Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 29

Sarah Brown
Sarah Brown
Born	Sarah Joy Brown; February 18, 1975 (age 49); Eureka, California, U.S.
Other names	Sarah J. Brown
Occupation(s)	Film, television actress
Years active	1994–present
Partner	Shuki Levy
Children	1
Website	www.sarahbrown.net

Sarah Joy Brown
Sarah Joy Brown
Born	February 18, 1975 (age 49); Eureka, California, U.S.
Other names	Sarah Brown,; Sarah J. Brown
Occupation(s)	Film, television actress
Years active	1994–present
Partner	Shuki Levy
Children	1
Website	www.sarahbrown.net

Sarah Joy Brown
Sarah Joy Brown
Born	Sarah Joy Brown; ...
Website	www.sarahbrown.net

This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Infobox person. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

←

→

RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations

RfC moved to Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations --Guy Macon (talk) 14:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Religion parameter not showing up?

So I'm creating an article about a Roman Catholic Priest from the 1800s. I think the religion parameter is relevant for his infobox. I've added it to the infobox, but it's not showing up.

I thought the RFC above was only about including it on people who don't identify with a religion or who aren't notable for their religious beliefs. At any rate; it's still listed as an optional parameter on the template page. Does anyone have any idea why it's not showing up? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

What article? I don't see a priest in your recent contribs, and without looking at the case it's hard to say why this is happening. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I haven't saved the page yet; I was pushing preview and not seeing it show up. That's why you're not seeing it in my contribs. At any rate; I found Template:Infobox religious biography and decided to use it instead. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

ONUnicorn, this has happened to me when I added on a field I did not realize was already on there (but blank). If a field is there twice and the higher one is blank, it will show it blank. It drove me insane until I figured it out. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Agent parameter = Advertising?

Wikipedia's WP:NOTADVERTISING policy, specifically para 5 that mentions "External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article". I think by definition that agents are not the topic of articles on actors, musicians etc. Batternut (talk • contribs) 21:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed before (if anyone can find links to those discussions that would be great) and the current consensus is that they do not belong in the infobox. Your reasoning is one of several factors why. MarnetteD|Talk

Agreed. There's no excuse for including an agent's name other than promotion. We don't included their hairdresser, driver, or poolboy - so why agent. I've noticed the few times that I have removed an agent listing, the info was replaced by someone who suspiciously only made that edit on several pages. COI was common. --Dmol (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, yes it was discussed once before at Archive 23. Having belatedly read that discussion, I think the arguments for keeping the agent parameter boil down to (A) the Netoholic / DHeyward points: if the agent is notable then the relationship must be notable, (B) Andy Mabbett / Damotclese points: any data is likely to be of interest / more information is better, and (C) Andy Mabbett 2nd point: naming an agent doesn't provide "a means of contact".

I think all three points are easily refuted:

(A) Amazon is a notable store, but the fact that any particular person shops there just isn't (unless it happens to be the boss of Barnes & Noble).

(B) As pointed out by NeilN, the infobox is for key facts, not for every scrap of info.

(C) Naming most agents would provide near-instant means of contact via Google.

Furthermore, I think the WP:NOT#DIRECTORY/WP:NOT#ADVERTISING issue are more to do with promoting the person than the agent - the page becomes resource for the person to conduct their business.

Anyway, the RfC "should a person's agency be listed in the infobox?" in Archive 23 was closed as being inconclusive after 4 Yes and 7 No comments. I don't know what a sensible waiting period should be before reopening the subject... Batternut (talk) 21:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

At least the explanation of the agent parameter should be updated to reflect the summary of the previous RfC. It currently says "The subject's agent (individual and/or agency), if relevant". I'd replace "if relevant" with "discouraged in most cases, specifically when promotional, and requiring a Reliable Source". Batternut (talk) 21:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Re: 'Netoholic / DHeyward points: if the agent is notable then the relationship must be notable' – Doesn't work. Michael Jackson is notable and the Gameboy is notable, but Michael Jackson owning a Gameboy would not be encyclopedically noteworthy, much less for the infobox. A basic principle at WP:N is that notability is not transferable.

Re: 'Andy Mabbett / Damotclese points: any data is likely to be of interest / more information is better' – Also doesn't work. Not all information is encyclopedically noteworthy, and very, very little of it is crucial enough to add to the infobox. One of innumerable professional relationships in a notable person's life is not magically special.

Re: 'Andy Mabbett 2nd point: naming an agent doesn't provide "a means of contact"' – Doesn't get around the problem of the relationship being not crucial enough to the topic that every reader needs to see it in the infobox.

— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 08:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, jolly good: if no objections appear here in the next few days, I shall change the 'agent' description/explanation in Template:Infobox_person/doc as suggested above (to discouraged in most cases, specifically when promotional, and requiring a Reliable Source). Batternut (talk) 11:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Change made today, as discussed. Batternut (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Systemic bias

subheading changed from "Religion infobox parameter as presenting systemic bias as people's belief in an atheistic worldview is now excluded",` for brevity. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

subheading again shortened, this time from "Religion infobox parameter as presenting systemic bias due to exclusion of atheism option", for brevity. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

A logical response to this would be to exclude the Religion parameter from the infobox altogether.

People who hold to atheism, in effect, hold to a faith that maintains that, in some way, reality was able to come into its current state of existence without the divine intervention of a g/God. This belief cannot, of course, be fully substantiated and yet this faith has many notable adherents.

Many people, Charles Darwin included, have described themselves as agnostic. He indicated ".. my judgment often fluctuates. Moreover whether a man deserves to be called a theist depends on the definition of the term: which is much too large a subject for a note. In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.— I think that generally (& more and more so as I grow older) but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."

For Darwin's religious views are themselves highly notable and much has been written about them.

Other people hold firmly to atheistic points of view and these views are also of particular note.

The infobox now presents systemic bias in that it is permitted to present a person's belief in, for instance, an interventionist g/God but it precludes belief that reality (which on close inspection involves the existence of an, arguably, profoundly fine-tuned Universe) could have arrived in its current state without the intervention of a g/God.

The whole set up is now biased and perhaps the best thing would be for the whole parameter to be scrapped.

Greg Kaye 15:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I would support removing the religion parameter altogether from people infoboxes. Where a person's religion is key part of their identity/notability, the religious affiliation would be described and covered in other parameters. In a world where people are STILL being KILLED for their religious beliefs, we should not be throwing around such claims about living people so carelessly. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

"People who hold to atheism, in effect, hold to a faith that maintains that...." I really wish people would stop using this broad brush in an attempt to pigeonhole the many different people that are atheists. It can certainly be possible to be an atheist and not hold any such belief or any faith or "maintain" anything whatsoever. Which brings us to the same conclusion, removal of a profoundly misunderstood word from infoboxes. Objective3000 (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

What would such a counter-parameter be called? Alakzi (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Nothing. You either don't censor one side of positions being presented or you remove the whole thing. Greg Kaye 17:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

GregKaye, atheism is not faith. It is a lack of belief. It may be accompanied by a variety of other beliefs or views. But the term by itself in no way indicates faith. In general it's the acknowledgement that yes, we exist, without any need to have faith in a being who caused us to exist. Omnedon (talk) 00:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Andy - I think you really should have renamed the section "I'm unhappy that an RFC didn't turn out the way I want, and therefore wish to re-argue the case." Reso lute 17:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

We even have an essay on this: WP:PONY. I hope this helps... --Guy Macon (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Being utterly irrelevant, no. it does not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Not only are you failing WP:AGF, but your conclusion is falacious. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Default name

just a small suggestion to substitute SUBPAGENAME for PAGENAME as the default 'name' in the infobox Title field. It won't effect any use of the template where it is used on a standard Wikipedia page, or any time a name is actually manually entered in the infobox. But any time it is used in a userspace draft or sandbox it currently includes all the 'userspace' and 'sandbox' gubbins in the Title which is a bit distracting. Well, it's written now... don't shout! - Colin aka Henri Merton 14:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

That "bug" actually helps distinguish it from a real article, which seems like a Good Thing. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 19:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Religion -> philosophy

