Template talk:Infobox person

I don't see a need for an infobox on articles about people; articles tend to have that information in the first couple of lines, and so many of our articles about people are short stubs. -- Sine 07:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Just let me point out: All persons' species will be "human." This should, perhaps, be "fursona" instead? But not all people will have fursonas, so this should be an optional field.--Brallion 01:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

See Template talk:Infobox artist. -- Sine 19:34, 11 January 2012 (EST)

As Sine points out on the first post - Spirou 10:48, 7 March 2012 (EST)

Are we rolling this feature across the board?

I thought we were not implementing this format for normal users?. Have we decided to go ahead with it?. It is distracting to the layout, specially if the user has little info (as most do), and a lot of media in their pages - Spirou 10:46, 7 March 2012 (EST)

Looking at article Waarhorse as an example, all the pertinent information is listed on the first paragraph, easy to understand. Now users have to see the name only and then move to the infobox. Plus data: to fill the box, we will need to put almost the whole article personal info, including external links, on it (some users with extreme long set of links on them), basically draining most articles of content (why just spouses?, Why not education, rankings, professions, hobbies, too?).

It's kind of non-continuative - Spirou 11:02, 7 March 2012 (EST)

A number of people creating articles seem to expect them (perhaps a Wikipedia influence?) but my reasoning stands. -- Sine 13:19, 7 March 2012 (EST)

I'll be honest, this seems like a better way to frame leading images in bio articles. I've started using and expanding it, and even made up a generic term for those involved in organizing conventions: "fandom organizer". Useful to stick under "profession". --RayneVanDunem 03:10, 21 March 2012 (EDT)

As I see it, it's a per-page editorial decision. Their use is reasonable where they do not detract from the page, but they are unlikely to be useful on stubs. --GreenReaper^(talk) 05:30, 21 March 2012 (EDT)

So we are going ahead with the feature after all. And, yes, a great deal of user articles are stubs, a great deal of them "permanent" (former, not willing to expand, deceased [i.e Waarhorse]). I still think it siphons off the article's content, but if it now official, at least the query presented for a while has being answered - Spirou 12:55, 21 March 2012 (EDT)

Documention somewhere that this template should not be placed on stubs, at least? And I wonder about taking the Species line out entirely, as it's ambiguous and so often people have several character species, uniquely-named species or hybrids, and other things that don't truncate easily. Especially since most articles about people already have character species categories. -- Sine 13:06, 21 March 2012 (EDT)

This template is being used on user pages

Adding to the confusion. -- Sine (talk) 23:14, 21 May 2015 (EDT)