Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 27

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30

Redirect infobox photographer

Hi. Shouldn't Template:Infobox photographer redirect to Template:Infobox artist rather than here at Template:Infobox person? Thanks. — Smuckola(talk) 20:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

As Template:Infobox artist is a custom wrapper for Template:Infobox person, wouldn't it seem sensible to cut out the middle-man? --RexxS (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
@RexxS: I see what you're saying, but a wrapper isn't the same thing as the root template. "photographer" isn't the same thing as just "person" in this case; however, a photographer is an artist. So the middleman is the actual target. :) — Smuckola(talk) 23:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

To what extent does the development of this template govern related ones such as Template:Infobox writer?

See also Category:People infobox templates (3 subcats, 68 pages). I suppose the answer may be that this template governs strictly the Category:Templates calling Infobox person (15 pages).

--P64 (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, it doesn't "govern" the former set, but it would be foolish in the extreme for any of them to diverge in the way they handle common parameters, as that will just confuse editors. Is there a specific concern you had in mind? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Update on religion field in BLP infoboxes

I have pretty much finished my effort to bring the religion field of BLP infoboxes into conformance MOS guidelines -- Specifically:

"When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Purpose of an infobox.

Also see the closing summary at Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what?.

I did a search on "Religion: None" in article space [1], grabbed the first 500 results, and deleted everything that wasn't "Religion: None" in the infobox of a BLP (including many pages such as Ysgol Bryn Alyn that use "Religion: None" in the infobox but are not BLPs). This left me with the following 280 pages:

Extended content

I could probably come up with another hundred or so if I checked more than 500 pages.

I spot checked a couple of dozen, and the vast majority of those pages have never been edited by me. This reflects the strong consensus for "Religion: None" across multiple Wikipedia pages that I found when I started this project.

I then did the same search on "Religion: None (atheist)"[2] and "Religion: None (atheism)"[3] in article space and found five pages:

I have made a nominal effort to bring those pages into compliance with MOS and with consensus, but I have no strong feelings one way or the other on this, so I am not going to bother going to dispute resolution over it.

There are no remaining BLP pages using "Religion: Atheist", "Religion: Atheism", "Religion: Agnostic", "Religion: Agnosticism", "Religion: None (Agnostic)", or "Religion: None (Agnosticism)".

If anyone has any other suggestions for infobox work, please let me know. Otherwise I am going to jump back on the backlog at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fix common mistakes --Guy Macon (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Work

At present we have a |notable_works=, resulting in "Notable work(s)". What do people think of simply

  • drop "notable" in both parameter and display, because it should be understood that only notable work would be listed
  • drop the awkward "(s)", for a simple "Work", - it should be evident that it is more than one if several are listed, or a list of works appears

Looking at Chopin, for example, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the only change that should/could be made is to drop the parentheses. But, specifically looking at Chopin, it has a link to "List of compositions", but that doesn't really work (no pun intended). The Notable works parameter is for a short list (about 3) of the most notable works (obviously). --Musdan77 (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Why not? Can "work" mean "output" also, on top of "one work"? (I would think so, but perhaps that's German thinking.) The title of the list could be changed to "Compositions" or whatever. Dropping the brackets would be better than nothing ;) - Same was done in {{opera}} for |librettist=, - you will notice when it's more than one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
On a slightly different track, I propose to allow singular and plural input separated (|notable_works=, |notable_work=). This does not address the its meaning, as you do here. See section below. -DePiep (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
"Work" might be confused with profession, so no. However, work is also a mass noun, so we can drop the "(s)". Alakzi (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Good point. Done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Chopin looks better that way! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
No credit(s) for the hurried conclusion. -DePiep (talk) 09:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Parameter |credits= resulting in "Notable credit(s)" appears to have superseded |notable_works= but template documentation wasn't updated? Still has |notable_works=. Damon Mah (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Is image_size still needed??

If the image_size field "should not normally need to be set", then why do we still have it? Can we remove it altogether? I keep encountering users who set this field in infoboxes thus, thus having their image choices over how mine are set in my user preferences. Tabercil (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Change wording and avoid "holy wars" (pun intended)?

I wonder if it wouldn't be much better to simply change the wording of the religion parameter so that both religion and attitudes towards religion (atheist, agnostic, irreligious, etc.) can be covered under it. Samsara 03:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