One thing that emerges from the RfC above, firmly against output like "Religion: None", "Religion: Atheist", "Religion: Agnostic", or "Religion: Secular humanist", was that a noteworthy number of respondents feel that, for a particular class of subject who strongly identify publicly as atheist, etc., and especially for those about whom this fact is related to their notability (e.g., Richard Dawkins as the "canonical" example, pun intended), there should be some way of getting this across in the infobox. The obvious way to do this seems, to me, to change the "Religion:" header to "Philosophy:", with a switching parameter, e.g. |reltophil=yes. This would have other beneficial uses. For example, there are both philosophical and religious Taoism, and it's factually wrong to label an adherent to the former with "Religion: Taoism". I'd propose this as a change to the existing parameter because simply adding a |philosophy= will confuse, and inspire people to add (possibly assumptive) attempts to sum up thousands of subjects' "philosophies" in ill-defined ways in the new parameter, that might relate to anything from politics to cheerfulness; we wouldn't want that, only a way to include positions on faith, humanism, etc., that cannot rightly be classified as "religion". — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 19:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

death_cause

I think it'd be helpful to specify that this param should only be used when there is a clearly defined, sourced cause of death (heart attack, stroke, cancer, etc.). "Natural causes"/"illness"/"undisclosed causes"/"old age" and other terms of the same sort are vague and don't tell the reader anything really and are unnecessary for inclusion in the infobo, I think. Connormah (talk) 06:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I would further restrict the parameter to those cases where the cause of death is part of the person's fame, for instance a notable accident, a military event, a murder, a suicide, etc. If the person is famous for other things, and died as a matter of course, then the parameter should remain empty. Of course the cause of death would be mentioned in the article body text, but the infobox should show facts that have a bearing on fame. Binksternet (talk) 15:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Infoboxes are not for trivia. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 19:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

"Influenced" and "Influenced by"

In the artist infobox, these two categories are not linked to anything. In other words, no matter what you type in, it does not show up in the article infobox. Can someone fix this please? Thanks --Wapiti (talk) 04:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Not likely to happen without an RFC; they were deprecated as discussed here. DonIago (talk) 13:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. It's a recipe for OR and PoV-pushing, as well as lists of trivia that are virtually impossible to patrol for relevance (anyone may say their influences were A, B, and C in one interview, in one context and frame of mind, and give completely different X, Y, and Z examples in another. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 19:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Website

why was the |website= moved above the modules? I must have missed the discussion? Frietjes (talk) 15:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I must've missed the discussion where it was decided |website= would be handled unlike in any other infobox. Alakzi (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

okay, so we start a new discussion, I will move it back. Frietjes (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

This is the part where you explain why you reverted. Alakzi (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

found thread 1, thread 2, thread 3, ..., so it seems to be controversial. Frietjes (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Presumably, this was before {{URL}} and wraplinks. There's no longer an issue with the infobox being expanded. Alakzi (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

there is also the part about it being above or below the modules. Frietjes (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I did account for that. His concern was that "when someone uses the modules to embed other subboxes in this one, then the website appears as though it is part of the box above" - which is to say, it is only an issue if the URL is both (a) not on a new line, and (b) underneath a module. Alakzi (talk) 16:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Frietjes: If you don't actually object to it, there's no point in reverting. Wikipedia is not your battleground, nor is it a bureaucracy; if there are subsequent objections, the edit can then be undone. Alakzi (talk) 23:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

of course I object to it, or I wouldn't have reverted the edit. not everyone is logged in and watching this talk page 24/7. we should invite comments from @Sbmeirow, Pigsonthewing, ElKevbo, Lemuellio, MarnetteD, and Plastikspork: and anyone else who is interested. Frietjes (talk) 23:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

How about you engage then? Do I have to pratically beg for an explanation every time? Alakzi (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Neither is Wikipedia contingent on your executive decisions, Alakzi. Please wait for other regular editors to comment. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh so I'm not here to build an encyclopaedia? Well, goodbye then. Alakzi (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Please do not take this as a personal affront to you. You are simply being asked to follow WP:BRD. As you can see from the RfC above (regarding religion), there are many issues involved in making decisions. This calls for a civil, rational and policy/guideline discussions involving interested parties in the Wikipedia community. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I did observe BRD. If I hadn't, I'd have reverted immediately; I only reverted after I thought that I had satisfied Frietjes with my answer. What this calls for is for you to stop wasting my time with policy-waving. Moving a field two spots up is hardly of any consequence. A note of this change has been made, and if anybody raises an objection, it can be undone at any time. It need not be undone on a just-in-case basis. Alakzi (talk) 00:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see that Frietjes has agreed with you in any shape or form. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Please do not template the regulars; I have never in my time here violated 3RR, and I do not intend to. You're welcome to your interpretation. Alakzi (talk) 01:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

If you don't want to be templated for edit warring, follow WP:BRD and WP:TALKDONTREVERT. you made a talk page comment, waited 8 hours, then reverted with the edit comment "No subsequent objections, reinstating". The bare minimum should be 24 hours, and I highly recommend waiting until three days go by without any response before re-reverting. People need sleep, have jobs, etc. and may take a day or two to get back to you. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Balderdash. There is no bare minimum; Frietjes had been active during that time. Nobody's obligated to template anybody, and I do not need to be reminded about 3RR or BRD, which I followed to the letter. Now, please find somebody else to tag team against, because my patience has been exhausted. Alakzi (talk) 10:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

"The normal BOLD, revert, discuss cycle does not apply because those without this right are unable to perform the "revert" step." (Wikipedia:Template editor) Christian75 (talk) 12:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

You're quoting out of context. Me and Frietjes are both template editors. Alakzi (talk) 12:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I do not think so. The section "When to seek discussion for template changes" explains when to seek consensus first. Eg. "Visual layout changes that are minor but still noticeable, e.g. swapping the order of a few parameters in an infobox, or slightly tweaking something's color."

Now you're quoting another part of the page, a part which is prefixed with: "This is a rough guide, and is in no way an excuse for not using common sense". Do you have any objections as to the substance of the edit? WP:TPE is not a filibustering aid. Alakzi (talk) 13:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Would you please stop parsing guidelines in order to WP:WIN. Is it honestly that WP:ITSIMPORTANT that you must make changes this instant? All that's being asked of you is to wait (which is where WP:COMMONSENSE actually comes into play). For someone who has invoked battleground against others, you're doing a mighty fine impression of battleground. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I am waiting. I've been waiting for 24 hours now, and all of the arguments have been about my behaviour. Do you have anything of substance to add to the discussion? I imagine I'll be vindicated in the end, but not before we'll have wasted a couple more days on wikilawyering. Deja vu. Alakzi (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

For posterity, I'm making a note that I put my change back. Alakzi (talk) 11:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Frietjes' diligence in looking at past discussions; I don't see the same diligence from Alakzi, nor any rationale for why his preferences should override previous consensus discussions (even if consensus can change). Instead of this kind of "you have no right to keep me from doing it my way" argument, it would be a lot more constructive to provide a reason why doing it your way would be an improvement, Alakzi. That said, it's unfair of parsers of guidelines to tell him to stop parsing guidelines. I also have to note that BRD is an essay, which was recently savaged pretty hard at WP:VPPOL; Wikipedian faith in BRD as a "standard" process rather than as something that works for only some editors in some situations, is at an all-time low. So, again, let's focus on the relative merits of "put this parameter's output here" vs. "put it there", instead of who's wikilawyering is better-disguised. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 19:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Do not use all these parameters for any one person

"Do not use all these parameters for any one person. The list is long to cover a wide range of people. Only use those parameters that convey essential or notable information about the subject." Why do we have parameters that we shouldn't use. Can someone give me an example of fields that can be filled, but should not be filled because they do not "convey essential or notable information". Or should it be read as "You do not have to use all the parameters for any one person." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

E.g., an athlete's political affiliation is likely not notable. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The difference between "Do not use all these parameters for any one person" and "You do not have to use all the parameters for any one person" is that the former assumes there is unlikely to be any case where every single parameter could reasonably be used for the same bio subject, while the latter assumes you should try to stuff as much trivia into every infobox as possible. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 20:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Spouse parameter and surnames

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This was a rather well laid out RFC, but there is no consensus in this RFC, the discussion is to evenly split. I have included the pre discussion in the RFC and so I am boxing it as well to archive it. AlbinoFerret 18:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

A user on Talk:Bruce Jenner pointed out that some pages using {{Infobox person}} or similar templates have the spouse's name before marriage despite article titles being the married name. This does not seem to occur on all pages, but it occurs often (e.g., Barack Obama, Stephen Hawking).

