Template talk:Infobox cast

Usage

Blank Infobox for easy copying and pasting.

{{Infobox cast| | Name= | Image= | ImageCaption= | DOB= | birthplace= | character= | website= | imdb_id= }} Parameter Explanation Name The actor or actress' full name. Image An image relevant to the actor or actress. It will be automatically resized. ImageCaption A caption explaining the image. DOB Date of birth. birthplace Place of birth. character The Heroes character portrayed by the actor or actress. website Official website. Use http:// imdb_id The actor or actresses ID on IMDb. The seven digit number that appears after "name/nm" in the URL. For example, 0015382. Noimage template The only problem with changing to the template is that it will put two of them if the user adds one manually. Assigning the category twice doesn't cause any problems.--Hardvice (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2006 (EST) Fun Fact trivia: The IMDb id 0015382 belongs to Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje. :) Heroe!(talk) (contribs) Random Page! 15:17, 6 May 2007 (EDT) Default sort We haven't implemented {{DEFAULTSORT}} on this portal yet. Should we? What effect will that have on the other templates? I think we can simplify the stub and nocastimage templates, which use inordinately complicated subtemplates to achieve an inferior version of the same result.--Hardvice (talk) 00:50, 8 October 2007 (EDT) Could you explain your plan for using DEFAULTSORT? I'm having trouble seeing how it would help if applied to a portal or template, though if applied to the original articles in the category (like Claire Bennet, Matt Parkman, etc.) then I could see it being useful. (Admin 01:04, 8 October 2007 (EDT)) With the characterbox, we added a sort variable to the template and allowed it to apply the defaultsort ({{DEFAULTSORT:{{{sort|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}. This meant that other templates which added cats (like the navbar) automatically picked up the defaultsort. If we did the same thing here, things like the caststub and nocastimage templates wouldn't have to use convoluted logic (or their own sort variable) to be sorted properly. It's no big deal (and Ryan's right--it's probably more work than it is worth), but it bears mentioning since we're doing it for characters but not actors.--Hardvice (talk) 01:15, 8 October 2007 (EDT) Hmm... interesting. So it wouldn't require going through a ton of articles, just one per template, right? (edit: oh, we're not using a sort variable on cast yet. Ok, I see.) (Admin 01:20, 8 October 2007 (EDT)) I don't think going through close to 200 articles and adding a sort variable would be worth it for the one, two, or three categories that are on the cast pages. I'm not opposed to it, I just don't think it's worth it, personally. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 01:08, 8 October 2007 (EDT) I'd say that if we decide to use it then we could always leave the current categories as they are for now and just implement new categories using DEFAULTSORT. That way we only have to modify articles we're already adding a new category to. Granted doing it this way might make the upfront work easier, but may make adding new categories to articles trickier since we'd have to remember to add the DEFAULTSORT to each one the first time. (Admin 01:12, 8 October 2007 (EDT))