Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 36

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39

image_upright

size is 100 × 103 pixels
size is still 100 × 103 px, even though upright=2 is set
width is whatever pref is set, probably 220px
width is 1.5 times whatever pref is set, probably 330px

Does |image_upright= do anything? Every time I've tried using it (For instance, setting to 1.5 or 2) the image never seems to change size, whereas if I've tested the shunned |image_size= parameter it scales the way I want it to. Is it possible that the parameter is incompatible with my site image preferences at Preferences > Appearance?

Image size limit on file description pages: 800x600px
Thumbnail size: 220px

Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Seems to work fine for me with the same prefs. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Very weird. I tried it while logged out and on different browsers and while I should think | image_upright = 2 would make the image twice as big, it shows up the same. I'm sure I'm doing something wrong, but I'm not sure what that is. I'll ask at VPT... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb: the image syntax won't scale an image beyond its stored size, so an image that is 100 × 103 pixels, for example, won't increase in size. That may be the source of your problem. --RexxS (talk) 23:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
@RexxS: Sorry to ask you to give me a primer here, but I'm still confused by what you mean when you say "beyond its stored size". With your examples here, I can see the difference (or lack of difference) between the images, but I'm not clear on why one is growing, but the other is not. Does this have something to do with the Bish family photo being 360x360, then getting scaled down to whatever the default/preferred image size is for the infobox, then getting scaled back up depending on what the upright setting is?
The source of my question comes from the article Devoleena Bhattacharjee. The image there is of an almost-full-body shot. I attempted to crop it here, but the resulting 110x117px image is obviously too small to be a good infobox photo. With |image_size= I can increase it, but not with upright, is what I'm gathering here. Is that right? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:16, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
That's exactly right, Cyphoidbomb, and please don't ever worry about asking me if I can explain something. Passing on my meagre knowledge is my raison d'être in my twilight years. As I understand it, the point is that both your cropped body shot and the 'Zilla pics are stored at only about 100px wide and upright will refuse to scale them any larger (as will the default image markup that doesn't specify a size). On the other hand, the Bish family photo is stored at 360px wide, so the image syntax will happily scale it down to the the standard 220px default (or whatever you set as default in your preferences), but will steadfastly refuse to scale it any larger than 360px, even if you set |upright=10. The MediaWiki software actually creates a scaled image on-the-fly at whatever pixel size you request (rounded usually to the nearest 10px), and the fast scaling algorithm would produce noticeable pixelation if it made an image larger than its stored size, so it refuses to do it. You may be better off using a good quality image editing program to create an upscaled cropped image at around 200px and upload that for use directly if the quality is acceptable. Hope that makes sense, but feel free to ping me if it doesn't. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 03:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
@RexxS: Fantastically explained, thank you very much. And thank you for providing the examples so I could try to figure it out myself, which kind of helped! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Adding a "pronouns" parameter

Should we add a "pronouns" parameter to be able to indicate a person's preferred personal pronouns (e.g "they/them"), for cases in which that preference is reliably sourced and differs from what most people of the respective gender use (e.g. "he/him" for men)? Sandstein 13:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Survey

  • Yes. Using nonstandard pronouns is increasingly common in the West, including among notable people, and not using a person's chosen pronouns is increasingly considered disrespectful. MOS:GENDERID requires us to respect this choice in our articles. We can help readers and editors who want to avoid mistakes by presenting this information in a standardized form. This also allows us to avoid mentioning pronoun choice explicitly in the body, if it would draw undue attention to a relatively minor aspect of somebody's personality (e.g. Karin Tidbeck, which gave me the idea). Sandstein 13:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • No Within the first few sentences of reading the article the pronouns of the subject will become immediately obvious making it completely unneccesary to have an individual parameter when this infomation will naturally be found throughout the entire article when referring to the subject. Adding this will just add clutter to the infobox and will end up being misused by editors inserting 'standard' pronouns in the field. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 14:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • No Not important in most articles. MB 14:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • No, for mostly the same reasoning as Spy-circle. It is important to accurately convey someone's pronoun preferences. However, if there are reliable sources to show their pronoun preference, then that preference should be easily recognizable in the article, making a pronoun parameter redundant in my opinion. As mentioned, it would likely open up the possibility for misuse if the intention is that the parameter only be used for pronouns that differ from the most commonly used ones (e.g. he/him, she/her). PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 17:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  • No; I find Spy-circle's rationale persuasive. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes As a trans person myself, Sandstein's reasoning is quite sound in my view. We shouldn't be making people dig through articles to deduce something that might not always be obvious. Emma (chats ✦ edits) 04:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • No About as encyclopedic as a parameter for gender, sexual orientation, religion, or political alignment. ili (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes. Per MOS:GENDERID, it would be helpful for readers to know the pronouns of an article subject – it's been argued that the pronouns will be "obvious" when they are used in prose – but the same could be said for an occupation. This parameter would be helpful to both trans and cis people. – DarkGlow (✉) 01:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
  • No – to the Infobox param; and yes, always respect MOS:GENDERID. Before even considering this question, one should decide who this information is for: the reader (the vast majority of page views) or the Wikipedia editor? If it's for the reader, then if it's important enough to meet WP:DUEWEIGHT, then it should be in the article specifically, as is the case with Leslie Feinberg. If it is *not* important enough (or not reliably sourced enough) to warrant a single sentence in the article, then pronoun usage in the article itself should make clear to a reader what pronoun is used. On the other hand, if it is aimed principally at Wikipedia editors so that they follow usage while editing, then an Infobox parameter is the wrong place for it, and we might consider a banner template for the Talk page, and possibly also <!-- Hidden text advice --> near the top of the article page. Either way, a new parameter is not needed. See also Discussion. Mathglot (talk) 02:07, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
  • No. Mathglot's reasoning is a good summary. And extra clutter in infoboxes isn't desirable. EddieHugh (talk) 22:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

For those who want to know, there have been previous discussions about this subject, but they have been relatively brief and inconclusive, even though several people expressed interest in the idea. A formal RfC therefore seems appropriate. Sandstein 13:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I was going to write a TP template, but turns out there already is a template: {{Pronoun notice}}, but rather than being designed for a talk page or article page, it is designed for use as an edit notice, such as the one at Kate Bornstein. To view it, go to that article, and click the Edit tab. I still think a Talk page banner template might be useful, and I'd base it on {{tmbox}}, have one mandatory positional param (1=nominative pronoun) and 3 optionals (acc, gen, reflexive). Mathglot (talk) 01:58, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and added {{Article pronouns}}. See example at Talk:Karin Tidbeck. Mathglot (talk) 06:27, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Occupation: What formatting to use when there are two entries?

What formatting does one use in |occupation= when there are two entries? Comma? Line break? Flat list? Guideline says: "Use list markup for three or more entries, e.g. with {{flatlist}}". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why a list should not be used for two entries. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
That's where my mind goes as well, since I'm not sure why you would use something other than a flatlist up to two, then change it.
Actor, model
  • Actor
  • model
  • Actor
  • model
  • producer
Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb: The guidance was a compromise between another editor and me. I wanted list markup always; the other editor wanted commas, as would be used in normal prose, and they didn't like the mid-dot. I conceded that a screen reader would benefit very little from a list of two items. Nevertheless, the benefit increases as the size of the list grows, and the other editor conceded that we should recommend list markup for longer lists. Since then, I created {{cslist}} to remove the aesthetic objection to the mid-dots:
Actor, model
  • Actor
  • model
(← this is actually an html unordered list)
  • Actor
  • model
  • producer
(← as is this)
I can't remember the name of the other editor, nor when and where the discussion took place, but it's in some archive, somewhere.
Please feel free to rehash a new consensus: you won't have objections from me. You might want to consider if there are any ramifications for WP:FLATLIST, though. --RexxS (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Despite my right years as a Wikipedia user, member, I consider myself a novice here. Having read the submissions above I submit that this is a moot point, as ordered list has already been agreed by the two people involved. However, I would like to add that while I am capable of creating lists in HTML, comma separated syntax is most likely easier for novice editors to comprehend. MartUK2012 (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

right = eight (typo, sorry) MartUK2012 (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

burial_place vs. resting_place

Is use of "resting_place" better than use of "burial_place" in an infobox when the subject of the article was buried? I ask after I changed "resting_place" to "burial_place" in Louise Brooks, based on the sentence "She had no survivors and was buried in Holy Sepulchre Cemetery in Rochester." An editor reverted the change and wrote, "If you have a problem with an infobox parameter, discuss your concerns on the talk page for the infobox. Please do not remove the parameter from the infoboxes on individual articles, as you did on Louise Brooks. As long as the parameter is part of the infobox, it can be used." I didn't realize that I had a problem. I thought I was applying the guidelines specified in the Explanation column on the template page. I would appreciate clarification. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thats correct. If the parameter is part of the template (in this case the template supports both resting and burial) you can use either. Usually if burial is confirmed, some editors use burial, if its not confirmed they were buried but the location is, use resting (eg crematorium and interred above ground). In this specific instance, if the sources say she was buried, you are fine to use burial place. Only in death does duty end (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
You may want to read this and the associated linked discussions there. The burial vs resting is a recurring discussion. Essentially you are either buried or you are not. If you are not buried, resting-place is a convenient but euphamistic catch-all for the numerous other ways these days of disposing of a corpse. Since no one genuinely wants more 3, 4 or 5 different parameters for indicating where the body is, discussion always ends up going nowhere. Only in death does duty end (talk) 02:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Only in death. I appreciate your comments. Eddie Blick (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

What is the point of the signature parameter?

I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I'm curious. Aside from say, John Hancock (the only notable signature I can think of), why are we including people's signatures? I see no encyclopedic value in this, personally. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

AleatoryPonderings, the most recent discussion that I'm aware of was Template_talk:Infobox_person/Archive_35#Signature_parameter_RFC which closed with no consensus. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2021

Could the two most recent edits to the documentation please be reverted per WP:BRD? The new format introduced makes it much more difficult to read and does not have a consensus. Thanks, 207.161.86.162 (talk) 02:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @207.161.86.162, Michael Bednarek, and JJMC89: Kindly reconsider. The spaced-out version can create a disadvantage for users with small screens, especially mobile users, as the elements appear more cluttered than necessary. The TemplateData "format" option makes the Visual Editor enforce this particular style. Conversely, I fail to see an inherent advantage in the spaced-out version; the parameters only might align if you have the correct screen resolution. I also like to cite Wikipedia:TemplateData/Tutorial. Although it is not a guideline, it notes:

This option ["block"] may be preferable for very complex templates like infoboxes which have multiple parameters.