You did review the lengthy discussion up above, right? If so, I'd recommend you propose a very specific change, as I don't think anyone will be eager to revisit this matter. DonIago (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
A change like that would make edit wars far more likely rather than less. MarnetteD|Talk 18:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
How so? Samsara 06:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
You would be opening things to a wider interpretation than they already are. All you have to do is read past discussions on this (as Doniago suggested) to see how contentious an issue this is. MarnetteD|Talk 12:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I support making such a change. (Deciding exactly what to propose is the difficult part, because it has to satisfy a far wider audience than the "None"-only bloc.) The current extremely narrow interpretation by some is contentious. Red Harvest (talk) 01:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Contentious to whom? The original discussion occurred 4 months ago, resulted in a consensus that nobody went on record as disputing, and this is the first time I've seen anyone poke the hornet's nest again. That doesn't seem especially contentious to me. DonIago (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Doniago I was, in part. referring to how contentious it has been in the past not now. The other part that I was referring to is the edit wars that I have seen at various infoboxes over the years. At this point it is also worth mentioning the instructions for the current field "Include only if relevant. For living persons please refer to WP:BLPCAT. Be sure to support with a citation from a reliable source, in the article body." These instructions are an attempt to keep the items in the field "objective" - A widening the field to include "attitudes towards religion" makes it subjective. There is the potential for WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as editors would be trying to interpret what a given person had said. Also, all to often statments by a person are taken out of context. Along with that it is not unknown for a persons attitudes to change over the years so which ones would be included? IMO the field is fine the way it is now. MarnetteD|Talk 15:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Marnette, I was actually questioning Red Harvest's labeling of the current "extremely narrow" interpretation" as contentious. But thanks anyway. :) DonIago (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Doniago Thanks for clearing that up. Cheers from one who is still missing things after all these years :-) MarnetteD|Talk 16:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
@Red Harvest: I seriously doubt that the English language has a suitable word or very short phrase that we could use. I don't remember anyone suggesting one in all the massive discussion of options above. Samsara hasn't suggested any, nor have you, I haven't spotted anything in my thesaurus and I don't think MarnetteD is proposing "Attitude to religion" literally. But it's an interesting example; if we used it in an effort to include atheism and agnosticism, we'd probably offend many other people who wouldn't find "Attitude to religion: Christian" or "Attitude to religion: Muslim" at all acceptable. (Admittedly, "attitude to religion: Buddhist" might work a little better and I've met people who would embrace "Attitude to religion: Jewish" with a wry smile.) "Philosophy" and "belief system" would run into similar problems and add some - will we admit "instrumentalism" and "objectivism"? Unless someone can suggest a word or phrase that they really think will have general acceptance, then I fear this thread is nothing but arguing about wishful thinking. NebY (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
The wheel you seek has already been invented. Just find out what they use on census forms, and use that. Rocket science is not involved. Samsara 03:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
You do know that the info on individual census forms is private and cannot be shared don't you? See United States Census Bureau#Data stewardship. MarnetteD|Talk 03:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The wording of the question is public. Samsara 03:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
It is. In England, it was "What is your religion? This question is voluntary. No religion / Christian (including Church of England, Catholic, Protestant and all other Christian denominations) / Buddhist / Hindu / Jewish / Muslim / Sikh / Any other religion, write in."[4] So far as I can tell, the 2010 US Census did not ask a question about religion. I haven't checked the censuses of Australia, Canada, Jamaica, New Zealand or any other English-speaking countries. Perhaps, as it is your proposal, you would care to do that? NebY (talk) 07:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Provide birth_name (below)

We instruct concerning the name parameter: "Common name of person (defaults to article name if left blank; provide birth_name (below) if different from name)."

As I understand policy: "Common name of person (defaults to article name if not provided). Provide birth name as birth_name (below rather than here) if it differs from name."

Compare our instruction at Template:Infobox writer#Parameters. Perhaps both can be improved by considering what they both say now. --P64 (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

How should "Atheist" be included in an infobox?