I can find no discussion on this in the archives here or on WP:BIOG. There is no such guidelines for this format on this or any other related infobox. If anyone knows of past discussion where this pattern was decided by consensus, can you please point it to me? If so, the infobox template pages should be updated to reflect this. Or is this an informal rule of some manner?

If there has not been discussion on this yet, I would like to begin some here. Personally I don't see much reason to use the pre-marriage name of the spouse if the common name and/or article title is the post-marriage name. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Would appreciate any feedback before I begin changing them to the article titles. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about anyone else, but after Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive883#Possible canvassing and User talk:Philg88#ANI Closure I am reluctant to give you feedback on something like this. I predict that if you start making mass changes either way you are going to encounter a lot of resistance from people who object to such changes being made without them been notified of this discussion on the pages affected. You might want to try it on the Barack Obama page first and see how that works out for you. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: I was told I was wrong and trouted for it. I personally think it was excessive, but others disagree so I let it go. But to reply about the other page, I did make a post on the most relevant page I could think of: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography#Spouse_parameter_and_surnames. I suspect I will change a few, people will engage in discussion, and perhaps an RfC on the issue if this has indeed not been discussed in the past. Perhaps I should put a few messages on a the article talk pages of the ones I linked above to spur discussion? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Per Guy Macon's suggestion, I made an edit on Barack Obama. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi EvergreenFir, I am generally of the opinion that we should use the WP:COMMONNAME for the spouse field in the Infobox; this would be equivalent to the Article title for that spouse, where we have an article on them. I see no great benefit in using the pre-marriage name where it is not the common name; as this may not be recognisable to the reader, and is available on the first line of the lede of the linked article in any case. I do, however, share Guy Macon's concerns that there is likely to be some resistance either way; but that doesn't mean we shouldn't start. Hope this helps in some small way. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

No objections on Barack Obama. Going to boldly change a few more and specify in the template that it should be the COMMONNAME/article name used and not the pre-marriage name. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Spouse parameter

This RfC asks the community for input on how spouse names should be displayed in the infoboxes on biography articles. A discussion about this occurred previously and can be seen above.

Should the spouse parameter of biography infoboxes contain (1) the person's pre-marriage name if different than current name (linked to article using piping if necessary), (2) the person's current name/current article title, or (3) something else?

Currently there appears to be a mix of how this is handled. For example, Barack Obama and Stephan Colbert have their spouses' current names whereas John Forbes Nash, Jr. and Howard Taft have their spouses' pre-marriage ("maiden") names. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Per request, a discussion occurring on Bill Clinton's talk page on this issue can be found here.

Option 1: Pre-marriage name

Support. Makes sense, which is good enough for me. He didn't marry Hillary Clinton, he married Hillary Rodham. Further, from what I understand, she didn't change her surname to Clinton for a considerable amount of time after they were married. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Support, and this topic emerged at Bill Clinton's talk page, where there is already an existing discussion, specifically about the use of the name Hillary Rodham as Clinton's spouse in the infobox, and specifically about U.S. presidential spouses. Please either bring it back there from the Rfc link, or make it part of this discussion. Thanks. Randy Kryn 21:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Support. Per Winkelvi's logic. And that is right, Hillary did not change her name at marriage, and when she started using Clinton for Arkansan political reasons it was Hillary Rodham Clinton, which it remained and still is. For these infoboxes overall, including when a woman does take on her husband's name, I think we should go with the birthname or any other name that the spouse was using at the time of the marriage - so I would advise Nancy Davis for Reagan's page, not Anne Frances Robbins, her birthname - he married Nancy Davis. And not Nancy Reagan.) Tvoz/talk 23:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Support. The reasons above are good ones, and there is also the added benefit of succinctly communicating extra information. I think we can trust our readers to deduce that possibly a wife might take her husband's name; that when Jane Doe married John Smith, she might now be known as Jane Smith. Frickeg (talk) 00:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Support. Summoned by RfC bot. Of the alternatives, this is the most useful to the reader. Coretheapple (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Support as this was what the spouse was known as before marriage, and not everyone takes on a new name right away (if at all). I think Winkelvi said it best. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Support, though I'm not sure what is being discussed. If we're talking about the surnames of women when they married, I support supplying the woman's surname, which is not the post-marriage name, assuming she changed it. But I think in general these issues are best left to the editors on the page, because there may be complicating factors, such as several previous marriages and name changes. One size won't fit all. Sarah ^(talk) 23:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Option 2: Current name

Support - See my discussion prior to the RfC. To me, the current name should be used as the parameter is the name of the spouse, not the name of the person prior to their marriage. To me as a reader, it is confusing the see "Hillary Rodhamn" as Bill Clinton's spouse when I know her name is Hillary Clinton. For individuals I am less familiar with, it would be even more confusing and requires that I mouse-over the link to see the person's common name. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Except it's more complicated than that because in fact her name is Hillary Rodham Clinton, not Hillary Clinton. So I weighed in above in support of using the pre-marriage name. Tvoz/talk 23:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Her article is Hillary Clinton now, so that's why I used that name. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I know, but nothing in that naming decision indicated that we need to change references to her actual name elsewhere in the encyclopedia. Still prefer using Hillary Rodham in BIll's infobox, as that was her name pre-marriage, and post-marriage for some years as well. So at what point in her name usage do you determine what's right for the infobox? Hillary Rodham, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Hillary Clinton? Simpler, isn't it, to use the name she had when they married? Tvoz/talk 22:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Support using name the spouse uses while married. Barack Obama's spouse, for example, is not known as Michelle Robinson because she uses her husband's surname. Would you expect a reliable source to say he is married to Michelle Robinson? No, because he's not. Calidum T|C 14:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
So not the current name as this category states then? (I assume you wouldn't have JFK's infobox say Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis.) Tvoz/talk 22:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Support - if the label was 'Married' then the pre-marriage name would be best; however it isn't, so the reader will just have to read the text, follow links or check references if the want to know the spouse's other names. Generally I think the spouse has the right to choose how he or she is referred to, and when deceased, the most commonly known name would be best. Consider Richard Burton's spouse(s) box. Batternut (talk) 11:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Support Conditionally on the basis that this is understood to mean the WP:COMMONNAME for spouses who have their own Articles; as implied in the questions above - (2) the person's current name/current article title. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 08:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Some examples: Beyoncé <-> Jay Z; Guy Ritchie <-> Madonna; Hilda Gadea <-> Che Guevara

Benefits of using the WP:COMMONNAME include: likely to be understood/recognised by readers; well understood & well tested process; decision is made once (at the Article for the spouse); provides flexibility for unusual cases; relies on reliable sources. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 03:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Support - this is who their spouse is/was. The purpose of the infobox spouse is not to say "X married Y" it is to say, "X is married to Y" or "X WAS married to Y." In the text of the biography, yes, you would write, "Ronald Reagan married Nancy Davis" or "married Nancy (née Davis)" etc. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Support My support does not clearly line up with the choices given. Current name for Hillary seems to be Hillary Rodham, that is what she has always wanted to be called from what I can tell. So my support is for the name that the person currently wants to be called in addition to what reliable sources call them. So if a reliable source says what the person wants to be called then that should be used. I don't think it would be a good method to grab a snapshot of peoples name in time. How would we source names if there were multiple marriages? Would users be able to understand that that person does not use that name? Jadeslair (talk) 04:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Option 3: Both: "Nancy Reagan (formerly Robins)"

Option added 12:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC), originally titled "Option 3: Both: "Nancy Reagan (née Robins)""