IceWelder [✉] 07:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it's reasonable to expect Wikipedia to support editing on a screen with less than 40 characters on a line. I'm sorry, but if we were talking about something that affected readers, I'd be bending over backwards to try to mitigate problems, but this issue only affects editors, and nobody expects editing on a tiny mobile screen to be as convenient as on a desktop pc with a decent screen. The parameters in the spaced/tabbed version will align in the edit box if you're using a monospaced font, as every editor that I know uses. --RexxS (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The "partner" parameter

According to the the template documentation, the parameter |partner= is to be used "For unmarried life partners" only. The description looks rather vague, I mean what conditions are to be satisfied in order to add somebody's name in that parameter. Are boyfriends/girlfriends of four-five months qualify for this? If not then how to express that to an editor/IP that keeps on reverting. Where we have to draw the line? Some IPs and new users seem hell bent on keeping that in this article as you can see here, here. I tried explaining them here, did that multiply times before. I came across this kind of additions in other articles as well. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: if you had initially raised the issue at Talk:Jasmin Bhasin, I would have blocked Sushmibhaduri8 for disruptive editing. But while there are behavioural concerns, I'm not convinced that Sushmibhaduri8 understands that the |partner= is to be used for life partners in a Domestic partnership as described and linked in the documentation. Please don't rely on edit summaries to argue a point. That needs to be done at the article talk page, so that it is not a dialogue, but a thread where other editors can contribute. I've protected the article for 2 days because of the edit-warring, but I'm happy to lift that protection early if progress is made at the article talk page. --RexxS (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
@RexxS: I know the process, WP:BRD, etc. This is not the first time, that particular user is just one of the many that tried similar things in this and many other BLP articles. Many users/IPs I came across would understand what has been conveyed in the edit summaries, but many use-and-throw users would just keep on doing it. Besides, I came here to build up a consensus and perhaps we can codify a policy on it. Users are more likely to pay attention to a policy than a set of descriptions in the template documentation. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
@Fylindfotberserk: If you know the process, why isn't there a single post on the issue at Talk:Jasmin Bhasin? Why do you make it difficult for me to take any action? There is already a consensus expressed in the documentation (linked to Domestic partnership) and that needs to be communicated to Sushmibhaduri8 by explanation on the article talk page. Having those conversations makes a permanent record that other editors can understand for the future. There is no chance of a separate policy: see WP:PAG for the convoluted process involved in that. Editor can either pay attention to the consensus expressed in the documentation, or they can face the consequences of disruptive editing. But I can't enforce those consequences unless it is absolutely certain that the editors are aware of the guidance in the documentation. Note that they are editing via a mobile app, so it is quite likely that they have never seen your edit summaries. --RexxS (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@RexxS: I don't see any "consensus" here, only a link to Domestic partnership article, which doesn't even mention anything about India, the country to which the subject belongs to. And this user Sushmibhaduri8 is just one of the many use and throw users. Trust me I deal with them quite often. Obviously, I would have done the talking and then would have filed a case WP:AN3 if the IP hadn't taken over the task. Perhaps that user would have been blocked by now, but without page protection, more new users and IP would come and continue the disruption, thus page protection became necessary, which you did, thanks!. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I can't enforce those consequences ← You mean you would have blocked them? Well I wasn't planning to do that right now. If you have seen the history (all the way to October), you'd have found quite a lot of IPs and users trying to do the same. Can't file complaint against each and every IP range, that's why asked for page protection instead. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
If you don't see consensus for an edit that has stood unchallenged for over two years, you need to look harder at WP:SILENCE. Nobody gives a shit about whether Domestic partnership mentions India; it clearly states "A domestic partnership is an interpersonal relationship between two individuals who live together and share a common domestic life", and none of those words have any dependency on where the subject lives. Don't denigrate your fellow editors; I have no intention of trusting you on assessing another editors' intentions, no matter how often you "deal" with them. If you can't raise the issue at the affected article, you shouldn't be asking elsewhere for help in solving it.
What part of if you had initially raised the issue at Talk:Jasmin Bhasin, I would have blocked Sushmibhaduri8 for disruptive editing. didn't you understand? The way to get enforcement or page protection is to tackle the issue on the article talk page. Is that really so difficult to understand? And don't patronise me – of course I went back through the article's history before applying protection. If you want to start making insinuations about my competence as an admin, you'd better have some bloody good evidence or you'll find yourself on the wrong end of a complaint for personal attacks. --RexxS (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @RexxS: Hey there, I'm going to take some of the heat on this, since I suggested that Fylindfotberserk get some clarification. I too missed the link to the domestic partner page. I also do still think that some more clarity should be brought to the instructions so that reading a link is not required. Changing "life partner" to "domestic partner" would at least clarify that we mean that the people have to live together. "Long-term" is also subjective, but I doubt anybody will want to establish a hard line on that. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk)
@Cyphoidbomb: It's good to suggest getting clarification, of course, but you know as well as I do that our hands are tied if issues don't get raised on article talk pages. Mobile users won't see other editors' edit summaries without some effort, and you can't even refer the next ip or newbie who comes along to a previous discussion if one is never started. My pet peeve is experienced editors who can't be bothered to take issues to the article talk page, and then expect others to clean up the problems they couldn't find the time to raise in the proper place. --RexxS (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
@RexxS: Understood. Fylind is a conscientious editor who has grown a great deal from when he started. I'm sure he'll take this as a learning experience. Got any thoughts about changing to "domestic partner"? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb: Okay, he just manged to push one of my buttons with his first response. I looked back at the history of the phrase "life partner" in the documentation and it looked like this until 2018 when it was redirected to Significant other. Neither of those seem to carry the clear definition that Domestic partnership does. The fact that the phrase was piped to Domestic partnership a couple of years ago indicates to me that it's a better fit to what was intended for the |partner= parameter, and my recollections of previous discussions here reinforce that perception. I've gone ahead and made the link explicit by rephrasing to "life partners in a domestic partnership". Let's see if that sticks. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, mate. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
@RexxS: I believe this discussion went in the wrong direction. My primary concerns coming to this talk page was ONLY to get some clarification on the parameter itself (those diffs posted here were addendums to let the community know exactly what I was looking for), and not to get a page protected and certainly not to get User:Sushmibhaduri8 blocked. So this → if you had initially raised the issue at Talk:Jasmin Bhasin, I would have blocked Sushmibhaduri8 for disruptive editing.— was never the issue and I wasn't trying to get it resolved here. For that I would have obviously raised it in the relevant venues, talk pages and go WP:AN3 way. I don't deserve to get vented upon for not taking measures against a user I was going to take in the future. I agree that a talk page discussion (or perhaps at WP:INB) on the "partner parameter" issue itself should have been raised by me (or any other user for that matter) months ago for all to see. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 06:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Add Wikidata

I have created a version of this infobox that supports Wikidata.

I am going to submit an edit request if people agree my changes are appropriate.

This is my first edit request and Wikidata infobox conversion.

Not all possible Wikidata properties are included in this version. This is mostly due to the formatting limitations of Module:WikidataIB.

The Wikidata properties used can be viewed on the template documentation page.

Template:

User:Lectrician1/Template:Infobox person

Please ping me when replying as I am not checking my watchlist frequently right now.

--Lectrician1 (talk) 16:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

What is the difference with Template:Infobox person/Wikidata? Fram (talk) 16:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
None I guess. Looks like I wasted my time. Why do we have a seperate template and Wikidata isn't just integrated into this one? --Lectrician1 (talk) 16:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Because there is a rather great divide between the people who want to use Wikidata for this, and the people who don't. This discussion gives some idea of both positions and their arguments (though three years later, not all arguments or examples may still be correct of course). Fram (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

"other_names" parameter

I have another question along the lines of the one that I posed recently concerning birth names. Documentation for "other_names" says, "Other notable names for the person, if different from |name= and |birth_name=. This can include stage names, maiden/married names, nicknames, criminal aliases, etc."

Infoboxes in biographies of actors and actresses sometimes include names that differ only slightly from the name shown in the article's title. For example, see Ann Little, where "Anna Little" appears as a value for "other_names". Should slight variations of the name as it appears in the article's title be removed from the infobox? Eddie Blick (talk) 15:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I would support removal. Variations in the spelling of |name= happens at times. From memory of my sojourn through our articles this happens quite a bit for silent film actors when different films have different varied spelling of the same name. Of course these could be mentioned in the body of the article but IMO the infobox bloat (I have seen infoboxes with 6 or more repetitions of the same name) is to be avoided. Any suggestions as to the wording of the documentation for the field to make this more clear to editors would be helpful. MarnetteD|Talk 18:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Misspelling of names should not be included; it should be for other names (so if they married and changed surname, or had a pseudonym or pen name etc.) GiantSnowman 18:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback, MarnetteD and GiantSnowman. I appreciate your comments. Eddie Blick (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Seeking clarification re birth_name parameter

Documentation for "birth_name" says, "Name at birth; only use if different from |name=." Does inclusion of a middle name qualify as being different if "|name=" does not include the person's middle name?

For an example, see the February 24, 2021, edit to Emily Deschanel, where "Emily Erin Deschanel" was removed from the infobox. It seems to me that "Emily Erin Deschanel" is different from "Emily Deschanel" and therefore should be shown in the infobox. I tend to be literal about such things, so I wonder how other editors interpret the guideline. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

