Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Genealogy and heraldic info

How about adding, for example:

  • Coat of arms: Party per pale, gu. and az., on a fesse, wavy, arg., three billets, of the second, between three garbs or.
  • Crest: Three wheat-ears, two in saltier, one in pale, or, encircled by a ducal coronet.
  • Motto: Labore omnia florent (trans. everything flourishes through work)
  • Seat: Palmer's Lodge, Elstree.[

--Iantresman (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The Wiki entry for John Drinkwater Bethune shows an example of an infobox where I've added heraldic information as notes, and here is the original source where the information comes from, and is typical for English gentry. --Iantresman (talk) 12:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of infoboxes in biographies

There is a request for comment ongoing at Talk:Richard D'Oyly Carte to determine if a workgroup can demand that all infoboxes be removed from articles they control. For instance can Project New Jersey remove all infoboxes from biographies of people born in New Jersey, or can Project Catholicism demand that all infoboxes be removed from biographies of people that are Catholic? In this case Project Gilbert and Sullivan are removing all infoboxes from articles that are under their project scope. Please join the debate and keep an open mind. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

That question is invalid, because they do not control any articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Honorifics in Infobox scientist

How should display honorifics? Your comments are invited. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Nationality/citizenship documentation

I'd like to propose a change to the documentation regarding these two fields. Currently, the documentation briefly discusses the interrelationship between the two. However, it doesn't say when you should use them independent of that interrelationship. Based on previous discussions, my understanding is citizenship refers to legal citizenship, whereas nationality refers to some sort of identification with a country other than the country of one's birth. Thus, one could be born in Venezuela but somehow identify with Hungarian national identification. I'd rather avoid discussing that distinction in this topic because it's very thorny. My proposal is simpler.

Current doc:

nationality - Nationality. May be used instead of citizenship (below) or vice versa in cases where any confusion could result. Should only be used with citizenship when they somehow differ.
citizenship - Citizenship. See usage notes for nationality, above.

My proposal (new text bolded):

nationality - Nationality. May be used instead of citizenship (below) or vice versa in cases where any confusion could result. Should only be used with citizenship when they somehow differ. Should not be used at all unless it is different from birthplace.
citizenship - Citizenship. See usage notes for nationality, above. Should not be used at all unless it is different from birthplace.

We have a lot of articles in which someone is born in New York and someone puts in "nationality=American". It's unnecessary to say the nationality if it's the same as where the person was born. The proposed documentation would make that clear.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this idea, though I would phrase the addition "Should not be used unless citizenship/nationality can't be inferred from the birthplace". This would cover disputed territories and territories which have changed hands (one could imagine cases where Jerusalem, Western Sahara, cities in the former USSR, etc. would need clarification in those fields). --Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I have no problem with rephrasing as long as the issue is clear for editors. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

We have two editors in favor of making a change. Is that enough? If not, how do we generate more comments? (I left a TB a while ago for an editor with whom I had a discussion about this issue with respect to a particular article, Bill Gates, but I guess he wasn't interested in commenting.)--Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Since no one's objected, I suppose you can just go ahead and edit Template:Infobox person/doc with the change. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 10:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I've made the change, essentially per your wording, although I changed "can't" to "cannot". I still think it's confusing because there's no distinction made between the meanings of nationality and citizenship (those distinctions have been raised in discussions but not transferred to the documentation). Still, it's better than before, in my view, and provides a basis for deleting unnecessary use of either field in articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Parameter naming standards

According to the MoS, "Multi-word parameter names should be separated with spaces, thus: |first second=", yet this template and any others use names with underscores, for example, |birth_date=. Should we change, or is the MoS out of step? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

{{Infobox officeholder}} also uses underscores, except for honorifics, where it uses a hyphen. I think a standard of underscores is best, as it is then clear, even to an inexperienced user, that the words are part of a single parameter and need to be copied exactly when using the template. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 14:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I just quickly looked up a few infoboxes, going more-or-less randomly through the infobox categories (but trying to pick up the "big" ones where I saw them). Using underscores seems to be the most popular. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 14:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

That's very helpful; thank you I;ll put a pointer to this discussion, on the relevant MoS talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The various templates that are used in ship articles (under WP:SHIPS) are underscore free. (eg template:infobox ship begin (24,000 transclusions). Also no underscores in aviation templates (WP:Aviation) eg Template:Infobox aircraft begin (8000-odd transclusion). On the other hand military templates (WP:Milhist) seem to use underscores or run words together. In any case, forcing a high use template to change seems like making work for the hell or it, and likely to cause a lot of talkpage action in various wikiprojects and for little reward. Best course I can recommend is to reword the MoS to state that template parameters should be "clear in meaning" and that use of space or underscores to separate words is good practice to achieve that. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Use with British English