I am aware that there have been endless discussions on this subject. I personally thought that "Religion = None (atheist)" was a perfectly reasonable compromise, and I actually thought a significant number of editors agreed me on that, however I am aware that other editors did not think this was acceptable. What I find strange with the current situation is that you can apparently describe someone as "Free Presbyterian" (see Ian Paisley). You can describe them as "Russian Orthodoxy" (see Vladimir Putin). You can describe them as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)" (see Mitt Romney). You can say that someone is "Hinduism, with Jain influences" (see Ghandi). But apparently there is nothing interesting we can say about the spiritual beliefs of Vladimir Lenin, Bertrand Russell, Isaac Asimov, or Richard Dawkins. This seems odd to me.
By far the most interesting thing I have seen Guy Macon say on the subject is that although there is no support for changing the name of the "Religion" field, there might be support for introducing a new field. For example, would other editors support something like a "Spiritual views" field? I don't particularly care what it's called, but I do think there should be some way of getting different flavours of non religious views into an info box, assuming of course that they're significant and properly documented for that individual. "Non religious spiritual views" would perhaps be better, although that seems rather long for a field name.
Or, alternatively, suggest a different acceptable way of getting Atheist into an infobox. The current situation, where you can get endless sub-categories of organised religion, but cannot get any recognised types of non-religion, seems unsustainable to me. --Merlinme (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I do not believe that "atheist" belongs in the religion field. "None" is a valid entry in that field for an atheist. But that's not to say that the issue cannot be described in the body of the article, where it is possible to do so without trying to make a square peg fit into a round hole. Omnedon (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
A) Atheism does not belong in the infobox at all. B) Atheism is not a spiritual belief so the field you are proposing still does not work. Omnedon's assessment hits the nail on the head. MarnetteD|Talk 00:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
While there has indeed been "been endless discussions on this subject", by my rough count well over 200 editors support changing "Religion: None (atheist)" to "Religion: None" and somewhere in the range of 10 to 20 support changing "Religion: None" to "Religion: None (atheist)" The most commonly expressed reason for this is that Mormonism, Orthodoxy, Hinduism and Presbyterianism are religions while atheism and agnosticism are not. Of course I don't expect anyone to take my word on that (and besides, my "rough estimating" ability may very well have an unconscious bias), so when I get time I will give a detailed count with diffs.
Getting back to the topic of a new entry, I of course have no problem with it as long as there is a consensus that what is on the left side of the "=" doesn't contradict what is on the right side. How about "known for"?
There appear to be two camps that support changing "Religion: None" to "Religion: None (atheist)". The first, like you, appear to have a good-faith disagreement over whether something that is a major part of a persons life should be excluded from the infobox. It's a valid argument, and a new field should be an agreeable compromise.
The second camp appears to believe that atheism is indeed a religion (one individual even argued that ""Atheism is their religion"), which is one of the standard talking points that fundamentalist Christians learn in apologetics class, presumably presuppositional apologetics. I don't see that group ever agreeing on any compromise, but I also suspect that there are between two and five editors in that group. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Finally, I commend you for trying to come up with an acceptable compromise. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I have to admit that I'm amused that a situation that's persisted for four months without incident would suddenly be described as "unsustainable". Other than that...when there's a specific proposal made I'll weigh in if I feel I have anything useful to contribute. Beyond that, my interest in discussing this is admittedly quite minimal, and personally I'm kind of tempted to suggest that the Religion field itself be removed if we're going to be looking at rehashing this discussion at regular intervals. DonIago (talk) 05:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The reason for that is that one user (Guy Macon) on April 6 started making changes to hundreds of articles whose editors were unaware that there had even been a discussion. And it's not like they were previously invited to comment... Samsara 05:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
If you strongly feel that the previously-established consensus does not reflect a reasonable sampling of the WP editorship, I'd invite you to open an WP:RFC on the matter. But discussing this just between ourselves would seem to have the same issue you just noted. I'm not going to fault Guy for going by what was considered to be the consensus at the time, and notably apparently none of the previously-involved editors felt that a wider discussion was needed to the point of opening an RFC when the discussion was ongoing. DonIago (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The better approach would have been to identify the articles that would be affected before the discussion, not after, and leave a relevant note on each talk page. This is an approach that could now be taken. Samsara 21:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Apparently none of the editors involved in the discussion that led to the change felt like that was a step that needed to be taken. If you want to leave such a note, I don't believe anyone is stopping you. DonIago (talk) 13:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Assuming, of course that nobody files an ANI case against Samsara for posting identical text in multiple places[5], questions his reputation[6] or calls his posting to multiple pages disruptive.[7][8] I'm just saying.
  • "There is no content dispute. WP:Consensus was established, was stated as such in the closing statement by S Marshall, and should be respected as such. [...] This thread was opened by Samsara to complain abouut the size of a certain post added to several pages where users apparently were unaware of the discussion which established the current consensus. Guy Macon's intention was to discourage edit-wars by stating clearly why the word "atheist" was removed. In the meanwhile it was removed from all articles where it was used in the "Religion" field of infoboxes, as prescribed by S Marshall's closing statement, and this whole discussion has become rather moot." --Kraxler on WP:ANI, 11:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[9]
In the absence of an RfC (which nobody complaining is going to post because everyone already knows that the result will be overwhelmingly in favor of "Religion: None"), it would seem that WP:STICK applies.
  • "I wouldn't want someone to write a script to go through every affected article deleting the parameter [but] If an editor in good standing did it with all due care and thought, after discussion in difficult cases, then I would see that as a reasonable thing to do on the basis of the RfC." --S Marshall on his talk page, 23:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[10]
--Guy Macon (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
And right there is the Freudian slip that underscores the problem with your side's argument. You see this as "branding" people, a negative connotation. For self-identified atheists this is not a scarlet letter. One of the requirements of listing it in the infobox is self-identification in reliable sources, as well as notability. (Those have now been scrubbed by censors.) Religion = none is a hell of a long way from saying it all, it lumps very diverse views of religion in a single category. By the very same logic the box should simply be Yes/No. That is every bit as informative as your proposed solution. "Period." Red Harvest (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Freudian slip? I clearly stated my opinion, no slip-up. Your argument is an example for one of the major objections to add an infobox at all: The ever-creeping obsession with hair-splitting until the box becomes so bloated, it gets bigger than the article. "Religion=none" conveys the key fact. Explanations go in the article text. May I quote from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Purpose of an infobox? "...the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose...". (my bolding of the key word). Kraxler (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Ooooh! Scrubbed by censors! Looks like we need to update [ http://zapatopi.net/blackhelicopters/ ] with this vital information... --Guy Macon (talk)
Life stance: .................... Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
@Ghmyrtle: I like that. The difficulty might be with the definition given there, "ultimate importance". I'm not sure it would always be easy to establish that someone who identifies as Catholic (for argument's sake), atheist, or agnostic actually regards this as their top priority. So the advantage of the religion field is that it allows to casually report the religion of a person without knowing how serious they are about it; the disadvantage is that we'll often report it even when it isn't a particularly notable fact about the person. I'll grant though, that "life stance" probably does work for Marquis de Sade and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, two recently debated cases. The article gives a book by Dennett as a source, which I assume is the origin of this term and its current definition. I wonder if the definition given by Dennett is really as rigid as has been reproduced in the article. Maybe that could get the cart out of the ditch. Samsara 00:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
My understanding is that the term was first used by Harry Stopes-Roe. There is a relevant article here: "The underlying cause of difficulty is the absence of a universally accepted word in English which encompasses both religions and alternatives to religion, without discrimination between them." Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Richard Dawkins is proud not to believe in a god. I am sure he would be very happy to be "branded" an atheist. I personally find his atheism a bit militant for my tastes, but it would be very hard indeed to argue that atheism is not a significant part of his beliefs and his life, at least as much as "Religion" is for most people who do believe in a god. Not believing in god is one of the things Dawkins is famous for. But his beliefs are not the same as Bertrand Russell (who also famously did not believe in god), nor the same as Karl Marx, who also famously did not believe in god, nor the same as Percy Byshe Shelley, who also did not believe in god. To pretend that all these varieties of non-belief can be considered the same, as if "Religion = None" has no sub categories, seems ridiculous to me. It also seems ridiculous to me that the various categories of non-belief cannot currently be given any infobox detail other than Religion = None. This is why I have raised this subject.
In answer to Donlago, Samsara is correct that we are here because Guy Macon has been recently making a determined effort to make the Religion field consistent with what he perceives consensus to be. I personally thought Religon = None (insert sub category here) was a perfectly workable compromise, but apparently others disagree.
My question remains: if you cannot put atheism in the Religion field, in the form such as Religion = None (atheism), how exactly can we put atheism in the infoboxes of people who clearly do not believe in religion, and where their belief in atheism is a fundamental part of what they are famous for?
I would still be happy with Religion = None (atheist). Alternatively, I am proposing a new field named something like "Spiritual views", the sole purpose of which would be to allow non-religious people to have significant views stated in their infoboxes. --Merlinme (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think using "Spiritual views" would be an improvement. Many if not all atheists would say "Spiritual views: None". I prefer "Life stance", as set out above... the problem with it, however, is that for most readers it would need some explanation. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Consensus is settled. Drop the WP:STICK or post an RfC.
Richard Dawkins would almost certainly object to his atheism being called a religion -- most atheist do.
I like life stance. Nice and descriptive with no hint of calling the lack of religion a religion. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree that if we're going to revisit this issue then it should be handled in the form of an RFC. Consequently, I fail to see the point of this discussion, since until it is an RFC nothing we're saying is going to have an impact. I would not support a non-RFC discussion being used to modify the prior consensus. DonIago (talk) 05:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Can we draw a line under this discussion. It's clearly trying to change a recently agreed consensus, and not using the proper channels or any new ideas.--Dmol (talk) 05:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Can you point to where the idea of using a different wording for the parameter itself (i.e. religion vs. life stance etc.) was previously discussed? Specific diff please if you don't mind. Thanks. Samsara 06:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
No. You have wasted enough of our time. Consensus has been established (as you have been told by several people) but you refuse to accept that fact and drop the stick. The proper method of resolving such a dispute is for you to post a neutrally worded WP:RfC here at Template talk:Infobox person asking the reader to make a clear choice between "Religion: None" and "Religion: None: (atheist)" in BLP infoboxes, let it run the full 30 days so nobody can say they didn't have time to respond, then go to WP:AN and ask for an uninvolved administrator with experience closing contentious RfCs to evaluate the comments and write up a closing summary. If, at that point, the consensus is against me I will humbly apologize and offer to help bring the pages in compliance with consensus. And if the consensus is against you, you can choose to do the same or continue to fight, with the usual consequences. This has been explained to you before. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Can someone uninvolved please close this W.O.M.B.A.T (Waste Of Money, Brains And Time)? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Why? There is not a consensus on how to handle this, simply OBSTRUCTION of others' views by you while you foist your POV onto everyone else and BULLY other editors.. It would be nice if you could actually act in good faith for a change (rather than telling us we are to assume good faith while you so frequently violate the whole concept.) If you don't like the debate, don't participate, I'm sure you won't be missed. Red Harvest (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Guy's tone notwithstanding, given the obviously contentious nature of this situation I don't see anything out of line or obstructionist in saying that people who want to have any discussion of this matter that will result in actual change should open an RFC. And at this point I question the motives of anyone who isn't willing to take that step. DonIago (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Red Harvest, posting multiple complaints about another user's behavior on Template talk:Infobox person is inappropriate and disruptive. Please stop. If you really believe that I or anyone else has misbehaved, the proper course of action is to file a complaint at WP:ANI. This has been explained to you before. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Guy, a complaint was filed about your behaviour at AN/I! And various editors have expressed some discomfort about your tone; and you have largely ignored them. We don't have to look very hard on this page to find another editor expressing unease: "Guy's tone notwithstanding...".
When quite so many experienced editors think there may be an issue with how you are editing, perhaps you could consider you could take a look at how your edits come across?
I will raise an RFC. I don't know when, exactly, as I haven't got a vast amount of free time at the moment. Hopefully later this week. --Merlinme (talk) 22:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Awards as images?