In contrast, an edit to Elsie Mackay (actress) on February 25, 2021, added the actress's birth name to the infobox. Again, the only difference is the middle name. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
IMO, a middle name does not constitute a "different" name. Following MOS:BIRTHNAME, it should be part of the bolded headword but it alone is no reason to add |birth_name= to the infobox. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Longer is not different. The field is meant for people like Michael Caine or Kirk Douglas where the name is completely different. The full name works well at the beginning of the lede. MarnetteD|Talk 03:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
MOS:BIRTHNAME says nothing about infoboxes. There are biography infoboxes like {{infobox football biography}} that have |name=, |birth_name=, and |full_name=; it says to use "full_name" if different than "name" and "birth_name". I follow that reasoning for infoboxes that only have "name" and "birth_name" and put the full name in "birth_name" (if applicable). It's not called "former_name" or something like that which would imply using it for totally "different" names. MB 03:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
I didn't say that MOS:BIRTHNAME is about infoboxes, but that it recommends to use the full name in the article's bolded headword. Still, middle names, hypocorisms, etc. do not constitute a"different name". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
@Teblick: Hi there, I agree with your literal interpretation.
"Different" doesn't have to be as disparate as Steven Demetre Georgiou vs. Yusuf Islam. "Paul" is one of McCartney's real names. It just happens to be the middle one. Anthony Michael Hall's birth name has the same words, but two are flipped. Different = different and birth name = birth name. And I don't quite get a reason to omit it if the purpose of an infobox is to summarise content found in the article body. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate the feedback from all who have commented. Thanks for your time and your interest. Eddie Blick (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
The only thing I have here to add here is to not include initials when the middle name is unknown, as that is technically incorrect (eg. George W. Bush's birth name is George Walker Bush, not George W. Bush). Connormah (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi guys, I have been reverting @MarnetteD:'s removal of this parameter. Nice to see some WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in action here </sarcasm> For what it's worth it is absolutely valid (and indeed common practice) to include the full_name or birth_name parameter where all that has changed is a middle name being dropped. See e.g. FA Vincent van Gogh which has that. If you disagree - start a RFC. But do NOT remove valid parameters. Such actions are POINTy and disruptive. GiantSnowman 17:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to staart an RFC yourself - infobox person is hardly a "local template" and it would be difficult for you to show where there is a consensus elsewhere that supersedes this current documentation for the field. MarnetteD|Talk 17:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
One does not need to start a RFC to change the status quo. The field documentation only says "Name at birth; only use if different from |name=" - so does not support your position in the slightest. GiantSnowman 17:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Different is quite clear as is the documentation for the field. As to FAs WP:OTHERSTUFF applies as does the fact that there will be those that don't use the field. MarnetteD|Talk 18:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
You might try pointing to a WP:CONSENSUS supporting your position since this thread would seem to indicate otherwise. MarnetteD|Talk 18:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
You are right, I am an idiot, because name=Chuck Blazer and birth_name=Charles Gordon Blazer are the same words, aren't they? Wait, what do you mean they are actually different?! GiantSnowman 18:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
They aren't. Still waiting on the the link to support you stance. MarnetteD|Talk 18:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
So if the doc says "only use if names are different", and you admit they are different, why do you insist on removing the paramater? GiantSnowman 22:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
I said they weren't different. The fact that you don't understand that is worrisome. MarnetteD|Talk 00:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
No, what's worrying is you thinking that 'Chuck Blazer' (two words, 11 letters) is the same as 'Charles Gordon Blazer' (three words, 19 letters). GiantSnowman 11:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree with MarnetteD that a birth name which only adds middle names is not a "different" name and shouldn't be added to an infobox as |birth_name=. That only clutters the infobox. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm indifferent to the question of middle names in that the field is so widely used/entrenched to include them now that it'd be hard to make that change widespread at this point. However I would reiterate my comment about initials above, and also include cases like Bill Paxton where there is no middle name but they were more widely known by a hypocorism, which I don't see a point in reiterating in the infobox. Connormah (talk) 06:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. If the name is substantively different, fine, but middle name/initial doesn't justify use of the field. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
How is such a subjective position going to be implemented evenly across Wikipedia? GiantSnowman 14:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, this is a puzzle for me as well and I don't understand the super-loose interpretation of "different". Should we omit David Walliams' full name David Edward Williams in |birth_name=? Really, what's the difference between Williams and Walliams? If one full word isn't enough to trigger "different", then one letter sure shouldn't be. I don't understand what the purpose of a birth name parameter is, if not to include the subject's full legal name at birth. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Fully agreed. Indeed, it is fairly well established at WP:FOOTBALL to include the parameter even when there is no difference (although I am not suggesting that here). GiantSnowman 17:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

What are thoughts about using it for "Jr" in cases like William McKinley or George Segal? Personally I think this is another case of its overuse. Connormah (talk) 03:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Why is birth name considered key information for the infobox as opposed to just trivial? Consider Caitlyn Jenner. If I look at her infobox, it doesn't tell me key information like she used to be Bruce Jenner. With just the birth name, William Burnce Jenner, one not in the know might just assume she was William Jenner or Bill Jenner before. A former name field, where former WP:COMMONNAMEs can be listed (Bruce Jenner), is more relevant than the birthname (William Bruce Jenner).—Bagumba (talk) 10:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Deprecated parameters

There are some parameters marked as deprecated. At least one (home_town), I know doesn't display even if given a value. Why does influences still display in articles, when it is also marked as deprecated? Schazjmd (talk) 23:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

"Deprecation", in software feature terms, means that it still works but is subject to removal at some point in the future. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
The decision to deprecate influences and influenced was in 2013; are they ever going to be removed? Schazjmd (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Those two parameters do not exist in the template and should not exist in any articles. If you see an article in which it displays, please link to it. Note: after further research in the template code, I see that my answer above was incomplete. In this case, the description of these parameters as "deprecated" in the Template Data code is incorrect; those parameters are no longer supported. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I noticed it in this article; it's on my watchlist and an IP editor was adding a lot of names to influences. I wanted to look up the guidance on that parameter, because the list was looking excessive. And that's how I ended up here. Schazjmd (talk) 14:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
That article uses |influences= within {{Infobox scientist}}, not {{infobox person}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I overlooked the nesting, thanks for the explanation! Schazjmd (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Nationality and citizenship

Why do we have two separate parameters here, "nationality" and "citizenship"? Legally speaking, 99% of the time they are the same thing (citizens are nationals and nationals are citizens). There are rare exceptions to that generalisation – for example, people born in American Samoa are US nationals but not US citizens (although there is currently a court case, Fitisemanu v United States seeking to change that.) However, I don't think most editors are using these two parameters to handle those exceptional cases. I think they are using it when a person is a citizen of two or more countries but they are trying to say that only one of those citizenships "really counts". That's potentially an offensive suggestion. And I think it should never be made unless we have direct evidence that the article subject actually sees themselves in that way, when almost never we do. The rare and subtle legal distinction between "nationality" and "citizenship" is almost never applicable to Wikipedia biographies, and I don't think most editors can be actually trusted to understand that distinction and apply it correctly (and using reliable sources). Given all of this, I'd like to suggest we get rid of one of these parameters. Delete one of these parameters and merge its use into the other. At the very least, add some kind of deprecation message to the documentation (e.g "Do not use this parameter, it is scheduled for removal in the future".) Mr248 (talk) 10:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I very much agree. I came to this page intending to raise this very issue as it came up just now in a dispute at Talk:Sindisiwe van Zyl#Nationality. The problem is that Nationality, apart from its main meaning discussed above, also has several secondary usages, such as "national identity", "ethnic origin", etc. In legal and scholarly sources the term "nationality" is used as a synonym of "citizenship" with a minor caveat mentioned by User:Mr248 above. But other sources (e.g. newspapers etc) also deploy and discuss more colloquial usages of the term "nationality". In my opinion, we should get rid of the field "nationality" in the infobox, or at least designate it for deprecation, since the term is confusing and can easily lead to misunderstanding and misinterpretation. The term "citizenship" is unambiguous, and we should go with that. Nsk92 (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Nsk92, “Citizenship’’ would be the perfect term to use. Xclusivzik (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that in the English-speaking world terms "nationality" and "citizenship" mean basically the same thing. In many European countries however, there is a distinction rooted in history and national minorities in some countries.

Consider the following:
Aniela Kupiec, a Polish writer from Cieszyn Silesia. Her nationality was Polish but throughout her life, she was a citizen of Austria-Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Nazi Germany, Czechoslovakia again, and the Czech Republic. All that without leaving her village.
We don't have to go even back in time. Countries like Germany, Austria, Poland, Czech Republic or Romania have a list of officially recognized national minorities. Those include Danish minority in Germany, Carinthian Slovenes, Hungarians in Slovakia, German minority in Poland and others. Those minorities have their own culture, media, literature and even oftentimes political parties. Minority members identify themselves primarily with their own community, along the lines of "My nationality is X, and I am a citizen of Y."--Darwinek (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • In the UK and the US, citizenship and nationality are very much not the same thing, either in the technical legal sense (which has become less complicated in recent years), or the more general 'what nation do you belong to?' sense. Taking into account the other two major English speaking countries of Canada & Australia, three of them have large indigenous populations with members who may take offense at conflating their nationality with their citizenship, and the other contains the Scots. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Adding new parameters within infobox

It would be beneficial for this infobox to be more complete and versatile to add the below-mentioned parameters: | rank = | teacher = | students =

Looking forward to hearing from the approvers on it, and also if someone can give an explanation on how these parameters could be added to the infobox, that would be highly appreciated. TraditionalKarate (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The parameters would probably be useful only in specific versions of this infobox, like {{Infobox academic}}, where similar parameter are already available. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Bolding of native names

Currently, native names (which appear directly under the English-lang name/article title) are bolded in the infobox by the "font-weight:bold;" styling in "subheaderstyle". I've noticed that at some articles, like Shinzo Abe, editors have used the nobold template to remove the bolding, and to me, that is an aesthetic and semantic improvement (bold gives the name in non-English-lang name a little too much weight, I think, considering we are on the English Wikipedia). What is your opinion on removing this bit of styling, and letting the font weight be normal by default? — Goszei (talk) 02:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Another point: such names are virtually never bolded in the lead sentence parenthetical. This is laid out in MOS:LEADLANG: Do not boldface foreign names not normally used in English. If bold is desired, that styling could still be applied locally instead of by default. — Goszei (talk) 02:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
I would suggest decreasing size. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Nikkimaria. Removing bold all over might be tedious and caused endless Edit Wars.. just decrease the size to decrease its prominence.Moxy- 03:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Why would it be tedious. Its done by the template, so one change to the template will remove the bolding in every article. Those that manually removed it with {{nobold}} are already that way, so everything will be consistent. Why is decreasing font size preferable. MB 03:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Removing bold will just cause other to manually add it after they see the format has changed.... font size it's a little bit more complicated and more noticeable and a standard that would not change across the board.Moxy- 03:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
That is just a guess. Font can be increased just as easily with {{big}}. Either way, we will have to deal with editors that do not accept the style determined by consensus here and implemented via the infobox template. MB 16:50, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
We don't want to reduce size in an infobox (WP:SMALLFONT). Schazjmd (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
That doesn't apply as the name field is 100%. WP:SMALLFONT says don't further reduce the body of the infobox that is already reduced. So we could reduce the native_name or just un-bold it, or both. MB 20:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Non-latin scripts should never be bolded or italicised per MOS:BADITALICS; Chinese text often becomes near unreadable when bolded. —Kusma (t·c) 17:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
This is a good point, and even stronger than the one I referenced above with MOS:LEADLANG. A majority (at least from my experience) of the invocations of this parameter are for non-Latin scripts, with only rare exceptions like John Calvin. — Goszei (talk) 03:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

"business partner" entry

Dear Editors which entry means "business partner" if the entry "partner" does not.--Abu aamir (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

There is no parameter for business partner as that would not apply to most uses of this infobox. Not every fact about a person belongs in the infobox.
MB 20:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that Template:Infobox officeholder includes a bluelink to the Latin phrase Alma mater, but this template does not. Should it? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 09:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2021

In the TemplateData section of the documentation, change this:

"domestic_partner", "domestic_partner"

to this:

"domestic_partner", "domesticpartner"

This corrects the documentation which listed domestic_partner twice, but did not list domesticpartner (i.e., sans underscore). – 108.56.139.120 (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done in revision 1026830058. TGHL ↗ 🍁 13:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 3 June 2021

Change this:

| partner | partner |

to this:

| partner | partners |

This corrects the situation where the acceptable parameter |partners= is used, but is flagged incorrectly as an unknown parameter, thus placing an article in Category:Pages using infobox person with unknown parameters. – 108.56.139.120 (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a pretty easy and uncontroversial change to make for anyone with the right permissions. partner is mistakenly listed twice. The duplicate should be partners. 108.56.139.120 (talk) 14:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 Done Izno (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC: add (preferred gender) pronoun parameter for Infobox person?

