·C 21:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Organizations? VIAF?[edit]

Hi, I'm curious how to handle authors that are not natural persons, but organizations (e.g., [[Author:Wikimedia Foundation]], [[Author:Olmsted Brothers]]).

Also -- should there be a paramater for VIAF ID in the Author template? -Pete (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Use override_author = corporate body for the parameter, and if you think it worthwhile create a portal = Corporate body and list on such a page; whereas joint authors would have separate pages as each person's date of death individually impacts duration of copyright. We have done such an approach for publishers of works.

Re VIAF, we use {{authority control}} like most sites, and it appears at the bottom of a page, before the copyright tag, and there is a gadget available to make it easier. I thought that it was mentioned on the style guide, though it may not be, I will check it when I am able. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps. -Pete (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Persondata fetching from Wikipedia[edit]

I am sure that the template used to fill in the birthyear, deathyear and wikipedia parameters automatically if there is an Wikipedia page with the same name (except the author prefix), the first two probably by the w:Wikipedia:Persondata. But it seems to be no longer working. Anybody knows why? Solomon7968 (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

That worked with a gadget, MediaWiki:Gadget-TemplatePreloader.js, using Wikipedia's API. I can't see why it would have stopped, the gadget hasn't been changed and the API appears to be working (as far as I can tell). (FYI, it actually seems to search the page for the Category:xxxx births, for example, to get the birth/death data). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
As a note, Phe has recently updated his script, so if people have turned on components of this in their common.js file, and utilise the gadget, then they will be better served using the gadget than specially calling the file. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)