Requesting additional eyes at Gina Lollobrigida, where an editor added the Awards parameter but inserted images rather than text. I imagine that's not the intended usage, but I didn't see anything in the docs discouraging it either. Thanks. DonIago (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It is discouraged, per MOS:ICONS.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Names

Template:Infobox person#Parameters clearly states that the name= parameter is the "common name of person (defaults to article name if left blank)" - so when the common name and article name is firstname lastname, that is what should be shown in that parameter and the full name should be displayed in the separate birth_name=. This is also how it's used in practice, including on FA/GAs e.g. Bill Clinton - please can somebody confirm this to @FunkyCanute: who continues to edit disruptively contrary to this and is now throwing about unfounded accusations of "trolling". GiantSnowman 09:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Bill Clinton's birth name was William Jefferson Blythe III; Harriette Emily Colenso's birth name, Harriette Emily Colenso. The birth name parameter is for when the birth name is different to the common name. In the former (Bill Clinton), it clearly is different; in the latter, obviously not. Given that I researched and created the article, and took it to DYK, it seems hardly appropriate to accuse me of disruptive editing. Any constructive additions you'd like to make to the article - there is much to add to it - would be highly appreciated. Many thanks, FunkyCanute (talk) 09:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Again, if the common name of this person is 'Harriette Emily Colenso' then that is where the article should be located. The name= parameter should reflect the article title, not the subject's full/birth name. And yes you are disruptively editing when you a) revert without explanation; b) don't participate in talk page discussions; and c) accuse other editors of trolling. GiantSnowman 12:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
1. WP:MOS on article titles is firstname lastname. 2. infobox name= "defaults to" article name. However, the full name might be other than the article title. 3. birth_name is to be used when the name is different to the birth name. 4. Unlike Bill Clinton, the birth name is not different. 5. Harriette Emily Colenso is called Harriette Emily Colenso and there is no need to add extra lines. There is already an additional line for her nickname.
With regards to your accusation, 1. I did explain both on your talk page (some time ago) and in the edit reversion. 2. Your editing seemed to me to be trolling. Perhaps it wasn't, in which case, I retract it.
I would very much appreciate it if we could move on from this. Please? Thank you, FunkyCanute (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Regarding article titles, read WP:AT - where does it say say article titles must be 'firstname lastname'? Clearly not the case as shown in practice by articles located at John F. Kennedy and William Henry Harrison etc. Again looking at Template:Infobox person#Parameters, birth_name= is the "Name at birth; only use if different from name" which applies here, given one is 'Harriette Colenso' and the other is 'Harriette Emily Colenso' - those, while variations of the same names, are still different. I'm happy to 'move on' from this when you a) stop your edit warring and/or b) admit you are wrong, stick to the actual usage of the infobox, and restore my edits. GiantSnowman 17:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Harriette Emily Colenso is the full version of Harriette Colenso. It is not a different name. See WP:NCP#Standard format and variations, regarding biographical article titles, which clearly states: The "<First Name> <Last Name>" format applies to the majority of biographical articles on Wikipedia.
Please go and fight with someone else and let me spend time developing the article, which is about a fascinating woman: or perhaps spend some time researching her and expanding the article. Thanks, FunkyCanute (talk) 08:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
We're obviously not going to agree - further opinion welcome please! GiantSnowman 16:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid I have not heard of Ms Colenso, and reading the above expected to find an article entitled Harriette Emily Colenso, which would mean she is usually known by three names. In fact the article is Harriette Colenso, so I assume she is usually known simply by firstname lastname. So the discussion above is misleading. Assuming she is indeed known by the two names, User GiantSnowman has it right, and picking some articles at random will show this: Stephen Daldry, Calista Flockhart, Rachel Maddow, Beatrix Potter.
If she is indeed commonly know by three names like George Bernard Shaw, William Henry Harrison or Jamie Lee Curtis, the infobox is in my opinion correct but the article title is wrong. The name= parameter is the name that shows in bold at the top of the infobox, and the birthname (in all my examples firstname middlename lastname) appears in the section "Born:" with the place of birth. In general the name= equals the article title, though there are differences if the person has honorifics attached to their name. Sussexonian (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I concur with GiantSnowman. FunkyCanute, you are misunderstanding the template documentation, despite several people explaining it clearly to you. I also concur with regard to "a) revert without explanation; b) don't participate in talk page discussions; and c) accuse other editors of trolling"; those behaviors are directly anti-collaborative.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Anomaly