I posted an RfC for this topic at the village pump, because if approved, this change would affect quite a few articles. Mifield (talk) 03:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Seconding the addition of a "preferred pronouns" parameter for Infobox_person do to increasing demand. (Would also be appropriate at time of posting due to Pride Month) Momantra (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Birth name parameter

Is it consensus to exclude the birth name parameter if the birth name is still the person's current name, as previously discussed here? I ask because the Bill Gates infobox example includes his birth name even though it is still his current name, which leads me to think it's not consensus. (If it is consensus, I think it needs to be made clear on the main page, as currently it just says not to use the birth name parameter if it is the same as the name parameter, which is just for the article title.) Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion you link regards adding |birth_name= just to add a middle name; the consensus against that seems pretty solid. But here you seem to be asking a different question - what parameter if any to use when common name and "official" name differ in other, substantive ways. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Military icons in infoboxes

Are military icons an exception to the general guideline about not using icons in infoboxes? Some articles, like James Arness and Robert Webber, contain as many as nine or ten icons depicting awards, rank, and other information beside the word(s) that specify the rank, award, etc. That use seems to me to go against MOS:ICONDECORATION. I posted a similar question in Template talk:Infobox military person on June 24. After a week with no response, I decided to ask here. Eddie Blick (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

  • They may be a de facto exception, but I'm not sure that they should be, especially for figures not primarily known for their military experience. In many cases, there are issues of undue weight. For example, over a third of Clark Gable's infobox is made up of these icons, despite his service being a relatively minor aspect of his biography. ~ HAL333 18:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
HAL333, thanks for mentioning the undue weight aspect. I had not considered that. Eddie Blick (talk) 23:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
There is a specific exception in MOS:ICON for military conflicts; this has been more informally extended to military-related people, but in the case mentioned I agree it's not helpful and have removed the icons. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Nikkimaria. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Template:Infobox pageant titleholder doesn't allow more than one module

Template:Infobox pageant titleholder, despite being a wrapper for infobox person, doesn't allow for more than one module (or am I doing it wrong?). I found this while creating the article for Leah Boyd, who is a pageant title-holder but also a religious person AND a music teacher. I wanted to add the instrument parameter and the only way I can do that is through the infobox musician template, added as a module.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

{{infobox person}} supports multiple embedded templates, so that can be used as the main infobox. I went ahead and changed it. You can add additional fields as needed. MB 06:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks!--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Deprecating the net worth parameter?

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.
There is consensus to deprecate the net worth parameter.

The primary concern supporters raised was that net worth needs to be contextualised. In particular, they said it is constantly changing, and there are multiple sources that determine net worth (notably, Forbes and Bloomberg) and there isn't a good way to choose which source to use in the infobox. Supporters said this is best contextualised in the article body.

Opposers argued it can be contextualised in the infobox. Specifically, the time of last update could be mentioned and the net worth determined by both major sources could be given. The label could also be marked as estimated. Some opposers also suggested using rounding to 2sf (as with YouTube subscribers/views) to help prevent the effect of fluctuations.

Editors also proposed additional solutions and ideas:

  • The use of a bot to populate data (eg on Commons or Wikidata) periodically which is automatically updated in the infobox.
  • Keep the parameter only for people who are notable for their net worth, rather than for actors and other celebrities who aren't.

Ultimately, both sides made high quality arguments in the discussion. There is no policy basis for the closer to consider one side's arguments stronger than the other's, and deciding which approach should be taken is largely down to editor preference. As such, since the supports are numerically 2:1 with the opposers, there is consensus to deprecate this parameter.

Some editors pointed out that this information may only be mentioned in the infobox and not in the body, and requested reasonable time to make sure the information is in the prose before the parameter is removed. This request seems reasonable and was not opposed in discussion, so time should be given to allow for that. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


Should we deprecate the net worth parameter used in infobox person? ~ HAL333 17:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC) Pinging editors involved in recent Village Pump discussions on this: Chicdat, Nikkimaria, Phil Bridger, GreenC, Levivich, and Elli

Survey (Deprecating net worth)

  • Support as nominator I find the net worth estimates in IBs very problematic and confusing (e.g. at Elon Musk or Bill Gates). How can we actually provide the reader with an accurate estimate when even Bloomberg and Forbes disagree? Furthermore, net worth values often drastically change in a matter of days and require near constant updating. The accompanying red or green triangles are vague and confusing. Do they indicate an increase/decrease in the past day, week, month, year, etc. It opens up a whole can of worms. In similar situations, like the value of elements or drug prices, we entirely avoid including monetary values. Any mention of net worth should be left for the body where it can be better explained and contextualized. ~ HAL333 17:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the ping. I think it's reasonable to do so. Given the conflicting numbers - for the few people whose net worth really does matter - we can give it due diligence in prose. Otherwise, it's not particularly important to include. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:05, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support The specific number is no more than a guesstimate and is too dynamic. Schazjmd (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Support This is similar to web ranking numbers in the infobox. Hard to keep updated, not accurate, people want it anyway. It still might be possible using Tabular Data on Commons so pages don't need to be updated continually, but, it would take someone to develop a bot that can scrape content then present it in a concise way. So there is an avenue to make it workable. I don't want to see this RfC be the last word, but as things stand it makes sense to deprecate. -- GreenC 17:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
    @GreenC: you don't need a bot to scrape the tabular data - you could just use a Lua module. Or do you mean, a bot to copy the data into Commons. (either way, I would support more uses of tabular data) Elli (talk | contribs) 17:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
You need a bot to populate the tabular data, keep it updated. -- GreenC 20:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Even with a reference it is only a "at this moment in time" factoid. Dozens of factors go into determining the number and it changes daily if not hourly. MarnetteD|Talk 18:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per my comment here. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
    Sounds like you are arguing that Bloomberg and Forbes are unreliable. Net Worth / Equity for a company can be book equity or market equity (based on its market price multiplied by the number of shares). Neither are perfectly accurate since the former could exclude fully depreciated assets that still have residual value as well as intangibles like brands which have an estimated value (amongst many other items); while the later is based on thousands or millions of investors making their judgment of a company's value. Since they are imperfect, do you suggest we do eliminate the equity parameter for companies? The Bloomberg and Forbes teams are doing the exact same thing: they are estimating the value of an individual's major assets just like an accountant would do for a company. Is it perfect - of course not - but it is as reliable as things get. How are we going to have a billionaire category if we cannot use the ultimate source that all the articles cite.Patapsco913 (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support I can't add any new reasons, but I particularly agree with the changing value mentioned above, making the value uncertain at any given time.Eddie Blick (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support (thanks for the ping) largely for the same reasons raised in the earlier discussion and in the nom and support votes above: for me it's too hard to satisfy WP:V and WP:NPOV because net worth is a fluctuating opinion of value. Levivich 22:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
    • After reviewing the oppose !votes below, I still support this, and want to respond to some points. This isn't about whether to list net worth or not list net worth in an article: of course we're going to include it (for individuals where it's a significant part of their bio, such as billionaires). The question is whether to include it as a number in the infobox, or not. The answer is "not," because the number in the infobox--any number in the infobox--oversimplifies matters to an extent that corrupts V. You put a number in there as of a certain date, but that's not accurate: it has to be as of a certain time, and according to a source, of which there are multiple. So to be accurate, we'd have Bloomberg date and time, and Forbes date and time. Then we'd have to add a note that says both of these numbers are estimates, and have certainly changed, perhaps by 20%, perhaps by 50% or even 100%, between the date cited and whenever it is the reader is reading this. We don't have the resources to keep these updated daily. Even if we did, even if we could give the reader Bloomberg and Forbes's numbers from two minutes ago, at all times, it would still be an estimate that could be off by 20% or 50%, etc. Basically, any number we give is wrong, by a lot, every single time. It's like an infobox parameter that would tell you the exact location of an electron. It's false precision. The only truly responsible way to inform our readers about net worth is with an explanation that says things like: the range, their ranking, how it's changed, and how it differs among different estimates, and if possible, why. Bottom line, this is the stuff of prose, not infoboxes. We can say, in Wikivoice, correctly, that Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and Elon Musk are among the richest people in the world, with net worths estimated at over $100 billion. But we can't say that Bill has $109B, Warren has $98B, and Elon has $122B, even if we say as of 7/1/21 12:05pm according to Bloomberg and Forbes. Because the truth is that the previous day, Bloomberg and Forbes might have listed it as Elon $95B, Bill $115B, and Warren $130B, and the next day it might have been yet another order/ranking. Every day, even every minute, these numbers change. It's just too volatile to reduce to a single number in the infobox. Levivich 18:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per MarnetteD. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - The fact that the numbers are 1. guesstimates and 2. wildly volatile and sometimes subject to change from one minute to another are pretty damning for this sort of information. PraiseVivec (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't find the "changing value" or "hard to estimate" problems convincing, these can be addressed concisely within the infobox by giving a date and a source. CapitalSasha ~ talk 14:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

*Oppose per WP:RF. When people go to some billionaire's Wikipedia article, maybe they're looking for his or her net worth. Is it really so much work to update it? You don't need to be a rocket scientist to go to the Bloomberg index! 🏳️‍🌈 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:14, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