Support: More information is better. The obvious solution to "Option 1 is confusing, and Option 2 is misleading" is ... don't confuse or mislead. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 12:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC) Clarification: I don't care what the exact wording is; it could be "Nancy Reagan (formerly Robins)", "Nancy Reagan (née Robins)", "Nancy Reagan (ex-Robins)", whatever. Including both names is the point. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 01:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Question: would we put "Bill Clinton (née William Jefferson Blythe III)"? We're used to dealing with only women having names changed, but some men change theirs and some folks had their names changed prior to marriage (like Bill Clinton). Since née means "born", curious how this would be handled. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I changed the proposal to avoid née (the word is very familiar to me from genealogy, so it didn't occur to me immediately is might not work for everyone.) To restate the original point, if we want to do this but one option is confusing, and the other misleading, then avoid both problems by writing more clearly. It's how we resolve virtually all such problems. The rationale for name details like this isn't to stuff name-change trivia into infoboxes, it's to be informative about name changes that actually matter to readers. To get to your questions and points: It certainly would also be fine to use "Bill Clinton (formerly Blythe)", if editors thought his former surname was relevant in the context (e.g. in Hillary Clinton's infobox). [The "William Jefferson Blythe III" elongation to make the example look less desirable is kind of a red herring.] Usefulness seems unlikely in Bill Clinton's particular case, unless he had a notable career under the name Blythe before he changed it. I just looked it up, and he's used "Clinton" since ca. age 4, and legally changed it at age 15. So, no one cares. Unless maybe a child were notable while a child (e.g. a child actor or a royal), a name change in childhood doesn't rise to infobox-level importance at all for an adult Wikipedia bio subject. A construction like this, when both names are useful to mention, is fine for males whose names changed at marriage, or who were notable under one name before and another after marriage even if the change wasn't marriage-related but coincidental. The fact that this situation arises (in Western countries, anyway) more often for women than men is a fact of the real world, not some Wikipedia bias. Few men change their name upon marriage and even when they do it's usually, along with their partner, to a combination, often hyphenated, of both their surnames. A construction like that illustrated for Bush above would be redundant in Ms. Clinton's case. That's why I switched to a non-Clinton example: Using "Hillary Rodham Clinton (née Rodham)" would be kind of pointless. The use of née in English is almost exclusively in relation to pre-marriage names; it doesn't matter what the original French meaning and usage are (innumerable loanwords like this shift after borrowing). The male form is né (cf. fiancée and fiancé) but is uncommon, so I wouldn't use it. And I'm not wedded (pardon the pun) to née; it was just an example, and one that I've now abandoned. "Nancy Reagan (formerly Robins)" is fine, too. I think that covers all of it. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 01:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Clarification: "Nancy Reagan (then Robins)" or "Nancy Reagan (then Nancy Robins)" might be even better. Consider it the same proposal, exact wording to be determined. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 14:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

General discussion for RfC

@Randy Kryn: I chose this as the venue for the RfC because it is not specific to Bill Clinton. This would affect all biographies. Bill Clinton is just where someone objected to it. The actual "original discussion" is on this page above the RfC. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a discussion that should be centralized, not re-re-re-fought on a thousand pages. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 12:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment: For obvious reasons, this is something that has to be considered on a case-by-case basis. I'm more inclined to generally support the combined approach, wherein current and birth names are presented simultaneously, however this cannot be applied to all articles. Cultural, temporal and familial circumstances need to be taken into account, and at the same time infoboxes need to provide accurate and current information. As such, married women that have adopted their husband's surname and remain married, should have that information reflected, but for the reader's sake their birth names should concomitantly be presented; we are after all an encyclopaedia. Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment: I can't support any of the above options, because I think that an overriding factor should be the article title for any notable spouse. We go to great lengths to ensure that Wikipedia biographies are at the best article title for the readers and I can see no reason to re-litigate the issue within an infobox. If our article about Bill Clinton's wife is titled Hillary Clinton, then that is what is best to use in Bill's infobox. It would mean that Barak Obama's infobox would link to Michelle Obama, but Richard Burton's infobox would link to Elizabeth Taylor. And yes, JFK's infobox should link to Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis because we've already agreed that it is how that individual is best known. The apparent lack of consistency is caused by a lack of consistency in how the public expects to see those spouses' names. The principle of least surprise is important for our readers and shouldn't be discounted lightly. Once the notable spouses are accounted for, there's probably little argument left about how to display non-notable spouses and what's most commonly used in reliable sources would do for me. --RexxS (talk) 23:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- The simple solution, then, to satisfy both the needs of readers' COMMONNAME expectations, and the encyclopedic expectation of avoiding absurd anachronisms, is to use "Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis (then Jacqueline Bouvier)". It not only satisfies both conditions, it's genuinely informative. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 14:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment shouldn't the presumption be to use WP:COMMONNAME (eg Hillary Clinton) in most instances? -- Aronzak (talk) 00:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment I came to look at closing this but there doesn't seem to be consensus and one should be sought. My preference is for CommonName, followed by (then FormerName) if different and in very rare circumstances (now CurrentName) where it differs from the other two and is relevant but that last, as I say, will be rare and judged on sources. SPACKlick (talk) 13:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose any general requirement I too came to try to close but don't see any consensus. At any rate, I think this should be done on a case-by-case basis. Obviously Nancy Reagan makes sense as no one has heard of Nancy Robbins. But other cases will be different. MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 20:56, 4 August 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.

Above to title

I hope no one minds this change. I've changed the "above" field to "title", and added "titlestyle". Sarah ^(talk) 18:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

So essentially, the name for the infobox is above the box itself?--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Or can we have both so that people can choose? If there are objections to my edit, by the way, let me know and I'll revert myself. Sarah ^(talk) 18:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually I've reverted myself. What I'm trying to achieve is the option of having the name inside or over the box, and the option of adding colour, per {{|Infobox}}. Sarah ^(talk) 18:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I personally think that having it hover makes the box look "glitched" and ugly. I say the option should be off the table entirely. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

|title= places the name in a <caption>, which is superior from an accessibility perspective; I support the change from "above" to "title". However, permitting people to arbitrarily change the title background opens the infobox up to WP:COLOR violations. Furthermore, I'm sceptical that editors should micromanage elements of the infobox design on a per-article basis. If colouring the title's background is shown to be superior, it should be made the default. Alakzi (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Script error in Template

The last edit should be reverted. I'm not sure about other browsers - but on Safari it's causing the template to return: "Script error: The module returned a value. It is supposed to return an export table. Script error: The module returned a value. It is supposed to return an export table." --162.245.132.25 (talk) 00:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I potentially take this back? It's definitely happening on this template, but when attempting to view another page - i.e. Kevin Federline - the cite web template also seems corrupted. (the same message as reprinted above is printed in lieu of actual references) However, the cite web template works on other pages that don't have this infobox.--162.245.132.25 (talk) 00:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It was a site-wide issue. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Works parameter

During discussion at Talk:Ludwig van Beethoven #Link to Beethovens work in the infobox, several editors indicated that they would like the ability to have a field labelled Works which would contain a link to [[List of compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven|List of compositions]].

At present this template has alternative parameters |credits= and |notable_works= which produce labels Notable credit(s) or Notable work respectively. As a composer of Beethoven's stature has too many notable works to list in an infobox, but the corresponding List of compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven contains many minor works that many do not consider notable, the consensus was that:

Works List of compositions

was preferable for reasons of aesthetics, grammar and accuracy to:

Notable work List of compositions

Consequently, I created a temporary demonstration version at Template:Infobox person/sandbox-LvB which differs from the parent template only in these lines:

| label33    = <span style="white-space:nowrap;">{{#if:{{{works|}}}|Works|{{#if:{{{credits|}}}|Notable credit(s)|Notable work}}}}</span>
| data33     = {{#if:{{{works|}}}|{{{works|}}}|{{#if:{{{credits|}}}|{{{credits}}}|{{{notable works|{{{notable_works|}}}}}}}}}}

You can see how the sandbox version displays at Ludwig van Beethoven. This change would not increase the number of parameters displayable, but would merely allow a parameter |works= to override the parameters |credits= and |notable_works= if it is present, generating the concise Works label.

Unless there are objections, I'd like to upgrade Template:Infobox person to allow Ludwig to have his list of compositions prefaced with the label that editors of the article want. --RexxS (talk) 21:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

support the proposal, and support to use it for more other people also, because "notable" should be redundant, - why would we list not notable works? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Support - it should be decided on a case by case basis whether "Works" or "Notable works" is more appropriate, but the infobox set-up should have both to choose from. "Works" with a link to the complete list would be appropriate in the case of very prolific artists (like Beethoven), while "Notable work(s)" would work fine for, let's say, Carl Orff who is always remembered for Carmina Burana but even classical music buffs would struggle to come up off-hand with another work by him, although he did compose other works. Kraxler (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Support as per Kraxler. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 01:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Update: As there are no objections after a week, I've made the amendments proposed. I'll now amend the documentation. --RexxS (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Kraxler (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox person ii

I created this template in order to be able to view and compare, side by side, wikidata and user data infoboxes. It displays a dual infobox during preview in Source Editor, it does not affect VisualEditor, there is no harm at all if it stays saved inside an article. Just keep it updated, ~~along with WD hidden infobox person template~~. Check out here. Can be used in any article by adding an " ii" at the end of any Infobox person template name. Enjoy.·· ManosHacker 14:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

There is significant discussion of this at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Template:Infobox person ii. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion has been archived here.