Because of articles written in British English, such as Talk:Richard_Dawkins#Please_stick_to_one_spelling_convention this one, "organisation" should be accepted as a keyword as well as organization. --Javaweb (talk) 18:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Agreed. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that "organization" is British English too, so any change here should not imply that "organisation" is the only way to spell that word in BE. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 22:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
3:2 favor "organisation" though (BNC). (Thanks to editor Old Moonraker for researching this). The simplest way to implement this is add "organisation" as a keyword and note in the documentation that it should not be used in articles written in American English. --Javaweb (talk) 10:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)Javaweb
Infobox person/Archive 12
OrganizationWikipedia
Infobox person/Archive 12
OrganisationWikipedia
I've made a version in the sandbox with the changes. I'll wait a while to see if there are any further comments and the make the change later if everyone is happy. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I've had to revert your sandbox changes, in order to make the edit request listed below. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Infobox sportsperson: generic biography fields

Should we add generic biography fields to {{Infobox sportsperson}}? Your comments are invited. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

Please sync from the the sandbox (Diff) to apply hCard microformat classes birthplace and deathplace. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits

Considering that, according to Template:Infobox person/testcases, this change results in the removal of the birthplace and deathplace from the infobox as seen on an article, I don't think doing this is a good idea. Fram (talk) 10:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I can't see why that should be; can someone check/ debug my markup, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

How odd, 

* {{br separated entries|<span>No class</span>}}
* {{br separated entries|<span class="test">With Class</span>}}
* {{br separated entries|{{#if:1|<span class="test">With Class and If</span>}}}}
  • No class
  • With Class and If

Only the item without the class works. If it has a class then it only seems to work if wrapped within an #if -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I've posted to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 132#Template:br separated entries to see if anyone has any ideas why. -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Now fixed in the sanfbox & testcases look ok. You can either wait a little while & I'll make the changes live if a few more hours or you can re-enable the edit request. -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. When you're ready.... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 Done -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox bishop

Now there are two different infoboxes: Template:Infobox bishop (with b) and Template:Infobox Bishop (with B), the first is a stand-alone infobox, the second is redirect to Template:Infobox Christian leader. It is possible to merge the first into the second? ("Template:Infobox Christian leader" is by far better, but the merge is not so easy because in "Infobox bishop" there are some fields not present in the other). Thanks.A ntv (talk) 12:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I've nominated the former for deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
It was deleted, and now redirects to {{Infobox Christian leader}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Mother, Father, Adoptive mother, Adoptive father

Please can we have these parameters to optionally replace parents? It would help the formatting of complicated cases (e.g. Jesus). Thanks. --99of9 (talk) 07:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it will make things more complicated and infoboxes to become larger. Use of parentehses is acceptable. Jesus infobox looks OK to me. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
In some cases life is complicated. Obviously editors will always have the choice of which form to use in any particular case. The problem with the Jesus box is that "father", "mother" etc are not in the left hand column (and brackets are already used for other complications). I'd really rather not write my own custom infobox. --99of9 (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Religion "If relevant"

Instructions indicate that the religion parameter should be used "if relevant". What does "relevant" mean here? What would make an individual's religion "relevant"? Jayjg (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure myself, but I would think that there should be at least a sentence or two on it in the main article text. If there is no mention in the main text then I would think that it's not very relevant. -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I think that's the main idea. To put it more formally, I would suggest that if no reliable secondary sources discussing the subject's religion are described in the article, then there is no reason to suppose that the subject's religion is sufficiently significant to warrant highlighting in a simplistic label in the infobox. The text in the article should be more than something like "X attended a Catholic school"—there should be some discussion of how the adult subject regarded their religion. Johnuniq (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Native names

Can we set up a tracking category (or categories) for instances of this template with |native_name= but no |native_name_lang=? Then we can get them added; by a bot where possible. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Infobox writer

It is proposed to merge {{Infobox writer}} into this one; see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 December 17#Template:Infobox writer. Your views will be welcome. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Adding Race

In the article Tim Wise, there was one editor who did not believe he is white until a direct reference to him referring to himself as white was tracked down and provided. I myself only looked up his article out of a desire to know whether he was black or white (or some other race) As such, and seeing as he is a personality known for speaking about racism, primarily racism against blacks, it seems appropriate to add his race to the article.