  • But that's not the issue, at least as far as I am concerned. It is that Bloomberg, like Forbes, cannot possibly be a reliable source, because nobody's net worth can be known to anything like the accuracy claimed. Citing guesses as if they are accurate is the very opposite of putting readers first. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
And nobody is opposed to citing net worth opinions in the body, where it can be framed, attributed and discussed. The infobox gives a one true number. -- GreenC 18:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Net worth is too much of a guess without any actual evidence to back up the claims. Furthermore, it is a pretty weird way to define a person by assigning a monetary value to someone's identity. It also can change quite frequently and without warning or public knowledge.-TrueQuantum (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
    • It's not us that defines a person(/organisation/idea) by monetary value, but capitalism. Someone's net worth is a large part of what power they hold, a pretty important fact to convey. We don't question mentioning other major forms of power that BLPs hold, such as any office they are elected to or role they have in an organisation (or, hell, how many YouTube subscribers they have). Yes, it can change without public knowledge, and that's certainly a concern, but such is true of many facts we include about BLPs (e.g. "X is a vegetarian/libertarian/hobbyist gardener"). — Bilorv (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support It's hard to keep track of the value due to it changing on a daily basis. Sea Ane (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Net worth is extremely hard to verify, extremely hard to calculate, and constantly changing.-CranberryMuffin (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, The fact that the value keeps on changing constantly makes it hard to give a correct figure to the reader. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 07:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose, Estimates by Forbes and Bloomberg are not "guestimates" which is evidenced by the fact that all the major newspapers use them as a reliable source when speaking of a subject's net worth. The infobox is the most convenient place to list it and it includes the date of the estimate so the reader can clearly see when the estimate was made. Updating the net worth is a simple procedure (as Forbes has a live update since many subjects net worth is based on stock prices) and we have plenty of items that need to be updated on an ongoing basis (marriage, divorce, children, occupation) since the project is always in process. Also, I do not think that moving the net worth to the body of the article is going to lead to it being "framed, attributed, and discussed:" rather it is just going to be moved to the body of the text. Further, who is going to move all the net worth values and sources to the body of the text if we delete the parameter; most of the people with the net worth parameter are in the billionaire category so if we remove the parameter and the citation from the infobox, the category will be unsourced.Patapsco913 (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC) Patapsco913 (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • We have several parameters that require updating at the time of major life changes such as deaths or marriages. We don't have other parameters that change every time a stock goes up or down. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • But you do not have to change the net worth every time it moves up or down (and many are not tied to the stock market). The parameter lists the date of the estimate so the reader is informed. I also think that it is more likely to be updated if it is in the infobox then if you hide it away in the body of the text.Patapsco913 (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • A quick look at the Forbes and Bloomberg "top 10" lists of real-time net worth shows a typical difference of about 10-15% between them, so if we are to consider one of them to be reliable we have to treat the other as unreliable. Is one so much more reliable than the other? Or does this mean the obvious - that neither is reliable enough to give more than a very rough figure, and all of this claimed precision to four significant figures is bunkum. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Why cannot they both be reliable? All the major newspapers use them as reliable sources; they just say Bloomberg estimates..." A 10-15% differential indicates that each source gives a pretty good estimate of a person's net worth. Readers know that it is an estimate and even though it may change, they can see the date of the estimate right next to the figure. If they want, they can click the link and see if it has been updated. Anyhow, we list multiple polls with varying results in political races and the fact that they are different does not mean that the others are not reliable.Patapsco913 (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Patapsco913 (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • It's blindingly obvious that they cannot both be reliable to the accuracy that they claim, which is to a fraction of a percentage point rather than the 10-15% by which they differ. Polls are a completely different thing, because they are presented as polls (or at least should be) rather than facts about the outcomes of elections. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Where do they claim that they accurate to a fraction of a percentage point? If they have a difference of 10-15% that seems reasonable. They are not being represented as facts like place of birth; they are being represented as estimates. Patapsco913 (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • If they have a difference of 10-15% that seems reasonable When you're dealing with numbers in the tens or hundreds of billions, a difference of 10-15% is a pretty astronomical discrepancy. ~ HAL333 19:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Well I did not check Badger's numbers. Here is Jim Walton as of today: Forbes ($64.6B) - Bloomberg ($62.7B), a difference of $1.9B so nowhere near 10%. I prefer Forbes since it offers a live feed but also a frozen amount as of March 5, 2021 (https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/) and as Bloomberg is behind a paywall, it is not used as often on Wikipedia. Anyhow, once input in the infobox it states the amount as of such a date and lists the source. The readers can see that and if the date is past due, the reader can just click the link and see if there is an update. The live feeds are updated daily while the frozen amount is only updated annually. If we move it into the body of the text, I think we will see less updating rather than more; and I do not see how people can really add any context to the estimated net worth. I think most people here believe that they are both reliable sources. Heck why not put both in if that is a concern. They are the only two sources used by news organizations.Patapsco913 (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • 1,900,000,000 is a pretty big difference... We can't just arbitrarily choose one to display in the IB. As Levivich already touched on, that flies in the face of WP:NPOV. ~ HAL333 21:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Well it is around a 3% or so difference which is not a big difference statistically speaking. I think most people realize that it is an estimate by xxxx on the date listed and not the de facto amount. We could put both of them in the infobox which would make it neutral since there are basically only two sources that document net worth (and nearly all news articles that we cite are using one or the other). It is relevant information, the sources IMO are reliable (maybe we could take it up at reliable sources noticeboard), and it is not very difficult to update since the links are stable. I doubt that Bloomberg will be used as much except for the top earners since it is behind a paywall. So how are we going to mention net worth at all if we have to list both to be neutral but we can only get at one? Basically the various billionaire categories will have to be depopulated to just a few names despite there being 1000s of billionaires. In addition, there are many articles where the net worth is stated for people at the time of their death which is a fixed amount; and there are also people who have estimated net worth which is static until the next year since they do not hold equities. I am sure a 1000 wikipages are using this parameter so many others think it is relevant (and it is going to take a lot of work moving any citations in the infobox to the body of the text). Patapsco913 (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
That's just it. This parameter is overused and misused. For those biographical articles where net worth should actually be mentioned - such as Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos - the net worth already has its own entire section in the body where it is thoroughly explained and attributed and is also touched on in a qualified manner in the lede. ~ HAL333 01:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • If we delete the category, we are going to lose a lot of citations as editors have historically added the citation in the infobox (which makes sense since it is easier to locate and update). Many deceased people have their net worth listed at time of death using a news article whose source would now disappear. Do we have any idea how many pages use the parameter? I would expect that the bios in Category:American billionaires all correctly use the parameter. If people use it incorrectly (which I would imagine is because the source is unreliable), then the solution would be too remove the edit. Eliminating the category is not going to eliminate someone from entering the same incorrect or unreliable data in the body. If the issue is that Bloomberg and Forbes are unreliable, then this should be taken up at the reliable sources noticeboard and not here.Patapsco913 (talk) 10:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Forbes methodology > "The Forbes World’s Billionaires list is a snapshot of wealth using stock prices and exchange rates from March 5, 2021. Some people become richer or poorer within days of publication. We list individuals rather than multigenerational families who share fortunes, though we include wealth belonging to a billionaire’s spouse and children if that person is the founder of the fortune. In some cases we list siblings or couples together if the ownership breakdown among them isn’t clear, but here an estimated net worth of $1 billion per person is needed to make the cut. We value a variety of assets, including private companies, real estate, art and more. We don’t pretend to know each billionaire’s private balance sheet (though some provide it). When documentation isn’t supplied or available, we discount fortunes.
  • Bloomberg methodology > The Bloomberg Billionaires Index states The Bloomberg Billionaires Index is a daily ranking of the world's richest people. In calculating net worth, Bloomberg News strives to provide the most transparent calculations available, and each individual billionaire profile contains a detailed analysis of how that person's fortune is tallied. The index is a dynamic measure of personal wealth based on changes in markets, the economy and Bloomberg reporting. Each net worth figure is updated every business day after the close of trading in New York. Stakes in publicly traded companies are valued using the share's most recent closing price. Valuations are converted to U.S. dollars at current exchange rates
  • Oppose - I recently updated the net worth of this individual acc to Forbes and it was very easy to do so. While his Forbes profile does list his realtime net worth (which fluctuates as someone mentioned above), it also includes his net worth acc to Forbes Asia's most recently published list of billionaires in that country, which is what I used in the infobox. To me, simply use the fixed figure published on Forbes/Bloomberg's official rankings. Then the only time it would need updating would be the following year when the new list is published, or if a particular incident happens before then that causes a notable and widely reported spike/decrease in the individual's nw, like bankruptcy or an acquisition or something. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    Don't say Forbes/Bloomberg, because they give different figures. At least one of them must be unreliable because of this. Which is it? Or why can't we just say the obvious that both are unreliable to the accuracy that they claim? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    We use the net worth/equity parameter in the infobox for companies. Nearly all public companies publish quarterly financials and many monthly financials. Accountants for companies do the exact same thing that Forbes and Bloomberg are doing for individuals: they use accounting and valuation standards, make judgment calls, and provide a best estimate following those standards. If two accounting firms audited the same company, you can bet that their results would be different. Where do they claim that they are accurate to a fraction of a percentage point?Patapsco913 (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    They make such claims all the time, on pages such as this where it is claimed that Jeff Bezos has a net worth of $193.4 billion and Elon Musk $153.2 billion, where it is pretty obvious to anyone who thinks about it for a few seconds that all we can say is that the former owns assets worth very roughly $200 billion and the latter very roughly $150 billion. Nobody can know these things to such an accuracy, and any estimates that pretend to do so are worthless (in the proper meaning of "worth"). Phil Bridger (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    Well than you are arguing that the sources are not reliable and should not be used anywhere> So basically, we cannot list anyone as a billionaire since all the news sources use these two sources? They state their methodology for valuation so they are not stating that they are perfectly accurate. You said that they claim that they are accurate to a fraction of a percentage point? Where is it? Patapsco913 (talk) 20:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    @Phil Bridger: the only reason I said "Forbes/Bloomberg" is because some editors prefer one source over the other. And neither is suddenly unreliable just because their estimated values do not match. Patapsco913 raises very valid points as regards this. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 07:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
    I have shown you where they claim to be accurate to a fraction of a percentage point. By publishing a figure such as $193.4 billion they are saying that it is more than $193.35 billion but less than $193.45 billion. Nobody knows what anyone owns to anything like that accuracy, so we shouldn't be publishing such figures as fact in the infobox. It's as if all we knew was that someone was born in the 1950s in Middlesex but made up infobox entries that said that they were born on 3 April 1958 in Pinner. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Partial support Following the discussion above, I don't have major concerns with accuracy, especially with cites required in infobox. However, I have WP:DUE concerns. I would support deprecating the parameter for people who are not notable for their worth, but suggest it be kept for the billionaires and stockbrokers of the world. Looking through BLPs it is not that uncommon to see it on random actors' pages, for no good reason. Kingsif (talk) 23:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per other commenters above, people want this, and it seems inappropriate to deprecate a parameter for being "too hard". I understand and agree with most of the reasons given per proposal, but I think before removing the option, we should at least consider the following possible changes:
  • Changing the label to "Estimated net worth:",
  • Allowing for multiple values or a range of values to be entered.
  • Changing guidance to restrict the use of the parameter (eg, to individuals who have their net worth discussed in article body.)
I do agree though, that the use of Increase and Decrease should be prejudiced against, or, at the very least, a clear meaning should be given for their use. — HTGS (talk) 01:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
We have previously deprecated parameters for being complicated - see for example this RfC. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough. I don't agree that net worth is as problematic as (say) religion, but I see your point. — HTGS (talk) 02:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support because of the difficulties amply mentioned above. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:29, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's an information that our readers want, and we have reliable sources to provide it to them. The fact that Forbes and Bloomberg give different numbers is not an issue, since they are both estimates. If editors consider that these sources are not reliable, then we have a much broader problem than the infobox parameters... However, I can see the argument that we don't really know where these precise numbers come from. What I would suggest is to title the parameter "Estimated net work" or "Net worth (est.)" to qualify the assertion a bit. JBchrch talk 15:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. As per HAL333. Net worth can be included in the article body, allowing for more clarification and whatnot. ¡Ayvind! (talk)
  • Oppose It is good info to have and typically "net worth" is a top search for many celebrities, so many people are seeking such info. As long as it can be verified with a valid source, why not keep it? Honolulucb (talk) 01:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Outside of billionaires' which can be mentioned in the body, I find the sourcing for regular celebrities' is not that great and just generally misleading. Heartfox (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Forbes and Bloomberg are reliable sources, they are reliable estimates. And as an encyclopedia we go by what the reliable sources say. Listing these net worth figures in the infobox allows readers a quick look as to their approximate value, which is helpful and valuable infomation particularly for biographical articles on especially wealthy indivduals. Whether or not a net worth parameter should be added, as sometimes it may not be worth noting/relevant for some indivduals, can be decided on an article-by-article basis. The "its difficult to update" is irrelevant. We can introduce a policy of simply only updating once a month. Our primary purpose here is to serve the reader, and nothing more. For readers it is important infomation to see at a glance. It's difficult to get articles to GA and FA standard but that does that mean we should not do it because it is "difficult to do" or "tricky to manage"? Moreover by this logic, we should just remove any continous data type like heights and weights of athletes since they will only be accurate to a certain number of significant figures. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • No one is refuting that Bloomberg and Forbes are RS - that's a strawman. The issue is that by choosing the mutually exclusive option of either Bloomberg or Forbes as the one true net worth value in the IB, we are invariably giving one source undue weight. Placing net worth only in the text solves this issue. ~ HAL333 00:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • If there is only a 1-2% difference between we can just stick with either one of them, undue weight would not apply in this situation. If however there is say a 10%+ difference between them we can average them out and elaborate in an efn explaining the slight difference between the two. The are ways of doing it, see for example the height parameter (another continous data type) in the in Cristiano Ronaldo article and how we deal with slightly differing measurements of RSs. Removing the parameter due to this just seems like throwing the baby out of the bath water. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 12:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • A quick comparison between the Bloomberg and Forbes rankings reveal that around three quarters of their estimates differ (sometime by up to 30 billion or more), so we would have to average out most of the time. Having to constantly average two indexes is a pain and will open up the way to user error. Additionally, the average of two conflicting answers does not necessarily give us a correct or accurate answer. ~ HAL333 13:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • As explained in my original comment the its "tricky to do" or "it is a hassle" or a "pain" should not be factor in considering whether to depreciate this parameter. With any continous data type you never going to a 100% accurate answer only to a certain number of significant figures, it will still provide a good estimate as what their value is. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 13:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @HAL333:You make a fair point on the SYNTH argument, however there are many more options out there. One option is simply only providing the lower of the two net worths, i.e. the more conservative estimate since broadly speaking it is better to underestimate a person's value rather than overestimate it (perhaps with an efn explaining). Alternatively, we could provide a range of the two numbers with an efn explaining. I mean usually having more sources helps us and is not a detriment, and I am sure there are many other options we could go with when handling it. I personally prefer the former option.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 16:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Spy-cicle: Yeah, those other methods are preferable to averaging. But if the parameter is overly complex with ranges, multiple citations, notes explaining the nuances, or whatnot, you might as well just drop it and save it for the prose. If the reader doesn't have the time to scroll down to the "Wealth" section of a bio, they can find the person's net worth roughly hedged in the first paragraph of the lede (like I've done at Elon Musk). ~ HAL333 17:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @HAL333: It may be slight hassle to either of those methods on occassion (the first one would be pretty straightforward), but obviously that will have to be done on an article-by-article basis, but I still strongly believe it is worth doing to readers can see a quick snapshot of the indivudual's said net worth. Moreover, this is especially so as many indivuduals notablility stems from their sometimes enourmous net worth. In addition, we would not have to do these methods for all articles that use the parameter but only for those articles on indivduals whose net worth vary enough to justify doing so. Keep in mind using the more conservative estimate 'method' as opposed to ranges, is quite simple really.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 13:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose, but we should stop using the {{increase}}/{{decrease}} symbols as completely unclear in meaning and (even if the timespan was made clear) not providing information important enough for the infobox. The 10-15% discussion above misses something: the key information here is the order of magnitude of a person's wealth, so it can be out by up to 90% and still be useful. I can't tell you whether any particular businessperson has a net worth of $100 billion, $10 billion, $1 billion, $100 million, $10 million or $1 million. To people who don't like the parameter because it's misused and an absolute pain for volunteers to moderate usage, I can make a compelling case on the same lines to deprecate name and birth_date for the same reasons (the former is a common vandalism target and the latter is very rarely sufficiently sourced and very commonly factually inaccurate). — Bilorv (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • If the key information is the order of magnitude then we shouldn't be publishing figures in the infobox which are supposedly accurate, for the super-duper rich who own more than $100 billion worth of assets, to four significant figures and the merely super-rich to three. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with that. I see false precision with lots of data on Wikipedia (exact number of social media subscribers, e.g. for YouTubers, is another we get in infoboxes... out of date in 10 minutes), and in this particular case I'd recommend enforcing two significant figures or so. — Bilorv (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Support as net worth is a highly problematic figure. It's much better to deal with it in the article body where it can be explained and given better caveats. Renata (talk) 03:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep in infobox just because something is difficult to do right, doesn't mean we should abandon it. I think this is a highly relevant piece of information for certain people, often strongly associated with their notability, it can be represented as a number or if there is some discrepancy, a range, and that this makes it good for inclusion in the infobox.Tom (LT) (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. For individuals who are known primarily for their wealth, it goes against WP:ASTONISH not to include their wealth where readers expect to find it in the infobox. I sympathize that it's a difficult number to obtain reliably and fairly variable, but that's not enough to justify giving up on it. There are possible solutions, from setting up regular automated updates to requiring that a lot level of precision be used and the number timestamped and prominently attributed. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support for three main reasons.
    1. . It is ultimately "catching lightning in a bottle", a constantly changing and fluctuating figure which makes the infobox more like a railway station departure board. We shouldn't have editors eager to edit just one line in an infobox, desperate to be the one to change it and rushing to beat someone else to the edit next time. The net worth details can easily be summarised in prose. The rapid changing nature of a millionaire's, or billionaire's, overall "worth" seems far too fleeting to have a place in an infobox which is, I believe, supposed to be a stable summary of the overall article.
    2. . As detailed my other editors above, the information relies on reliable sources which nonetheless have widely different results. This uncertainty should be detailed in prose, not approximated for an infobox.
    3. . The information has a whiff of the "cruft" about it. Every celeb you can think of has a "net worth" suffix to their Google search terms and I wonder if the real reason for inclusion is more to do with tabloid obsession than encyclopedic content.