The proposal to merge the new dual view template with current (in one) is impossinle due to loop, so we would always have two templates to keep functionality.
Code is now very clean (no sub-templates scattering code around).
Template has been proven to work flawlessly, even nested, i.e. infobox artist calling infobox person template (click preview here.
It is not suggested as pre-enabled but as optional.

--·· ManosHacker 10:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure that I'll use this often to compare data on Wikpedia with that from Wikidata, so thank you for your efforts. I've made a slight tweak to vertically-align the tops of the two boxes - feel free to revert if you don't thinks it's a help. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

In case it is not fully understood, we can use the funcionality embedded (no need to use the ii, just enable it in preferences). Not possible to merge = we will have to update both templates in case a new parameter is added.·· ManosHacker 23:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

"Names used" or similar field

I have recently raised issue in regard to article titles for people who may be commonly known by more than one rendering of their name.

See: Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Case study re: WP:NATURAL; WP:LEAD; infobox habits; people and the sponging out of WP:COMMONNAME

The article mentioned currently presents:

Sarah Joy Brown

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sarah Joy Brown (born February 18, 1975) is an American actress. ...

Regarding the infobox, The project page does say:

"| birth_name = "

but still think that the mock up all around gives an indication of the kind of thing that can happen.

In such cases such I propose that something along the lines of a "Names used" field might be added to the template.

I was wondering whether a further field might be added to the template as follows:

Foo person

Names used
Born
...
Website

In this case I think that the project page might present something like:

"| names_used = "

My contention is that, in the context of an article on Sarah Joy Brown, a description of "Sarah Brown" under "Other names would not be appropriate.

In place of "Names used" I also thought that something like "Also known as" or "Also presented as" might alternatively be used.

Pinging editors who may have familiarity with the WT:AT discussion: @SmokeyJoe, Blueboar, SMcCandlish, Francis Schonken, In ictu oculi, PBS, and Red Slash:

Greg Kaye 14:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

|other_names= Other notable names for the person, if different from name and birth_name. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 22:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

SMcCandlish in the context of an article with title Sarah Joy Brown on what justification would "Sarah Brown" fit into "Other names"? I do not think that editors would practically do this. Greg Kaye 07:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Because it is a name, like Sarah Joy Brown, under which she also has been credited. I think you're commingling two things here: a) your WP:COMMONNAME objection to the move, and b) an alleged technical problem of nowhere to logically put the alternative name. But there is no technical problem. Just abstract this: The article is at "Foo" and this is a name by which the subject is known (sans any disambiguators like "(actress") of course). The subject is also known as "Bar". As long as both of these are true, it will always be the case that the main name in the infobox can be Foo, and that Bar will work in the other_names parameter. (It's not always the case that some of the other parameters, like birth_name, can be used interchangeably, of course). The fact that you'd rather have the article at Sarah Brown (actress) and would then rather have Sarah Joy Brown in other_names or birth_name is irrelevant with regards to the coding of this template. Proof:

Infobox examples

Sarah Brown
Born	(1975-02-18) February 18, 1975 (age 49) Eureka, California, U.S.
Other names	Sarah Joy Brown, Sarah J. Brown
Occupation(s)	Film, television actress
Years active	1994–present
Partner	Shuki Levy
Children	1
Website	www.sarahbrown.net

Just follow the template documentation, and sandbox if you need to, to see exactly what the parameters do. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 10:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Date of birth

The doc now advises use of {{birth date and age}}, which requires a full date. However, as per WP:DOB the exact birth date should normally not be inclued in articles unless it is widely published already, or has clearly been published with the approval of the person. Many editors seem to be automaically following this documetation and insertig full dates of birth where they should not. I have now included a warning about this in the doc DES ^(talk) 16:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

What exactly is the definition of widely published? How do you define that? WP is an encyclopedia, I don't see why the birth date of someone notable would need to be hidden. Nor should we concern ourselves with publishing information with the "approval" of anyone. We're not a PR agency. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Essentially, WP:DOB counsels that for living people we defer by default to the attitude of many who "regard their full names and dates of birth as private". It falls under BLP section 3, WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy. According to the document header, a template message, "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow."

It's news to me, that we do not (should not) poke around for middle names and birthdays in order to identify people. --P64 (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

That censorship only applies "If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable." I would suggest that if a subject is only borderline notable then perhaps they shouldn't be here at all. In any case, it's a vague term that's not defined or even given guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability. When encyclopedias and reference books for hundreds of years have included birth dates and full names as a matter of standard biographical course, the idea of censoring such information that's already available publicly means that we need to rethink if we're a true encyclopedia or a glorified Who's Who. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

That's an out-of-band argument; this isn't the place to rewrite or reinterpret the interplay of, WP:N and WP:BLP. "Borderline notable" is within "notable" on a Venn diagram, so the "shouldn't be here at all" argument is invalid. WP:BLP overrides many generalities to protect the interests of living subjects, and what is says is closer to non-negotiable than just about anything on the system, other than legal commandments given to us from WP:OFFICE. Classifying such rules as "censorship" is hyperbolic. WT:BLP is a better place to discuss the idea of tightening this to specifics; no decision made on a template talk page is really going to be relevant, since infoboxes are just summaries of information presented in the main article content [when both are written correctly]. The most obvious approach to this is that if reliable secondary sources provide this information, we can use it for BLPs. If it requires primary sources, other than the subject's own, to obtain this information, digging up such details smacks of WP:OR and WP:DOXXING. That would probably be a reasonable clarification proposal at WT:BLP. I opened such a discussion here. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 19:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

While WP:DOB particularly says to be cautious if the subject complains or is only borderline notable, it also says: "With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object." as a positive statement, before mention of objections from the subject. I take this as a policy statement that such info should not be 9included in BLPs unless so sourced. I will routinely remove unsourced exact dates of birth, and cut them back to the year only. If they are sourced but to an obscure source not obviously approved by the subject, i will either do the same or tag for later removal. DES ^(talk) 21:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

You will remove the exact date of birth from 98% or 99% of all biographies of living persons because there's no direct citation for it? Seriously? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, very seriously. Just as I would remove any other uncited content. Currently I am doing so only when I happen to edit an article on other matters. I am (slowly, and in between other tasks) compiling evidence to support a bot application to do so using AWB. DES ^(talk) 17:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

How do you determine "not obviously approved by the subject", do you read their minds? Can you teach me, or are you born with that gift? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I just restored one, it is silly to remove an actor's DOB when it is published in IMDB. If you require a reference, why don't you add a reference, instead of deleting because none is there? My guess is about 50% of all of Wikipedia would be deleted if we deleted any paragraph that did not a have a reference. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The year of birth should be sufficient. What is the defensible reason a reader needs to know the month and day upon which a living person was born? Bus stop (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Why does a reader need to know any fact about anybody? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

This conversation was migrated from Daniel Martin Eckhart:

I assume the comment "born December 9, 1962 in Switzerland) If it appears in IMDB there is no need to remove it here, I know this is a crusade for you" was directed at me, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), although you didn't say so. I wouldn't call it a crusade, but I do remove uncited birth dates from BLPs when i see them, as per the policy WP:DOB. It may appear in the IMDB but it wasn't cited here, and the IMDB is not generally considered a reliable source here in any case. So take it that this info has been challenged as uncited, and please cite it or see it removed. Moreover, WP:DOB specifies that an exact DOB should have been widely published, not just sourced -- well perhaps the IMDB qualifies for that. In any case, what encyclopedic value does an exact dob serve? DES ^(talk) 01:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Note that the source cited in the early life paragraph (an interview) does not include the DOB, not even the year. DES ^(talk) 01:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Tell how you interpret widely. Define it so that I will recognize it every time. My definition: If it is on the Internet it is widely published, if it is in a pay database, it NOT widely published. You seem to interpret it as universally published so that every interview starts with his exact date of birth. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
No, I mention the interview because it is the only source cited in the relevant section of the article, and because, as an interview, a mention would indicate the subject's willingness to have this information public, and because the subject's place of birth is mentioned, which would make a mention of the date also logical if the subject wished to do so. I would say such a fact could be included if it is, first of all, supported by a reliable source cited in the article. Without this, the question of "widely published" doesn't even arise, it is simply uncited info in a BLP that has been challenged. If it is cited, then if it is in a reasonably widely viewed non-paywall web site, say in the top 30-40 google results on a search for the subject, or in a print publication with national distribution, or otherwise reasonably qualifying as widely read (but not a weekly home-town newspaper, say), then it could be included. It could also be included on Wikipedia if it have been included in even one interview, or on the subject's web site, or other source under the subjects control or indicating the subject's permission or agreement to publicize this data. That is just my view, but I think it conforms with the views expressed at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 39#Dates of birth and info boxes. Like many other Wikipedia inclusion standards, it is to some extent a judgement call, but I don't think I'm being unreasonable about it. Cite even one RS that confirms the IMDB date (which wasn't cited in the article anyway) and I will drop all objections. Nor will I edit war over the matter. DES ^(talk) 02:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted the addition of IMDB as a source for the DOB (although I have not removed the DOB itself), because it isn't a reliable source for such data, as I said above. I searched for such a source, and the only thing I found was the IMDB, this Wikipedia article, and unreliable aggregators such as answers.com that quite probably took their data from the IMDB entry or from this article. Eckhart's web site doesn't seem to have a bio section, nor does it mention his DOB. No interview with Eckhart that I could find mentions it. In short I find no RS for this factoid at all. If anyone has a source, please provide it. DES ^(talk) 15:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Why is IMDB sufficient for his year of birth but not his date of birth?

I have not looked at the specific article you two are discussing, but generally I would say IMDB is not a reliable source for either year or date of birth. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Nikki is absolutely right. IMDB is made up of user-generated content and therefore we cannot accept it as a reliable source. We might as well accept Wikipedia as an RS, because the same person could make fallacious edits to both. The same principle applies to blogs and forums, unless the author can be verified as a published expert in the field in question. --RexxS (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Propose Infobox academic

See proposal here Template_talk:Infobox_theologian#Propose Infobox academic :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Strange instructions regarding website

In this edit from May 2012, User:SMcCandlish made a change to the instructions for website which I have now undone. His 2 additions to the instructions are counterintuitive, instruction creep, were not discussed, and are not reflective of common practice. Debresser (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

footnotes = Wikipedian?

Renato M. E. Sabbatini has "footnotes = Wikipedian" in the infobox. Is that a proper use of the footnote parameter?

No. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Using footnotes

How is one supposed to use the footnotes field? Just insert text, or use {{efn}}-like templates in the other fields? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

"Full name" instead of or in addition to "birth name", etc.

Many people have more than one given name, and outside the USA, they need not almost always be one or conventionally given as a middle initial. They also need not normally be used at all. For example, Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche is commonly known as Friedrich Nietzsche and Franz Peter Schubert as Franz Schubert, to name but two cases where I have repeatedly seen people use the full names hypercorrectly (tipping over in their efforts to be correct). Under "birth name", different things can be understood in different naming traditions, e.g. a married woman's name before marriage. It could also differ for other reasons from the full name later in life.

For both of these reasons, an item for "full name" would be a worthwhile addition or replacement, and the instruction about middle initial could perhaps receive an addition "where applicable". 151.177.62.155 (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, some of the birth names (as in the birth certificate or the like) may be in a different language than the ones actually used, as in W. A. Mozart's case (Greek Theophilus for Latin Amadeus) or simply mistaken.

What's needed is a clear distinction between commonly used name, full name and birth name. 151.177.62.155 (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

A "notable_as" alternative to "occupation"

As pointed out at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach#Infobox, the |occupation= parameter is misleading and anachronistic for pre-modern subjects. We need a more general alternative. The |known_for= parameter does work well for this; "Known for: Composer, musician" isn't grammatical. I'm thinking of something along the lines of |notable_as=. This would also be useful for modern subjects who are notable for something that has nothing to do with their occupation. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 09:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Position of other_names within infobox

Current order

Suggested order

honorific_prefix name honorific_suffix
[[File:image\|image_size \|alt=alt\|upright=1]] caption}
Native name	native_name
Pronunciation	pronunciation
Born	birth_name birth_date birth_place
Disappeared	disappeared_date disappeared_place
Status	disappeared_status
Died	death_date death_place
Cause of death	death_cause
Body discovered	body_discovered
Burial place	burial_place burial_coordinates
Residence	residence
Nationality	nationality
Other names	other_names
Ethnicity	ethnicity
Citizenship	citizenship

honorific_prefix name honorific_suffix
[[File:image\|image_size \|alt=alt\|upright=1]] caption}
Native name	native_name
Pronunciation	pronunciation
Other names	other_names
Born	birth_name birth_date birth_place
Disappeared	disappeared_date disappeared_place
Status	disappeared_status
Died	death_date death_place
Cause of death	death_cause
Body discovered	body_discovered
Burial place	burial_place burial_coordinates
Residence	residence
Nationality	nationality
Ethnicity	ethnicity
Citizenship	citizenship

Currently the name, native_name, pronunciation, and birth_name parameters are all displayed near the top of the infobox. The only remaining name parameter, other_names, might be displayed many lines below (depending on which other parameters are used). I would like to place other_names between pronunciation and birth_name, so that all name parameters are grouped together. I have provided examples of the current layout and suggested layout, with the name-related parameters highlighted. Any comments for or against? -- Zyxw (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind whether it is moved or not but if it is it should be below birthname not above it. The birthname usually comes years before any others. MarnetteD|Talk 15:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Agreed it needs to move up, and agreed with Zyxw that it should be after birth_name (which means after the birth block). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 09:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Noun or adjective?

For the religion parameter, should the specific religion be a noun or an adjective? Example, is it "Anglican" or "Anglicanism"? What does WP:BLPCAT recommend? Santiago Claudio (talk) 13:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Resting place parameter

The question of WP:EUPHEMISM was raised at User talk:Eric Corbett #It makes me wince. I've created a version in the sandbox that accepts |burial=, which overrides |resting_place= (and its synonyms) delivering the label as Burial. Obviously that's only suitable when a person is buried (rather than placed in a mausoleum, put on display in the Kremlin, etc.), but it gives an option to those that think the label "Resting place" is an unnecessary euphemism for someone who is actually buried. It works at Julius Beer. Shall I update {{Infobox person}} to reflect the change in the sandbox? --RexxS (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

This an very good suggestion. It's more factual to state if someone was buried (as most people have been). 86.151.106.59 (talk) 19:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi RexxS, Firstly, many thanks for the update to the template. One small request though - would it be possible to have this deliver a label of Buried, rather than Burial, to fit with the past tense verb format of Born and Died? Many thanks for your consideration of this. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, Ryk72. It's actually trivial to change the label (and the parameter name if desired) as the logic is now in place. I'm just watching this discussion as well as the ones at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography #Infobox content and at Eric's page to try to gauge what the most popular label would be. Buried makes a lot of sense as you point out. Unless we get any serious objections by tomorrow evening (to give all time zones a chance to comment), I'll implement the addition then to the template proper, and update the documentation. It won't affect any existing articles, of course, until editors start making use of the new parameter. --RexxS (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I think adding "burial" is not a good idea. because it doesn't make clear if it is a parameter for a time or a place. For that reason I prefer the unambiguous "resting place". Or "place of burial" / "burial place".

Also, by the way, WP:EUPHEMISM applies to articles, not template parameters. It is not the reason I think we should keep "resting place", but it is a reason not to say that it must be changed. Debresser (talk) 07:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Would Buried be any better? Whatever label is chosen, we can document its intended use, so that there's no confusion between time and place. I can see a possible reasoning why we might prefer "burial place" because of its unambiguity, but as any new user will have to look at the documentation to find the parameter name, it's difficult to argue that they won't see what the document tells them about its use.

I think you're confusing the parameter name with the label it produces in the infobox. The label is quite clearly article text and it cannot be said that WP:EUPHEMISM doesn't apply to it. That's why people have been complaining since 2008 that the label "resting place" is euphemistic. I should add that I'm not proposing to remove "resting place" or change it, I'm proposing we give editors the choice of displaying the label as either "resting place" or something like "buried". --RexxS (talk) 11:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I understand, and that is a good thing. I was just making a general observation, whether WP:EUPHEMISM should apply here or not.