However, even after somebody tracked down references to Tim Wise calling himself white, one editor adamantly refused to allow race to be mentioned in the intro paragraph where it was added via a single adjective. All other locations required an entire sentence in order to sound encyclopedic, which was deemed giving his race undue weight. A compromise was eventually reached where Tim Wise's race was moved as a single word to the info box. Unfortunately, there is no entry for "race" in the info box so "ethnicity" was chosen. Some editors have complained that "White" and "Caucasian" are not truly ethnicities.

Therefore, can we please add "Race" to the person info box template so that people confused by Tim Wise's various writings can come here to see whether he is white? I tried adding it to the infobox myself, but it still doesn't work on the info box of Tim Wise. --Bertrc (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

As per my attempt, any such addition should be strongly couched as "only to be included if relevant to the subject of the article, such as advocates of racial equality or superiority whose actual race may not be widely known." --Bertrc (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
No, I do not think an infobox should have a "race" field, even if it were desirable for one particular article. Some things should not be reduced to a single word, and "race" in an infobox is one of them. If there is some encyclopedic reason to explain that someone is "white", that should be done in the article using as many words as are required, with references. Johnuniq (talk) 06:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose (1)There's too much talk of "race" today. We should be beyond that by now. (2)I believe there is only one race--the human race. What people call races are ethnicities. (3)I've already seen edit wars dealing with ethic backgrounds in the text. This would create more edit warring. --Musdan77 (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
If what people call races are ethnicities, then what are what people call ethnicities? Powers T 18:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
It's all ethnicities (I believe). It's about people's ancestral/genetic background. --Musdan77 (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Musdan77 That doesn't seem consistent with the race classification article nor the race/ethnicity in the U.S. and Ethnic Group articles which explicitly distinguish between the two. The wikipedia consensus seems to be that "race" is biological, while "ethnicity" is cultural. --Bertrc (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree that 'Race' should not be included when 'ethnicity' already is - it would only lead to redundancy (or edit wars) when people try to include both. No, they're not quite the same thing, but 'ethnicity' is effectively used as a less contentious euphemism for 'race' where appropriate. I'd also note that whatever you call it, this parameter should only be used where it is highly relevant, and not just for the sake of it. Robofish (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

”Years Active"

This term is inconsistently used in infoboxes. For some individuals the term seems to refer to the years during which they worked; Betty White's "years active" are 1939-present, because she got her first job in 1939. In other articles, the term refers to the years during which they worked at whatever made them famous; Bob Barker's years active are 1956-2007 because that is the period during which he hosted game shows, even though he had worked at radio stations during the 1940s and has continued to appear frequently since 2007 as guest hosts at different events. There are more examples that are even more ridiculous, but I simply cant recall any at the moment. I'm sure you've seen them, though. I suggest that some specific definition of the term be formulated, though to be honest I'm not sure which of the two I've presented would be most appropriate....theBOBbobato (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to use it only when birth or death dates are not known (e.g. for classical composers, mediaeval painters, etc) Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I completely agree with theBOBbobato. Marchije•speak/peek 06:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up. The field has always had major problems. First and foremost the start date should be sourced and it rarely is. Next, it makes no distinction between amateur and professional activities - most athletes are "active" from a young age. In the case of actors (as in Bob's examples) it is often tied to their first film or TV performance and, although not referenced as such, IMDb seems to be where the date comes from. a) IMDb is not a reliable source and b) more importantly most people are "active" in that profession before they get a TV or film role. For example Elisabeth Sladen's article uses 1964 since that is when she had a small role in a film, but her autobiography discusses her performances with the London Youth Theatre in 1962 and 63. I feel sure that there are problems with authors, scientists, politicians etc. that others might discuss. I fear that we may not be able to get a more specific definition but I would say, at the very least, that the dates need a reliable source attached to them or they should be removed - or at least the start date should be replaced with a "?". I also would have no problem with the field being removed entirely as too vague. MarnetteD | Talk 18:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
As I indicate above, the parameter is needed for people whose birth and/or death dates are not known; it should not be used where they are. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Where does it state that in the documentation for the template or in the current instructions for how to fill in the field or in any past discussions. It most certainly has never been used in that narrow capacity and I can guarantee you it is not currently used that way in 1000's if not 100's of 1000's of infoboxes. MarnetteD | Talk 20:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I recall discussion when it was added to this and/ or other templates. That's also how it's used in academia, genealogy, and so on. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't do much for this discussion and again that is not what is stated in the instructions for the field nor has it ever been as far back as I have checked. Perhaps you could provide links to those previous discussions. As these infoboxes are not used outside of Wikipedia I am not sure what you are referring to in relation to academia, geneaology etc. All I can say is good luck on getting the field restricted to that narrow definition and in retroactively making the change to the info entered in that field that already exist. MarnetteD | Talk 22:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Euphemism