doktorb wordsdeeds 05:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. I'm kind of amazed this is in infoboxes, to be honest. Agree that this sort of thing needs to be contextualized, etc. I think everyone familiar with debates over how rich Trump is should understand that it isn't easy to estimate this sort of thing (especially for people whose wealth is in privately held companies), such that it is not the sort of certain fact that should go in an infobox. Obviously also is fluctuating on a daily basis, which is not the sort of thing that should be in an infobox. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose for highly wealthy people like Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates (among others), their net worth is very much a prominent aspect of their lives and worth including in infobox as well as prose. Perhaps one could say we should be stricter with what source(s) are used for it, but deprecating this parameter entirely isn't an ideal solution. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as has been nicely pointed out by others, this is exactly the kind of information that is the at-a-glance data for which people look at info boxes. The parameter is already dated, so it stands as a reflection of a given moment in time. Increase/decrease symbols, on the other hand, could be removed with no loss. Retswerb (talk) 05:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose thisis basic information, and the sources are considered reliable --all new organizations use them. That they do not always agree or that the numbers may be approximate is unavoidable with many things in the RW. A 10% difference between such sources is trivial . DGG ( talk ) 07:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose What we are generally dealing with here is billionaires, of which there are perhaps 2500 worldwide, and not “celebrities”. As far as our readers (and the press) are concerned, one of the most important aspects of such people is net worth. If we look at the comparable Forbes/Bloomberg LP summary-type “infobox” details (both reliable sources), which have typically rather fewer fields than ours, net worth features prominently. To quote two billionaires: "Money is just a way of keeping score" H. L. Hunt, and "Life is a game. Money is how we keep score" Ted Turner.
Of course, for many of these individuals their net worth is closely tied to their shareholdings and the value of these fluctuate. To avoid this, we could go with the figures in annual rich lists that Forbes and others produce, but many editors will want to update them to the “live” number, especially when the annual number is significantly out-of-date, and it would be a headache to try to police this. And yes, we could put “estimated”, but this is obvious, and we should give our readers some credit. I have repeatedly removed “increase” and “decrease“ symbols from infoboxes, and like overlinking, it is just another routine chore to perform until we have a suitable bot.
Many of our pages for businesspeople are out-of-date in any number of ways. When they cease to be CEO and/or chairman of a corporation, the infobox is often not updated, sometimes for years. They may have had further children. They may have divorced and/or (re)married. They may have acquired new or additional nationalities and/or citizenships, etc. Edwardx (talk) 11:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Sdkb's point about WP:ASTONISH. I still remember when I was just a Wikipedia reader, and I can guarantee it would have confused the heck out of me to not see a billionaire's wealth being stated, as doubtful as that number might be. I am also not convinced that the nominator's point from element or drug prices holds, as price there is not the primary fact to look up on Wikipedia. --LordPeterII (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose We should be wary of what sources we use and should consider including the date of the estimate, but these are things that should be dealt with by local editors and not a reason to discourage use of the parameter. If someone's net worth is an important part of their biography, we should include it in the infobox. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
    • I want to add that I don't find the arguments in favor of deprecation convincing. Firstly, they present a false dichotomy. Just because a parameter is not always useful doesn't mean we should get rid of it entirely. If it's not useful, then don't use it. Second, the main arguments are flatly contradicted by WP:NOTPAPER and WP:V. Just because information changes quickly doesn't mean we should not cover it. We do that all the time and with lost of other parameters and even have {{current event}} for when entire articles are changing rapidly. Wikipedia is not paper, so we don't need to only pick stable things to cover. We resolve that by stating when a claim was made and by whom, sometimes in the text directly. Multiple editors supporting deprecation have conceded that we can do that here, they just don't want to. Others claim that it is hard to ensure that the numbers are accurate or true, but it is not our job to be the arbiters of truth or pin down the "real" net worth of someone. In fact, coming to our own conclusions about someone's net worth goes against WP:NOR. Our job is to summarize what independent reliable sources have estimated the value to be. If you disagree with those estimate, get your opinion published so that we can include it, but absent that, we should rely on what the sources say. If someone is notable because of their net worth, if the whole reason people pay attention to them is because of how much money they have, it makes absolutely no sense to not include that in the infobox alongside other facts about them. It makes even less sense to prevent people from including it when there are no problems. "It's sometimes hard so let's get rid of it in all cases" is not a compelling argument. These are editorial decisions to be made at articles with reference to specific sources or by drafting a consensus style guideline. The solution is not to bury information readers are looking for. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
      • That's a lot to respond to. So to keep it clear, I'll use bullet points:
        • Just because information changes quickly doesn't mean we should not cover it. We'll continue to cover it in the prose, as we already do.
        • Our job is to summarize what independent reliable sources have estimated the value to be. Due to the constrictive factoid nature of the net worth parameter, we can't adequately summarize the situation in the infobox. It's the prose that allows us to summarize, contextualize, and explain the net worth.
        • it is not our job to be the arbiters of truth or pin down the "real" net worth of someone I agree, but that is what the parameter does. It forces us to selectively choose a net worth estimate as the "one true value". We don't "pin down" a single estimate in the prose but present all POVs on the net worth.
        • If someone is notable because of their net worth, if the whole reason people pay attention to them is because of how much money they have, it makes absolutely no sense to not include that in the infobox alongside other facts about them. The infobox has never and never will be a perfect encapsulation of a figure's notability. For example, the IB at Hemingway isn't able to relate his oversized persona. Obviously that's what the consensus at Stanley Kubrick has concluded. The reader will still be able to find the net worth in the lede and body, in a format which will better benefit their understanding of the estimates.
        • The solution is not to bury information readers are looking for. In almost all cases, the net worth will still be prominently displayed in the lead (see Elon Musk).
      • I rest my case. ~ HAL333 23:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
        • You miss the point. Instead of picking random quotes to turn into strawmen, I suggest you address my actual arguments. (1) You still present a false dichotomy (the part you decided not to quote or respond to). If information changes too fast to include in the infobox, it changes too fast to be included anywhere because any edit you make to update the prose can just as easily be an edit to update the infobox too. You're saying that it's not changing too fast to include in the prose, therefore you will still be editing the article to update the information showing that your argument that we just can't keep up with the info doesn't hold water. (2 and 3) This is directly contradicted by Alexander Abramov. We weren't forced to pick as it lists two sources attributing the claims and giving the dates of the estimates. Your whole claim that it just can't be done and we have to get rid of the parameter is false. Even if it were true, an adequate solution would be to improve the template to accomodate multiple figures from the most frequent reliable sources. (4) Ugh, seriously? You're going to trot out the infobox wars talismans? Was Hemingway a billionaire? Was Kubrick? I'm going to take a wild guess and say no. Then why are you telling me about them? Both of them have multiple works and decades of career producing cultural objects and fitting all of them or selecting a handful was not worth it based on local consensus (which is what I was advocating and which, again, you ignored). Meanwhile, Elon Musk is known for how much money he has. Please explain to me how the net worth of Elon Musk is like the ouvre of an artist (please don't). Not only are you making irrelevant comparisons, you're completely misrepresenting my argument. I'm not asking for a perfect encapsulation of a figure's notability. I'm saying that readers who are going to an article about a billionare expect to see how many billions that is. You even admit that when you say it can be prominently displayed in the lead! If it's important and even defining, why would its omission from the infobox not be glaring? (5) Not everyone comes to wikipedia to read your magnum opus, some people just want a reference work to quickly find facts. Redundancy is a good thing as it allows readers to engage with the content however they feel most comfortable. Forcing all readers to skim through paragraphs to find perhaps the single most important number in the whole article just because you think it's too hard to cite two publications instead of one is hard to take seriously. Even your prime example of Elon Musk failed to prove your point. His net worth is nowhere to be found in the lead. In fact, at first I was misled because while skiming I mistook "The company was bought by eBay in 2002 for $1.5 billion" as his net worth because I only looked for monetary values. Even that was hard to find because there was nothing to differentiate it from any of the other information I wasn't looking for. I'm not even sure how you got that wrong since the most recent edit to that article is you editing the lead.
          You ignored it previously, but I'll say it again: the solution is not deprecation of a template parameter. If you don't like it, don't use it, but you've given absolutely no reason why this parameter is harmful. By contrast you are suggesting that we resolve article-specific content decisions unilaterally at the template level without regard for why and how it might harm editors and readers. That's bad template design and bad policy design. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
          • Although I believe I already did, I'll be sure to address your main arguments, in bullets again:
            • My supposed false dichotomy: If information changes too fast to include in the infobox, it changes too fast to be included anywhere We shouldn't be updating net worths anywhere on a daily basis. Wikipedia is not news. I do not update Musk's net worth in the prose on a daily basis. Instead, notable occasions, such as his first appearance on Forbes' ranking or when he passed up Gates, are included.
            • The multiple net worth estimates, as used for Abramov, are clunky and will likely confuse the reader. (Also, Forbes should be italicized.) I also tried using the monthly net worth estimate in the parameter. After two weeks of trial at Musk, there have been around 5 edits updating it to the daily estimate that were reverted. Extrapolate that to a year, and we have 125 such unhelpful updates. That just isn't tenable.
            • local consensus (which is what I was advocating and which, again, you ignored) Local consensus has failed at every article where this template is misused and abused. Just look at the horrid paramater at Robert Downey Jr. sourced to "The Success Bug".
            • Was Hemingway a billionaire? Was Kubrick? My point is that we don't need to cram every aspect of notability into the infobox.
            • I'm saying that readers who are going to an article about a billionare expect to see how many billions that is. I'm not sure they do. A Google search for "Person X" net worth yields live data from Forbes. We don't need to fulfill that role. Furthermore, there is a certain degree to which the net worth estimate is trivial. What's the difference to the reader if Bill Gates is worth 137 or 178 billion? On a side note, rankings are more important and of more use to the reader. How come that one doesn't have its own parameter by your standards?
            • Musk's net worth is nowhere to be found in the lead Actually, the lead states that Musk is a "centibillionaire". That's all that matters. It's trivial that he's worth exactly 187.7 billion. What's important is that he's worth more than 100 billion.