Parameters should be as unambiguous as possible. Many editors will not check the documentation ever. A deplorable but true fact. So I think it should be "burial place". Debresser (talk) 13:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@Debresser: I concede your point: editors often copy existing instances and may guess at the meaning of a parameter without looking at the documentation. I'll make the addition using |burial_place= to give the label Burial place. It can always be changed if people don't like it. --RexxS (talk) 20:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

This is a perennial question (please see the archives), "resting place" is not a euphemism. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Good point. In any case, both are allowed now. Debresser (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

"Resting place is not a euphemism"? Great, then I suggest we occasionally dig up our dead friends and relatives to find out how their "rest" is going. C'mon, "resting place" is completely euphemistic, no one is "resting" while awaiting resurrection, they are dead. "Burial place" would be a good non-euphemistic substitute. BMK (talk) 03:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it's euphemistic, but do you have another suggestion for cases where the person was not buried? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

What about |resting_place_label= so that the text of the "Resting place" label can be overridden to whatever is most appropriate in each case? I expect this has been suggested before. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea, John, but it would cause problems for third-party tools that aggregate our content, because the key-value pair would have indeterminate values for the key. At present, such tools can read information from the infobox template (or preferably its documentation) and then can recognise in each article that the location following the labels "Resting place" and "Burial place" will represent the same thing. That's not so easy to accomplish when the label can be anything. It's not impossible to work around, but my preference is always to keep things as simple as I can get away with. --RexxS (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Bit late to the party I know, but what about Interred at? "To inter" is a more formal (and maybe even more subtle) way of expressing burial. At least not as ridiculous as "resting place" IMHO. -andy 2.242.155.168 (talk) 06:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Dealing with concepts that exist in Wikipedia as redirects

I noticed in the wikidata-driven infoboxes for Florence Violet McKenzie and Rod Davies, they both have the award of Order of the British Empire - "Officer" and "Commander" respectively. In human-written infoboxes these titles would be be redirected to to the article on the Order of the British Empire becuase EN.WP does not have a standalone article about those concepts. HOWEVER, because Wikidata has a specific item for each of these levels of the Order of the British Empire, the infobox links to the Wikidata item https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q12201477 and puts a little asterisk (*) with hovertext stating "article is not yet available on this wiki".

I propose that when there is a REDIRECT in place for the precise word(s) of the wikidata item being linked to, that the template accept it, and link the words to that redirect on the wiki. Witty lama 12:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

This is related to Wikidata Phabricator bug: "Allow sitelinks to redirect pages to fix the 'Bonnie and Clyde problem'". Witty lama 12:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

It shouldn't be shown as an award at all, but as an |honorific_suffix= with a value of, for example [[Order of the British Empire|CBE]]; see [1]. And no, I don't know how to achieve that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I tried to add the "honorific suffix" property to her wikidata item, with the value "OBE", but that instead went to the wikidata ITEM for "Order of the British Empire" - which isn't the suffix acronym, but the award which the acronym represents! (see what I mean?). Witty lama 17:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If we want linked data to display differently from the article title on en-wp, then we probably have to use a local value to override the value on Wikidata, because it's almost impossible for a module to second-guess what text the editor wishes to be displayed in a particular case. For example, we can't legislate for a redirect like CBE becoming a dab page at some point. I intended Module:Wikidata to always allow a locally supplied parameter value to be displayed in preference to whatever Wikidata would supply, so if you have a case where that isn't happening, please give me an example and I'll do my best to fix it. --RexxS (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've applied a fix for Florence Violet McKenzie. It needed to set OBE as a local value for |honorific_suffix= which displays it in the usual place in the infobox; and then suppress the awards field by setting |awards= to be nothing. It would probably be best to ask on Wikidata for honorifics to be a separate property from awards. Does that make sense? --RexxS (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Dealing with conflicting statements in the same parameter

I just swapped an existing infobox on Florence Violet McKenzie from being locally-created to one using this template. See before and after.

One of the problems that this introduced was that, due to conflicting data about her birthdate, BOTH dates are included, comma separated. Both of these dates have reliable sources to reference them in Wikidata, but one is considered more commonly accepted and therefore I have marked it in Wikidata as the "preferred rank". See the Date of Birth statement on her Wikidata item. In some properties we do want to show multiple statements if they exist (e.g. "spouse" or "awards" etc.), but not for things like date/place of birth/death.

I propose that when there are multiple statements in a single property, and that ONE of those statements has a higher RANK (either by it being "preferred" or the others being "depreciated"), the ONLY statement should be shown. Can this be done, technically speaking, within this template? Witty lama 12:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Another problem is that the birth and death dates have lost the microformat metadata markup, created via templates {{birth date}} and {{Death date and age}}, and the calculated age at death produced by the latter template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@Wittylama: If we are willing to display data retrieved from Wikidata, then Module:Wikidata has calls that return only the most preferred properties (even if more than one exists at the top rank). Template:Infobox person/Wikidata was made to be a proof-of-concept example of fetching some of the subject's information from Wikidata. I think we'd need quite considerable discussion here before we could make Template:Infobox person capable of fetching all of its data in that way. At present, our use of Wikidata in the English Encyclopedia is circumscribed by WP:Wikidata #Inserting Wikidata values into Wikipedia articles, particularly the result of the Phase 2 RfC. HTH --RexxS (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata "preferred" and "deprecated" ranks might be used for such a purpose --management of data displayed on Wikipedia pages-- only when all-language Wikipedia who use WD data in similar fashion agree on which value they prefer to display, and when such use doesn't interfere with the primary function of statement rank, whatever that may be.

Do we at EN.wiki now generally (not experiment, test, sandbox, whatever) make any use of WD preferred and deprecated rank now? Our Authority control template, if i understand correctly, displays the first of multiple LCCN that may be stated at WD. --P64 (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Any infobox that makes use of the calls in Module:Wikidata will generally return only the preferred values from Wikidata, where multiple ranks exist. This is because the function normally used in the module, mw.wikibase.entity:formatPropertyValues(), returns only the best claims by default - see mw:Extension:Wikibase Client/Lua #mw.wikibase.entity:formatPropertyValues. For example, in Wikidata, Geneva (d:Q71) has two values for its population (P1082): 195,393 (preferred rank) and 189,033 (normal rank). If we fetch the data using Module:Wikidata, we just get the preferred value:

{{#invoke:Wikidata |getValueFromID |Q71 |P1082 |FETCH_WIKIDATA}}
203,840

Does that answer your question, or are you looking for examples of where this happens in an infobox? I don't know of any way of answering the latter, other than just looking at articles containing templates in the category Category:Templates using data from Wikidata, sorry. --RexxS (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Errors reported

When editing Buckskin Frank Leslie, the following template errors are being displayed during preview:

Warning: Page using Template:Infobox person with unknown parameter "box_width" (this message is shown only in preview).

Warning: Page using Template:Infobox person with unknown parameter "baptism_date" (this message is shown only in preview).

These parameters do not exist in that specific article. I believe there is an issue with the template itself. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 18:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@Btphelps: I have edited {{Infobox criminal}}; your preview shouldn't show these error messages now. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Listing twins

In Dylan and Cole Sprouse, the infobox lists the twins by name alphabetically. Is it alphabetically done or done by who's older? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

They appear in the order in which they were inserted; the template doesn't to any auto-sorting. Birth order is a matter of a few minutes, and irrelevant. I think they were put in that order because that's the order they appear in the photo, and native readers of English and other Western languages read (and view pictures in pages) left-to-right. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 11:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Marriage

Didn't the Marriage parameter "Explanation" used to say to use the marriage template? (maybe not) Why doesn't it say that now? --Musdan77 (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, no answer to that question; how about this one?:

Any objections to adding it? --Musdan77 (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The change (if there was one) should be findable in edit history, and if there was discussion about it, it should be in the archives. Anyway, I don't see a reason to not recommend that template, but maybe there is a technical one I don't know about? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 11:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

parameter for preferred pronouns?

Some people have pronouns that they prefer. For more information, see this article and Gender-specific and gender-neutral pronouns.