Infobox person/Archive 27
Personal details
Born
Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz
Spouse(s)Mirta Diaz-Balart (1948–55)
Dalia Soto del Valle (1980–present)

At right is a clip from the userbox for Fidel Castro. He was baptised into the Roman Catholic church as a child and received much of his formative education at Jesuit Roman Catholic schools. We have him pigeonholed under Religion = None. What is the rationale for not including his former religion, but including a former wife? Moriori (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The reader is here for information. Though this is an Infobox and space is limited we do not have to reduce all information on religion to one word. Bus stop (talk) 22:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think anyone has ever objected to "Formerly X" after the None as long as it is sourced. Moriori should change it to "Religion = None (formerly Roman Catholic)" See below --Guy Macon (talk) 23:43, 26 April 2015‎
There is little need for truncated and cryptic messages even within the limitations of an Infobox. The reader is here for information. From where would you be deriving that Fidel Castro has no religion? Is a source asserting exactly that? I am not knowledgeable on the topic of Fidel Castro but I read in the article a more ambiguous relation between Castro and religion: Fidel Castro's religious beliefs have been a matter of some debate; he was baptized and raised a Roman Catholic but has commented that he is an atheist. He criticized use of the Bible to justify the oppression of women and Africans,[357] but commented that Christianity exhibited "a group of very humane precepts" which gave the world "ethical values" and a "sense of social justice", relating that "If people call me Christian, not from the standpoint of religion but from the standpoint of social vision, I declare that I am a Christian."[358] He has espoused the idea that Jesus Christ was a communist, citing the feeding of the 5000 and the story of Jesus and the rich young man as evidence.[359] That word "None" is doing the encyclopedia a disservice. That word "None" is too stingy with information. We can do better than that. We are here to serve the reader. Bus stop (talk) 23:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
How do you reconcile this opinion with the overwhelming consensus in the RfC above for leaving the religion parameter blank if the subject doesn't identify with a specific religion? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
This is exactly why such complexity does NOT belong in an infobox. Put it in the text instead of ascribing a one- or two-word answer to such a complex question. Let us rid ourselves of controversial, complex attributes in the infobox, and stick to simple subjects like birth date, spouse and children. Objective3000 (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Hear, hear. Religious beliefs are too fluid to be appropriately encapsulated in an infobox entry. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I voted Omit above, and initiated this section as an example of why "this is exactly why such complexity does NOT belong in an infobox." Thank you for the phrase @Objective3000:. Moriori (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Excellent points. What I have never seen through all of this debate is anyone explaining exactly why we need to try to put such complex information into infoboxes. The closest I have seen are vague claims that users are so dimwitted that they will only read the infobox but not the article. That is the thinking of an advertising/PR agency (or a POV pusher -- they think much the same), not the thinking of an encyclopedia author. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: Please provide evidence to support your allegation of "vague claims that users are so dimwitted that they will only read the infobox but not the article", or strike it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Dimwitted may not be the correct word. Lazy or careless may work better. But, one editor said that religion should be specified in the infobox for voters. If voters would make a decision based upon an infobox, perhaps dimwitted fits. Or, an even worse descriptor.
Don’t get me wrong. I think there is a point to infoboxes. I think that an enormous number of people use them just to find out someone’s exact age, spouse, or other triviality; at times to settle an argument. All of which can be answered in a few characters. But, if someone thinks that religion is so simplistic, I feel they shouldn’t be editing an encyclopedia. Just my humble opinion. Objective3000 (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
It's generally unhelpful to suggest that people quit just because they don't agree with you, even if WP:COMPETENCE is at issue, which isn't the case here. Anyway, religion often is that simple, and there's no reason the template parameter can't be used in cases where it is. Where it's not, consensus on the article's talk page should arrive at a decision to not use it in that case.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Religion in the infoboxes of countries.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

It doesn't look like the RfC above is going to be closed any time soon (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive272#Yet another RfC backlog thread.) and I have an IP editor who insists that there is no consensus regarding countries[11][12][13][14][15][16]

Here are my reasons for believing that we do indeed have a consensus for countries. Consider the following comments from the "Support [Omit parameter]" section of the RFC:

  • "Atheism and similar are not religions, so why are we trying to reflect them in the religion parameter? We don't use "= none" for all parameters that are not applicable to a particular person (monuments = none?); we omit those parameters."
  • "As stated all too often they are not religions and use of the term none is not needed. There are numerous fields in the infobox that are not used when there isn't info to put in them. There is no reason to single this one out by using the term none."
  • "Omit the parameter since atheism and agnosticism are not religions."
  • "Theism and agnosticism are not religions. If a parameter isn't applicable, omit it. Simple."
  • "Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Purpose of an infobox: key facts should be stated in a succinct manner, no need to show a non-fact."
  • "If the person has no spouse, the box doesn’t say Spouse: None. No children doesn’t result in Children: None, or Children: None (hates kids). How is this different? "
  • "'Atheist' should never be in the religion field."
  • "Omit the parameter. Atheism and agnosticism are not religions, so this line in the infobox does not apply"
  • "It is asinine that this is even a question. We don't use fields when they don't apply."
  • "Omit the parameter, as you would with any other non-applicable parameter. There is no reason to create an exception for Religion - since neither Atheism nor Agnosticism are religions, they shouldn't be put in the Religion field."
  • "Atheism is the absence of religious belief. Omission of the parameter indicates the absence of religious belief,"
  • "I cannot think of another instance where we would explicitly list someone's lack of trait."
  • "we don't normally use "none" in any other infobox field and I cant see why this is an exception."
  • "We don't include (for example) honorific_suffix=none, monuments=none, agent=none, notable_works=none, television=none, criminal_charge=none, awards=none, favourite_colour=none, football_team_supported=none (OK, I made the last two up, but they are about as "mandatory" as religion) etc, so why should religion be any different."
  • "Surely we can be more editorially professional than listing a non xxxxxxxx person in a xxxxxxxx parameter. We are supposed to be striving for editorial excellence, not an inexorable dumbing down of the project."
  • "Omit the parameter just seems common sense and in line with how non-applicable infobox parameters are generally handled."

Please note that every single person I quote above had a choice to choose "Religion: None" and "Religion: None (atheist) and rejected those options in favor of deleting the parameter. Also note that all the above arguments are about how we handle "None" entries in infoboxes, not arguments that are specific to BLPs

So, do we have a consensus on this or should I post another RfC? --Guy Macon (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Guy, while I would agree with your position with regards to religion in country infoboxes, I'm not sure we can directly apply a consensus as regards person infoboxes to that situation. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I am not so sure about that. There were a heck of a lot of people who expressed the opinion that "None" shouldn't be listed for any infobox parameter.
I would like to see religion on these pages treated the way we treat it at England#Religion and Montana Province#Religion. Those pages give the reader a true understanding of the religion in those geographic areas in a way that no one-line infobox entry every could.
Concerning this revert in particular, does anyone here really believe that Afghanistan's religion was atheism from 1978 to 1980 and Islam from 1980 to 1992? Or that Afghanistan's religion prior to 1978 or after 1992 isn't important enough to document in the infobox? What this revert does is enshrine to idea that the pronouncement of a government, no matter how widely ignored, is more important than the religions that the inhabitants of that country actually belong to. Would the encyclopedia be improved if we listed "Religion = Anglicanism" in the infobox at England to match the body of the article, which says "The established church of the realm is Anglicanism"? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Time and again, politicians have claimed that the United States is a Christian country. Why would we aide people in promulgating such simplistic nonsense?
The most recent edit in favor of None: Atheist in an above debate claimed that atheism is dogma. Does that mean that not believing in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, comic books, Cinderella, the Iliad and the Odyssey are examples of dogma?
These discussions have gone on too long. Not believing in dogma is not dogma. Not believing in someone’s religion is not religion. One’s religious/philosophical expressed beliefs should not be stated in one or two words in an encyclopedia, whether a person or a state. The infobox is for non-debatable info. Clearly, given the long, long debates here, this arena is debatable. Objective3000 (talk) 00:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
There is no need to continue this discussion, because the RfC has been closed and the closing summary answers the question we are asking here. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template-protected edit request on 9 January 2015

Hi,

I would like to add this to the template. This will show pages that have no image but have an image on Wikidata. It adds all articles without image to a hidden category, and once an image is addded it is automatically removed from the category. No visible change to the articles. See User:Taketa/Wikidata Images.

Taketa (talk) 08:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Why not just automatically display the image listed in the Wikidata entry, if none is entered locally? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
The Russian Wikipedia uses automatic display of Wikidata images in all their templates. In my opinion it would be good, if Wikidata were up to it, and only ofcourse with the approval of the Wikipedia community.
I don't think Wikidata is ready. Alot of bad images (low quality, a group instead of 1 person, someones work instead of themselved, a wife instead of themselves etc.). Also hundreds of images removed on Commons are still on Wikidata due to the automatic removal system, which removes images from projects after it is deleted from Commons, not working on Wikidata.
But I see alot of improvement and growth by Wikidata. They are working on differentiation between different types of images. So someones work or family are being put in different sections. They currently have about 600-700.000 images. And are processing 5 million+ more.
However for the moment, I would advice against automatically using Wikidata. All the best, Taketa (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
PS: Also note that there are many pages that use 2 or more templates. Sometimes an article about 2 people has a template for both. It would be unwelcome if an image appeared in these templates. - Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
All of those issues, while real, seem surmountable. Indeed, exposing such issues is likely to lead to more prompt resolution of them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Its not easy to fugure out where to change the image if its directly from wikidata. There should be an edit button like the ones we have for navboxes. Christian75 (talk) 11:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I also like the idea of auto-including the images when the page has none, but only if this can be overridden in some simple way (e.g. a {{Rejected Wikidata image}} tag at the bottom of the page of something), when the image has been determined to be unencyclopedic.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Plural/singular input options

At the moment, there is |spouse= that produces label Spouse(s). I propose to add input option |spouses= that shows label Spouses. The old situation should stay unchanged, because of current usage.