          • The solution, as it has been in many previous cases, is the deprecation of this template parameter. It's harmful when misused (as at RDJ's article) and wastes valuable editing time fiddling with ephemeral trivia, incessantly outdated citations, and unhelpful edits. And your solution is to make the parameter even more complex? ~ HAL333 05:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Infoboxes should show current information. Yes, if the latest reliable source for a person's net worth is eight years old, there's nothing wrong with saying "As of 2013, so-and-so was worth this much money" and cite that source, but that's just not a good use of an infobox; if it belongs anywhere, it belongs in the body. Out-of-date information simply doesn't belong in an infobox, and we all know that anyone with this kind of wealth will see his net worth change all the time. Nyttend backup (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Patapsco913 No. That's actually a situation where we really shouldn't use this parameter. There are literally thousands of different net worth values that we could potentially place in the parameter. Which one do we choose? The net worth at the time of their death, at their peak, before they began donating to philanthropic causes, or maybe some random Sunday in 1974? And historical estimates of net worth are even more prone to discrepancies due to subjective analyses and the difficulty of estimating the value of commerical entities which haven't existed for decades. And then throw in inflation... Just save it for the body. ~ HAL333 23:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The present value of their net worth is not is what is being entered for deceased persons so that is not an issue. They are not estimating the historical value of commercial entities; rather they are estimating the net worth at a given moment in time. We use the latest reliable source that we have with the date of the estimate so the reader knows exactly what we are saying. You seem to be saying that we should not use the parameter because the net worth calculations are not reliable. I would say they are reliable at the date they are pulled; and if you want, put both Bloomberg and Forbes in there.Patapsco913 (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I did not say that the net worth calculations are not reliable. Rather, providing a single value in the parameter—particularly for a deceased individual—is arbitrary as it discounts other equally reliable estimates and violates WP:NPOV. ~ HAL333 00:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Why could you not put both Bloomberg and Forbes in the parameter if you have both like I suggested above. Pretty easy to do. amd why "particularly so" for deceased individuals? Patapsco913 (talk) 15:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I am not sure how providing their net worth at the time of their death (or the most recent estimation we have avaliable before their death), or alternatively providing their peak net worth is a violation of NPOV.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 17:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
  • A net worth estimate is a POV. Per WP:YESPOV, to maintain a NPOV we must "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views" and "Avoid stating opinions as facts". If two net worth estimates differ, obviously at least one must be wrong. If we are not certain that these are reflective of reality, then they are opinions. The net worth parameter does not allow for alternate estimates of net worth. It champions a single POV as the one true answer, which is ridiculous. Take the parameter in use at John D. Rockefeller, which curently declares that his net worth was $423 billion. How Wikipedia can state such a number with that exactitude when estimates differ by hundreds of billions, I do not know. Rockefeller's parameter does try to qualify the incredibly complex situation in a note, but burying other equally reliable POVs in a note is hardly equal prominence. ~ HAL333 17:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Why would we select the time of their death, over other points of time? As with selecting a source, selecting a time is a weighting decision, and just saying at death seems like a rather arbitrary one. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
NightWolf1223 Yes, but which one? How do we decide between Forbes and Bloomberg? ~ HAL333 23:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Editorial consensus on the talk page. In the absolute worst case, report the range attested in sources. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
@HAL333: Is there any difference between the two? NW1223(Howl at me|My hunts) 01:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
@NightWolf1223: It depends on the person and the time of day. For example (as of right now), the estimates of Forbes and Bloomberg only differ by around $1 billion regarding Jeff Bezos' net worth. But they disagree by about $20 billion when it comes to Elon Musk ([1][2]) and Bill Gates ([3][4]). Neither one is necessarily more reliable or accurate than the other, and it just comes to an arbitrary choice between the two when you have to display a single value in the infobox parameter. ~ HAL333 01:47, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
@HAL333: Rodger that, changing vote. NW1223(Howl at me|My hunts) 01:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
@NightWolf1223:But you are assuming it is a binary choice between them, you could for certain persons average between the two and explain the rest in an Template:efn, rather than completely removing parameter altogether.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 11:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
An average between the two won't be accurate and will mislead the reader who will assume so and most likely not read the note. Imagine if two sources reported that a person's birth year were 1952 and 1954 respectively. They both support their arguments with primary documents and historical analyses. But there is no evidence or sources whatsoever to support that this figure was born in 1953. Obviously we wouldn't average this because it just isn't representative of the true value. Not only does it not make sense, but averaging the two values would violate WP:SYNTH. ~ HAL333 16:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
I have argued before that we should prefer Forbes as it is not paywalled. Edwardx (talk) 11:55, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
@Edwardx: Broadly speaking it should not matter if a source is paywalled per WP:SOURCEACCESS.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 13:05, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Spy-cicle I am familiar with that policy, but I was not arguing against using paywalled sources, simply that all things being equal, we should prefer open access ones. By way of supporting policy, please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost: "When sources of equal quality are available, the ease of access may be preferred." Incidentally, Forbes have been providing net worth figures on their bio pages for much longer than Bloomberg LP, although this of course does not mean that their methodologies are superior, merely that there is no reasonable basis to believe that they are inferior. Edwardx (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
You could just as easily put both in the infobox; they are easy enough to update simultaneously.Patapsco913 (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per comments made by HAL333. I do agree that neither source is better, and I imagine that an RFC would be fruitless NW1223(Howl at me|My hunts) 02:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment If the parameter is deprecated, how do we avoid losing all the citations that are in the parameter. Is there a way to get a list of all the biographies that are using the parameter? I am certain the 2000 or so biographies of billionaires all use it. Not to mention a lot of deceased billionaires (which are using older pages frozen in time). I can't see how it helps the project if we delete valid information before getting a chance to move it to the body.Patapsco913 (talk) 23:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
If the only citation regarding net worth is in the infobox, when you deprecate the parameter, everything is lost in the parameter including the citation. How are we going to know which biographies lost the only citation showing net worth when we deprecate the parameter? That is why if we decide to deprecate the parameter, we should get a list beforehand we can go through and make sure everything is in the body. I don't think this is something that has such urgency that it has to be done immediately.
  • Thanks although I tried Michael Lee-Chin, Jay Chaudhry, Stanley Druckenmiller and they did not come up on your list. (also all three only have the citation in the infobox). There must be a way for the administrators to pull a list of all the biographies that have the new worth parameter populated. Historically for billionaires and near billionaires it has been common practice to put the citation in the infobox since it is easier to locate and update so I think there are 100s if not thousands of biographies that will lose the information if we deprecate immediately.Patapsco913 (talk) 00:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Ah that looks better. 1,964 biographies use the parameter. It would be a lot of work to go through but we can see which one's actually have the citation in the parameter (which seems to be a lot) and we would still have to check if net worth is mentioned in the body since Forbes is often used as a source for children and education. So I would ask that if we deprecate the parameter, that some time is allowed to fix things. Patapsco913 (talk) 01:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
User:Patapsco913, you are correct the citations should be preserved in a list. 2,000 is not so many, it could be a single page. If you need help making the list, should the time come, post a request to WP:BOTREQ -- GreenC 06:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Nikkimaria I printed out the near 2000 that came through in your pull but I noticed that bio Benjamin Winter was not appearing on the list. Is there something more that needs to be added? It looks like about 40-50% of the infoboxs have the actual citation in the parameter so it would be helpful to have a full list so we do not lose relevant information sinmce we will have to go through these bios one by one to manually add the data back.Patapsco913 (talk) 02:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Winter is on the first list. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
@User:Nikkimaria Ah Ok, so it is 2,887 biographies that use the parameter. Are you not concerned that the net worth will be deleted from those biographies where it is only mentioned in the infobox? We are going to have a lot of Category:American billionaires where there is not going to be a citation. Patapsco913 (talk) 02:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Whether or not the parameter is kept, this information should be detailed and sourced in the body of the article, as per MOS:INFOBOX. If there are cases where it is not, that's a problem not solved by keeping the parameter. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support: much like the former religion parameter in infoboxes, this is one that is necessarily imprecise, hard to determine for sure, or bound to lead to argument. If someone is rich enough for this parameter to matter, that information can be presented in the body of the article with much more context and detail. The parameter adds little value to articles and may lead to tedious discussions that take up the time of editors. Ganesha811 (talk) 23:24, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support: infobox not the place for a snapshot of a guesswork with no context.....should be in prose with a timefram and not in Wikipedia's voice - Michael Jackson#Earnings -.--Moxy- 05:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. We really should not have any highly volatile and quickly outdated information in infoboxes. Stuff like name, date/place of birth, etc., which is unlikely to change, sure. But numeric values which will rapidly become outdated should be instead covered in the prose of the article, where they can be contextualized with a time frame ("As of September 2020, Forbes stated Doe's net worth was..."). Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
@User:Seraphimblade like Alexander Abramov? Patapsco913 (talk) 02:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - volatile parameter rarely backed up by quality information. It's possible to give good summaries of uncertain parameters, see, e.g., the number given for deaths in the Indonesian mass killings of 1965–66 infobox, but given the general quality issues we have in bios of very rich individuals, I think we are best off erring on the side of eliminating this field. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - this changes too frequently to be kept "up-to-date", and is just an attractive nuisance. Like the "religion" parameter, this is best handled outside the constrains of an infobox. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Unlikely to ever be verifiable for the majority of people, unlikely to ever remain in-date for long for the entirety of people. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Seems trivial and the majority of net worth are based on guesstimates, anyway. Some1 (talk) 22:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Support — Per rationale by Phil Bridger. Celestina007 (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - as this requires constant updating. Some people might have a high degree of changes over short periods of time while others might have a constant value over longer periods of time. It just does not add any encyclopaedic value, unless it was mentioned in a context, for example, as to an event in their history, like an acquisition or a legal issue. -- DaxServer (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (Deprecating net worth)