Since WP is not censored and we do not use euphemisms the "resting place" label should be changed to "internment" or suchlike. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

"Internment" could be ambiguous. "Burial place" seems a little bit more concrete. - Darwinek (talk) 08:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. I had trouble thinking of a suitable phrase. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
"Burial place" assumes a cemetery or mausoleum. What if the person's ashes are in an urn in someone's living room? Or if the ashes are scattered somewhere as a memorial? While "resting place" is slightly euphemistic, it does seem to encompass these other possibilities better than "burial place" does. Senator2029 | talk | contribs 20:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Good point, however an infobox does not need to take into account every single eventuality. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
"resting place" is not a euphemism, because "rest" means "come to a stand" as well as "relax". The resting place is the last place their body, or what is left of it, ceases to change location. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Although it is possible, as Andy proved, to parse the euphemism out of "resting place" if you are determined to do so, the term definitely is a euphemism in practice. If it were not, it would not have been called out specifically in WP:EUPHEMISM. "Rest" has very strong, soothing connotations that are meant to soften the sting of death for the survivors, and I disagree with Senator2029 that the term is only "slightly" euphemistic. It is strongly euphemistic, and that's why it springs to mind when compiling a short representative list like the one in WP:EUPHEMISM.
I agree with Alan and Darwinek that covering every possible means of disposing of a dead body in a single term would be ideal, but it may be impossible. If no such perfect term can be found, the best solution is whatever comes closest without any whiff of euphemism clinging to it. "Burial place" is not perfect, but it is close. If whatever was left of the body was scattered over the Pacific Ocean, put in an urn on the family mantelpiece, shot into space, fed to piranhas, or disposed of in some other way, a footnote could be added to the location given if that seemed necessary.
But what is most important here is the contradiction: Wikipedia is sending a strong message in WP:EUPHEMISM that "resting place" is not appropriate language in a WP article but then forcing that term into potentially every biographical article on the site. Either this template or WP:EUPHEMISM should change, and if the outcome is to dictate by fiat that "resting place" shall henceforth be considered non-euphemistic, I'll figure out some way to keep from undergoing an involuntary spasm of ineffectual vomiting ("retch." Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition. HarperCollins Publishers. 17 Oct. 2011. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/retch>.) every time I read it.--Jim10701 (talk) 18:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC).
"Intern" and "internment" refer to the confinement of prisoners of war, enemy aliens and the like. The word sought here is "inter," meaning to bury or entomb. "Interred" is suitable alternative to "resting place" that covers burial, entombment, depositing of ashes, etc. -- Rrburke (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

"Resting place"

{{editrequest}} "Resting place" seems to be a bit WP:EUPHEMISM. Would not "place of burial" be simpler and better? IgnorantArmies 13:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I was just coming here to say the same thing. Unfortunately, a drawback to "place of burial" is that not everyone's remains are buried. Some remain in above-ground mausoleums; others are cremated and stored above-ground. Powers T 15:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
The solution would be to pick one general phrase, and then have a field for an alternate name. Sort of like
|burial_place=
|burial_place_alt_name=

Not necessarily the correct naming of the params but the usage would be "|burial_place=Highgate Cemetary" to give "Buried: Highgate Cemetary" in the infobox and "|burial_place=Manchester |burial_place_alt_name=Cremation" to give "Crematated: Manchester". Or something like that.GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This item was already being discussed just a few finger scrolls above this here Template talk:Infobox person#Euphemism. You may want to move this thread up there so the conversation can be kept in one place. MarnetteD | Talk 15:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Moved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
"Interred" is a suitable alternative because it is commonly used for burial or entombment of an intact body as well as the burial or depositing of ashes etc. I agree that "resting place" is a silly euphemism that ought to be replaced. -- Rrburke (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
"Interred" isn't any better than "Place of burial", as "to inter" means "to bury in a grave". Anomie⚔ 01:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
We are talking about location of remains, are we not? --Pi zero (talk) 03:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
See above. And "interred" may even exclude the possibility of a mausoleum. Anomie⚔ 04:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
"Location of remains" could work, though. Anomie⚔ 04:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
The literal meaning of inter is indeed to place within the earth -- from Vulgar Latin interrare, in- + Latin terra (earth) -- but we shouldn't be misled by an over-literal understanding of the meaning of a word that despite its etymology has long been used to refer in an expanded sense to the depositing of bodies even when no underground burial is involved. Bodies placed in sarcophagi, for instance, are often referred to as interred, as are bodies placed in mausolea even when these are wholly above ground.
At any rate, a cursory Google search reveals that any variety of above-ground disposal methods from inurnment to scattering are referred to collectively as "interment options," including placement in a Columbarium. For although the word literally means a dovecote -- from the Latin columba -- it evidently continues to perform adequately, not provoking undue confusion despite the total absence of pigeons.
"Interred" is perfectly adequate, is commonly used to cover all manner of depositing and disposal (even ashes dumped overboard are often described as having been "interred at sea"), and in any event represents a marked improvement on the execrable "resting place". -- Rrburke (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
...and "location of remains" is not an expression in common use, and has the added downside of sounding like a clue in a scavenger hunt or a game of geocaching gone terribly wrong. -- Rrburke (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