The same can be done for other could be plurals -(s):

current parameter current label to add note
|spouse= Spouse(s) |spouses=
|partner= Partner(s) |partners=
|parent= Parents(s) |parents= added 19:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
|notable_works= Notable work(s) |notable_work= inverse, add singular
|opponents= Opponent(s) |opponent= inverse, add singular
|children= Children (not needed)
If this has support, I'll work out the code proposal. -DePiep (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Anyway, wiki is not lead by 'need' but by 'improve'. You just confirmed [17]. -DePiep (talk) 09:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Once again, please don't use multi-colon indentation, after asterisk-style bullet-points. We do not need this change because it is not an improvement. HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Andy, here you say it is not needed and above you made the edit to remove an (s). You are contradicting yourself within a minute. -DePiep (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
And talkpage threads are build: a bullet unindented starts a new subtopic, subsequent responses are indented by colons. My "Anyway" reply was indented two colons, because it is a response to your !voting bullet. (Instead of OD you could do three colons, in style). Having a bullet and an extra indent is double. -DePiep (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
It's not that uncommon: User talk:Jimbo Wales. -DePiep (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
People can use whatever format they like, but other editors have the WP:REFACTOR right to fix formatting when it causes display problems. There is no display problem caused by using : and then ::, etc., after * (except under specific circumstances that can be worked around trivially). I don't see any WP:ENC interest in venting at people about their talk page indentation and trying to forcibly outdent conversations. It's WP:POINTy, smacks of WP:BATTLEGROUND, and is exceedingly WP:LAME. If someone is personally having problems with this indentation (and other variants, e.g. *: and *:: after *), see Help:List, and just experiment in a sandbox until you figure it out, and until WMF forces the new forum software on us. Every moment wasted fist-shaking about how people indent on talk pages is time they'll never get back, and every adrenalin rush that causes blood pressure to skyrocket over such pointless micro-trivia may well equate to a moment they'll never have later, by shortening their lifespan just a little.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not the only person to tell you that your idiosyncratic indentation style is broken and harmful to accessibility; as it is here, where you jump straight to a four-colon indent. Once again: please desist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

It's grammar, not just style. Of course "complexity" is handled within the template, seamless, and is no reason not to improve language & readability. -DePiep (talk) 09:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Can you explain why "child" is not needed but "opponent" (sing.) is? Alakzi (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
It does not have the "(s)" construction. When reading, having to go back to pick the -s or not is awkward reading. 'not needed' is just my opinion, you may propose different and we could apply that. -DePiep (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
There's nothing especially curious about the "(s)" construct, but this can simply be "Opponents". Where might confusion arise? If only one opponent's listed, then it must be the only (notable) one. Alakzi (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Writing plural when its plural - why not? Why don't you acknowledge the obvious? I don't mind "curious" or not, that is just a distracting qualification (as was you opening judgement "minor", then it was "complexity"): not relevant. Would you write "spouse(s)" in the prose in an FA article? Or in a stub even? It is an improvement. The scale of it does not matter. -DePiep (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Why is it important, or even useful, to toggle infobox labels with singular and plural parameter values? How do the labels differ from established section headings such as "References" and "External links"? --P64 (talk) 20:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