  • According to Wikipedia:Canvassing, an appropriate notification should be nonpartisan and open. Your notification was neither and was thus stealth votestacking. You alerted an editor who is very partial to the parameter (and didn't contact any editors who are predisposed to support this proposal...) and did not make a note here. Not an egregious violation I admit, but not in the best taste or conducive to consensus building. ~ HAL333 00:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
  • How do you know that they are partial to the parameter? How would I know who is predisposed? Nearly all they do is update the net worth so a deprecation will erase a lot of their work if it is not also in the body. They could just as well say that they are fine with deprecating it.....and to top it off, they often adds the information to the body of the article.Patapsco913 (talk) 01:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
  • deprecation will erase a lot of their work if it is not also in the body Contributions to the net worth parameter are ephemeral. The notified user "erases their work" every other day when they update the net worth values.... ~ HAL333 01:41, 27 June 2021 (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.

Moving net worth from the infobox into the article

I have just done this for Theo Albrecht Jr. Creating a "Wealth" section (with the citation) after "Career", and ensuring that "billionaire" is in the first sentence of the lead, with a net worth number at the end of the lead seems to be a reasonable approach. If someone wanted to add the (subscription only) Bloomberg LP figure to "Wealth" and that reported a net worth of say 21.5 billion (for the same date), then the figure in the lead could then be US$20.6-21.5 billion. Any thoughts? Edwardx (talk) 15:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

If there is more substantive to say about it, great, but your example has a one-sentence section - that's not really a good approach. It can reasonably be incorporated into another section, such as in this case Career. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Although there's obviously more to write about with these two than most others, the articles on Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk do it well. ~ HAL333 15:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
I chose that Theo Albrecht Jr. because it was short and easy to see the difference. The "Wealth" section could include details from Forbes' annual assesessments, showing how someone's net worth develops over time. Edwardx (talk) 15:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Update docs to deprecate net worth param

Could the docs be updated to reflect it? -- DaxServer (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

^ Admins/template editors? ~ HAL333 18:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
The doc is only semi-protected, so anyone autoconfirmed can update it. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Ah, okay. I didn't realize that. If I remove the parameter, does it render it invisble in all of the IBs that use it or do I need to remove the parameter from each article before I remove it from the doc? I don't want to screw up a few thousand infoboxes. ~ HAL333 23:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Changing the documentation has no impact on how it appears in articles. If it were removed from the template it would render it invisible from all articles that use it, but the RfC closure explicitly allowed for time to address moving to prose before removal. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I removed all instances except for one in the table. I wasn't familiar with that coding format and didn't mess with it. Someone else needs to add the "Deprecated" tag there. Sorry. ~ HAL333 01:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi user:Nikkimaria , user:Edwardx. How do I stop user:HAL333 from removing the citation in the parameter without moving it to the article? as he did with Terry Pegula, Peter Angelos, Jerry Yang, Nigella Lawson, John Elkann, Hal Steinbrenner, Edward J. DeBartolo Jr., Joss Sackler, Raymond Sackler, Amancio Ortega, Yang Huiyan, Takemitsu Takizaki, Stephen A. Schwarzman, Steve Jobs, Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, Nicolas Berggruen, Riley P. Bechtel, Charles Butt (where he moved the citation but with no reference to his net worth)...etc. It does not help the project to remove the only citation stating that x is a billionaire while leaving the subject in the "Billionaire" category. I am not sure why he is so obsessed with removing the parameter. There is no immediate rush and it is 2,887 biographies using the parameter after all.Patapsco913 (talk) 04:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Patapsco913. I note that on HAL333's talk page they have repeatedly asked you to "assume good faith", per Wikipedia:Assume good faith. However, as the introduction to that policy states, "exhortations to 'Assume Good Faith' can themselves reflect negative assumptions about others." I find HAL333's approach rather WP:POINTy. In the circumstances, it might be reasonable to simply revert those sort of edits until they are willing to proceed in a more collegiate manner. Edwardx (talk) 23:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
You misrepresented my edits. Cherrypicking from hundreds. In the vast majority of cases where the net worth estimate is sourced in the IB and not in the body, I have added it. To address the linked examples: Nigella Lawson is a cook and I'm not sure that a dated 6 year old estimate is helpful. (She also is not a billionaire and is not known for her wealth.) Even if placed in the body, an eight year old estimate of DeBartolo's net worth won't support that he is a billionaire now. The first Sackler net worth estimate was for the family and not the individual. Ortega already has a recent net worth estimate in the article. Same with Huiyan, Takizaki, Schwarzman, and Spielberg. And Berggruen and Jobs being billionaires is already sourced in their respective articles. Sure, I made a few mistakes with Pegula, Yang, and Butt and have fixed it. (Edwarx got to Bechtel.) I should also point out that Patapsco913 is fully capable of adding these themselves. For the effort they expended in these two discussions, they could have easily left a pleasant note and fixed the few minor issues. Instead they issue personal attacks and drama-monger. ~ HAL333 01:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
As hominems are never helpful. Well the idea would be to work together, generate a list, develop some guidelines, post it to wikiproject biography, and process the biographies...but you seem to want to unilaterally blast through all of them yourself for some reason. I did not cherry-pick since I merely followed chronologically behind your edits and noted where I saw problems. If someone was a billionaire and no longer is, that is the "context" that needs to be added: they do not have to be a current billionaire. In some cases, there is an old estimate in the body (likely since people mostly updated the net worth in the infobox). If the body uses the Forbes article for something else in the body (children, education), we still need to transfer the net worth to the body. You do not have to die a billionaire to have been a billionaire. Here is another example, your last edit. Chuck Feeney - once worth $8.0 billion dollars and now only $2 million after having given everything to charity. Going from $8.0B to $2.0M is quite different from someone like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet who remain multi-billionaires, nay? Why not move that fact to the body of the article rather than just delete the only citation that happens to be in the infobox? How are you helping the project by incautiously making edits?Patapsco913 (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
The good thing is that, even after my removal of the parameter, Feeney's $8 billion philanthropic gifts and current $2 million net worth are discussed and sourced in the body. I have no need to move it to the body if it is already there. Nothing to worry about. ~ HAL333 16:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_person/Archive_36&oldid=1146791046"