I'd like to see this added to infoboxes for people. It could certainly be an optional parameter, and perhaps the parameter can still be filled, but optionally shown. - Paul2520 (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Website parameter and Twitter

Can/should verified Twitter accounts be listed in this infobox's website= parameter for BLP's?... TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Editors who work on this template....

...might be interested in this. BMK (talk) 06:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The template states, "Place of burial, ash-scattering, etc." Period. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 07:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes

There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what What should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a new RfC on Talk:Bernie Sanders on this matter. Softlavender (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Specifically, at Talk:Bernie_Sanders#Request_for_comments_--_religion_in_infobox. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Burial coordinates

Margaret of Hereford's infobox says:

          Margaret of Hereford
Born 1122/1123
          England
Died 6 April 1197
Burial Llanthony Secunda Priory,
place Gloucester, England
          {{{burial_coordinates}}}
Occupation Constable of England
...

Notice {{{burial_coordinates}}}, complete with computerese triple brackets and underscore, and presumably a software error. It goes away by removing the "burial place" parameter but not by changing it. Further experimenting is discouraged because I tried inserting "| burial_place = Marysville" into Aristotle (in preview mode) and it doesn't show at all.

If we don't fix it, I should put a warning in the document not to use "burial place" without coordinates, if that is the problem. Art LaPella (talk) 04:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

When that happens, it's usually a sign that the code is using {{{burial_coordinates}}} instead of {{{burial_coordinates|}}} (i.e. use the parameter if supplied, otherwise use blank). Now fixed, I hope - the article pages just need to be purged to get past the caching. Ping me if there are any outstanding problems. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 19:45, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Art LaPella (talk) 21:53, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

We don't need geo coordinates for burial places anyway; it's cruft. Please make this work without requiring that. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 11:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be under a misapprehension about how the parameters work. The infobox works perfectly well if no burial coordinates are supplied. However, if burial coordinates are supplied, then they are used, despite you thinking they are "cruft". If you want to get rid of them, then start an RfC and see if you can convince anybody else to agree with you. The problem here was that the {{br separated entries}} template was expecting a coordinates parameter and needed it to be explicitly blank in order to ignore it when it wasn't supplied. --RexxS (talk) 13:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

`Net_worth`

Is this parameter only used for alive persons, or may it be used for people regardless of their statuses? ~~Gamingforfun~~³⁶⁵ (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

It can be used for both living and deceased people Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 18 February 2016

This edit request to Template:Infobox person has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Move the output placement of |denomination= so that it appears as Religion: <religion> (<denomination>) rather than on a second line. Where |denomination= is filled but |religion= is not, the output should simply be Denomination: <denomination>. See Template_talk:Infobox#Denomination_placement. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Infobox person/Archive 29
John Just-Religion
Spouse	Mrs Just-Religion

Infobox person/Archive 29
John Just-Denomination
Spouse	Mrs Just-Denomination

Infobox person/Archive 29
John Both
Spouse	Mrs Both

Have a look at Template:Infobox person/sandbox to check whether it does what you want, Nikki.

I've tried three test cases here, but you may want to check in some real pages by changing to {{Infobox person/sandbox}} and previewing without saving, just to be sure.

If it works for you then there should be no problem in updating the main template (data51 and data52), given the support in the discussion. --RexxS (talk) 02:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks RexxS, that looks right. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Done --RexxS (talk) 03:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

known_for leads to incoherent grammar

e.g. Janet Mock gets "Known for: Transgender activist". She is known as an activist, not for an activist. The activist isn't something she created or owns, but something she is. Equinox (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

What about supplying "being a" before "transgender"? Nyttend (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

That would work, but seems a bit wordy for an info-box possibly...? Equinox (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Or even "Transgender activism"? or is that too obvious. --RexxS (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Nice, this is clearly the correct solution for this particular case and others like it. General rule: for the "known_for" parameter, use the activity itself instead of a role defined by that activity. A2soup (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Just write proper English: |known_for=Transgender activism. Nothing is wrong with the template, and it is not producing incoherent grammar; editors not thinking is producing incoherent grammar. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 20:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

allow for architect infobox to use all parameters

I added an infobox to Thorvald Astrup, who was an architect. However, the architect infobox didn't allow for some parameters, for instance, style and family. The architect infobox is supposed to work with all infobox person parameters. Can it either be made available as a module, or else all infobox person parameters be made accessible through it?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

It would be better to just merge the templates, once and for all. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

That would work, too. I don't care which option is taken.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 25 February 2016

This edit request to Template:Infobox person has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add parameters father and mother. Visibly it can be shown in parents / family, but while editing please allow to add father / mother. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 20:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Capankajsmilyo:

Done. The parameters won't be used unless |parents= is blank or missing. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 17:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Specificity problem with /Wikidata

This version of Ali Aaltonen uses {{Infobox person/Wikidata}} and displays dates of birth and death as 1 January 1884 and 1 January 1918. However, Wikidata (and the Russian Wikipedia entry to which it is sourced) give the dates as simply 1884 and 1918. The template appears to be deriving specific dates from this year-only source, and it should not do that when the exact dates are unknown. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem existed because we want to specify date formats as dmy or mdy, and that forced the display of day, month, year, even when the stored value in Wikidata only has precision of year (Wikidata always stores complete timestamps - like "+1884-01-01T00:00:00Z" for Ali Aaltonen's date of birth). I've added a test to the module that explicitly changes the date format to y (just year) when the stored precision in Wikidata is 9 (which indicates precision is year). The older version you indicated now seems to correctly display just the years, but we may need to see if anybody reports any bugs before we can be sure we have a fix. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 07:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@RexxS: Thanks, but I've found one. I did a bit more digging and learned that the Historical Dictionary of the Russian Civil Wars identifies Aaltonen's DOD as August 1918. I've added that to Wikidata (although for some reason it didn't allow me to add the source...), but the old article now shows DOD as "31 July 1918". Nikkimaria (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria:. Thanks anyway for bringing it up, the module needed the fix. I can see that the old article now manages to automatically display the full date of death and just the year of birth, so that's progress. To add the source on Wikidata, it needs to be a Wikidata item, so I've created d:Q23023741 for the book (and d:Q23023849 for the author). Let's see if they last. In the meantime, it allowed me to add a reference as "stated in: Historical Dictionary of the Russian Civil Wars". --RexxS (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Typo

There is a typo in the documentation: "It is usually not relevant to included" should be "It is usually not relevant to include". --Omnipaedista (talk) 11:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Omnipaedista: Well spotted; I've fixed it. Actually the documentation is at Template:Infobox person/doc, and since this is not a protected page you could have made the edit yourself. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I realized that too late. Thanks for taking care of it. --Omnipaedista (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested clarification

Many editors use the parameters religion and denomination in way that suggests they do not know the distinction. Therefore in the explanation box I request that either (a) a definition be added or (b) an example(s) usage be given. Hawaan12 (talk) 08:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

That sounds sensible. What definitions and examples do you propose? You're autoconfirmed, so you can edit the documentation at Template:Infobox person/doc, you know. --RexxS (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC notice: Ethnicity in infoboxes

FYI

– Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Ethnicity in infoboxes for ongoing RfC to remove |ethnicity=. (Not sure why this page wasn't notified earlier.) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC notice: Religion in biographical infoboxes

FYI

– Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes for new RfC to remove |religion= from {{Infobox person}} (except where consensus determines it is directly relevant to why the subject is notable). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 01:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Age and infants

I'm a bit annoyed that the infobox in the article on Baby Fae says that her age at death was "0". She was a month old, that's not "0". Are there parameters which can be added / adjusted to show her age in terms of months and/or days? DS (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

This is a question for Template talk:Death date and age, but in the meantime I've applied a temporary fix. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@DragonflySixtyseven: You should be able to use {{death date}} in combination with {{age for infant}}, and add the date of death as the "cmp" parameters. Alternatively, you can use {{death date and given age}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I've been trying this for several minutes and I don't see what I've been doing wrong. (I haven't clicked 'save' yet, though.) Could one of you take over for me? Thanks. DS (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

What's wrong with the edit by Pigsonthewing? After all, it seems unnecessary to compute the age at death of a person in perpetuity through a template – it's not going to change. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Nemmind, figured it out. DS (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Date templates sucha s those mentioned don't just calculate an age; they also emit the date in a machine-readable format. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It's also worth remembering that 99% of our readers are served the cached version of a page. Generally nothing is recalculated by the server until changes are made to the page. --RexxS (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)