You keep evading my point, now introducing "important". I say: it is an improvement. -DePiep (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
It's useful if only to avoid "which end of the egg" arguments like the one currently at Talk:William Burges#Subsection 2. It's not important, but it's still something which can be easily accomplished.
DePiep has already offered a possible solution that I'd be willing to support as it would avert these sort of arguments. It does suffer from the problem that if both parameters |parent= and |parents= are present, both values appear. Using | data59 = {{{parents|{{{parent|}}}}}} would allow |parents= to override |parent= should both be present. Examples are at User:RexxS/sandbox#Infobox person. --RexxS (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes. -DePiep (talk) 06:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
by the way RexxS, pls mrevert your recent change. As PigsontheWing noted in a very similar case: not the outcome of the discussion. Strange that P{igsOntheWing did not contemplate reverting you. (though I do not copy his personal idonotlikethis argument that it is 'unnecessary'. How could he know?). -DePiep (talk) 06:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that's how BRD works. As you're aware, the labels "Spouse(s)", "Partner(s)", "Notable work(s)", and "Opponent(s)" were already in use. My change from "Parents" to "Parent(s)" was in line with current practice and seemed to me to be uncontroversial - and indeed undiscussed. If you feel that the change was not an improvement, you are at liberty to revert it and discuss why you think it was not an improvement here. --RexxS (talk) 13:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
RexxS, there is no BRD going on here. First this discussion was started, after that you can not claim to follow BRD. Your edit was simply jumping the gun. After I refined it (less boldly I say), then Andy came along saying that was not discussed, and with the argument "idontlikeit", (note that, even if you check for non-applicible BRD, did not engage in the D). In other words: arguments-for-the-occasion. It appears that Andy can disrupt processes this way when the outcome fits a certain agenda ("bad edit, bit the outcome suits me, so we don't need to correct"). -DePiep (talk) 07:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
That's complete bollocks and you know it. I came here from the discussion on William Burges to try to find a solution to the problem there of the label "Parents" not matching a singular parent. It was immediately obvious that the (s) was used on the other parameters, and I checked the talk page (which was this version)] to see you were proposing adding another parameter and Andy was disputing it. My judgement was, and still is, that making a quick fix to bring the label "Parent(s)" into line with "Spouse(s)", "Partner(s)", etc. had no bearing on the addition or not of a new parameter. Subsequently, I have expressed above my disagreement with Andy's position and my agreement with your proposal to add a new parameter and to produce code to switch labels (going so far as to test out a mock-up in my sandbox). But that's not good enough for you, is it? You have to make it personal and manufacture another excuse to attack Andy. Now, if you don't like my BOLD edit to add '()' around the 's' - which was not under discussion at the time - you can REVERT it and we'll DISCUSS it on this talk page. Otherwise, let's get back to finding a consensus for your proposal. (Hint: attacking both your opposition and your support is a pretty shitty way of looking for consensus.) --RexxS (talk) 15:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
TL,DR: This is creating argumentation afterwards. Not interested, esp from your opening line. I'll spell out the timeline in diffs to prove, later (it is in the history, you can find that yourself, but I might take the effort). Prime fact: you edited when the discussion "D" was already opened. Then you can not claim to be "B". -DePiep (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Short version as you're having such difficulty with comprehension. Fact: Nobody was discussing changing the LABEL "Parents" to "Parent(s)". It's a lie to claim otherwise. Got it now? --RexxS (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Tone down. Bold down. Stop barking. (Fact: you even mentioned the discussion in your es). But listen RexxS: if you don't change your tone of discussion, I'll spend my time differently. Could be spend on your edits still, but differently. Why can't you build and maintain and perform a wiki discussion? In this thread, can you point to a word (mine, yours) that, say, allows you to pull the leash this way? Why did you not add a single reasonable reasoning for edits & issues at play? -DePiep (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, we can go over it again:
1. My edit to this template was at 17:20, 5 March 2015. Do you dispute that?
2. I came here to solve a problem I was discussing at Talk:William Burges. Do you dispute that?
3. The talk page here at that time looked like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_person&oldid=649609396#Plural.2Fsingular_input_options and I already linked it in my penultimate comment. Do you dispute that?
4. On that talk page, you were making a proposal "to add input option |spouses= that shows label Spouses." Do you dispute that?
5. In that proposal, at the time that I looked, 17:20, 5 March 2015, there was no mention of the label "Parents", although you noted "Spouse(s)", "Partner(s)", "Notable work(s)", "Opponent(s)", and "Children" in a table. Do you dispute that?
6. At 17:20, 5 March 2015, my edit changed the label "Parents" to "Parent(s)", making it similar to the other labels in use at the time. Do you dispute that?
7. At, 19:08, 5 March UTC, an hour and a half after my edit, you added mention of "Parent(s)" to your table. Do you dispute that?
Can you not see that I'm understandably miffed by your insistence that my edit ("Parents" to "Parent(s)") was under discussion at the time I made it, when it's absolutely clear that it wasn't?
Your proposal was to add a further parameter, |spouses= and that was what was under discussion. What impact did my edit have on your proposal to add that parameter - absolutely none. Don't you see that asking me to revert my edit under the circumstances would be seen as simply provocative - you don't really think that reverting my edit would improve the template or the discussion, do you? So don't be surprised when you provoke and I respond strongly. How we proceed is up to you, now. Ball's in your court. --RexxS (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Your first line: "... Do you dispute that?". Attitude. Did not read more. -DePiep (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Time for you to get back under your bridge then. I won't bother attempting to debate with you again. --RexxS (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
You're supposed to revert, by now. With or without talk. 'I won't discuss' is what you started out with in the first place, obviously. (lest we forget, here there is still the Andy Mabbitt behaviour to discuss. 'I don't like this' is not an argument). -DePiep (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Twice Pigsonthewing (Andy Mabbitt) has disrupted the discussion by premature reverted.
[18]: es notes personal opinion by PotW. "Unnecessarily" is a personal opinion only, because edits are not made for necessity only (rarely even). If it is an improvement, that's a valid reason too. In the timeline, this objection was made on this talkpage against PotW's only contribution, after which PotW did not respond at all. (in other words, that argument already was disputed and PotW did not engage in talkpage discussion). Also in the es, "no consensus for this" self-contradicts the fact that PotW did not revert the preceding edit [19] by RexxS, for which exactly the same objection is valid (i.e., argument is used selective by PotW).
[20] with es "See talk" does not point to a talkpage consensus or outcome.
PotW/Andy Mabbett has twice disrupted the running talkpage discussion by enforcing personal opinion & halfway discussion instead of striving for a talkpage outcome. PotW did not engage in talkpage discussion to base their action or opinion. I request that [User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] reverts his last reversal, and engage constructively to this thread. -DePiep (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing did not respons in any way. I conclude that Andy twice edited the template out of consensus, twice introduced personal observation and conclusion in the es, without actually going to this talkpage. Also, the reverts were selectively POV, as described: applying 'conclusive reasoning' at random. Since Andy did not come to this talkpage, and me reversing could be interpreted as me editwarring, I have no option left. This behaviour is not fitting an editor with TE level. -DePiep (talk) 13:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Spouse

Once we handled "Work" (see above), how about current label "Spouse" instead of "Spouse(s)". If you see two, you will conclude that it's more than one (but not normally more than one at a time ;) ), and if you see the normal one the "(s)" is irritating. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

You mean singular always? As a, ergh, mass noun? -DePiep (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I mean singular in the label, because in many cases it will be true, in other cases it can be easily seen that there was more than one spouse. It's about the opposite of mass noun, because a singular spouse is a singular person. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I understood that. The question remains: why not allow for singular/plural in the label as I proposed? "One can easily see" is not a good guideline to produce easy readable text. In regular prose we would not accept that at all. -DePiep (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I didn't even see that you made a proposal, and after looking still think this is simpler. It was taken that way for |librettist= in {{infobox opera}}, for example, where you also normally just have one, and the "(s)" looks strange in all those normal case. See Carmen for an exception with two. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Autoconversion

Autoconversion subtemplates have been added to make adding a person's height and mass without having to use {{convert}} in the page mark up. This will make it easier for editors to input data into the template. Instead of |height={{convert|5|ft|3|in|abbr=on}}<ref>some book</ref>, for example, users can now simply write |height=5 ft 3 in<ref>some book</ref> (same for metres, centimetres, kilograms, pounds, and stone and pounds). Jimp 23:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Very sophisticated. Can documentation be simplified now? -DePiep (talk) 06:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the documentation should be simplified. Good point. Jimp 07:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking, those specific |weight_kg= params could be moved to a less-prominent place (below, but not removed). In top, we can promote with a "|weight= accepts everything!" banner. The reference is handled fine too. -DePiep (talk) 07:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Where is this code exactly? I'd like to look at how it's picking apart the parameter value's components.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Infobox person/height and Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Infobox person/weight. Alakzi (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Lua, I see. I was hoping there was some way to do this in wikitemplate/parserfunction code and I'd just missed it. Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_person/Archive_27&oldid=676445602"