EditRequest disabled; I don't see any consensus, yet, and I'm not convinced by arguments that "Interred" is appropriate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough as to the first point, the disabling of the edit request: the request was premature. As to the second, a Google search will easily confirm that the word is indeed commonly used in the more expansive sense I've described -- and that nothing else is.
That said, as this is Wikipedia and not FindAGrave, I'm not completely persuaded of the usefulness of this field anyway -- only that "resting place" is godawful. -- Rrburke (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Although it may be something of a trivium, it's a rather standard one; standard means people expect to find it, and in an encyclopedia that's a pretty good reason for inclusion.
There seems to be consensus that "resting place" is godawful; what's lacking is consensus on what to do about it. Hence my question, in which I really didn't mean to seriously suggest "Location of remains" (I like your characterization of it), but was hoping to be clear on the meaning we're trying to put a name to. In the same vein, Disposition of remains would allow that the remains may not have stayed put, and Dumping ground has an admirable brevity.
Btw, I draw a rather different lesson from the prevalent use of "inter". I find "inter" for this purpose wince-worthy; just because many people make a mistake doesn't mean an encyclopedia aspiring to asymptotically approach high quality should also settle for that mistake. But I do take from its prevalence the important insight that nobody else has found a really good solution to this problem either. --Pi zero (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Repeating other people's mistakes, once they gain sufficient currency, is more or less exactly what often ends up happening. Once a usage enjoys widespread currency, it no longer makes much sense to speak of a "mistake", because it's become just how people talk. You and I may agree that a particular usage is vile -- for instance, I wince every time I hear that people, rather than places, have been "evacuated" -- but who are we against so many? Hope not, but I suspect that usage is probably here to stay.
But since encyclopedias, like dictionaries, ought to follow usage rather than prescribe it, I think the question is whether the word is commonly used that way rather than whether the usage accords with the purist's strict sense of accuracy. Here, for example, is an image of a monument to the USS Arizona survivors who chose to have their ashes "interred" at the memorial:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/reportererin/937120014/sizes/l
...or, in other words, scattered into the sea, which, strictly speaking, isn't "interring" at all. But then again, by the same strict accuracy, to speak of being "buried at sea" doesn't make any sense either. Nevertheless, that's what people say, and objecting to it on the grounds there's technically no burying going on looks like persnickety quibbling.
Yes, "dumping ground": just so. How about "plunked"? -- Rrburke (talk) 18:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, burial at sea isn't wrong, at least not if what is put into the sea is heavier than water, because bury is not limited to ground (an example I see used on Wiktionary is 'she buried her head in the pillow'). Burial doesn't seem to cover scattering of ashes, though, nor putting relics on display. <sigh>
Since I'm not currently up to writing a scholarly paper about venue-appropriate treatment of changing usage, I'll just observe that I do not believe the sense of inter is yet near broad acceptability of a change of basic meaning; acknowledge that you may disagree with my assessment of this; and suggest that, in seeking a consensus we'd both approve for this infobox parameter, we'd do well to seek somewhere removed from the meaning of inter. (Though, I admit, I was curious enough about the history of evacuate to do a bit of reading in our dead-tree OED.) --Pi zero (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
"Body disposal" - covers burial, cremation, burial at sea, mummification, cryogenics, compost heap, sky burial... – ukexpat (talk) 22:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
How about just "remains"? The field content could then specify "Buried at sea", "Cremated", "Launched into orbit", whatever. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_person/Archive_12&oldid=1039370431"