Template talk:Infobox person

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
For pending merger proposals (2009 to date) see Template talk:Infobox person/Mergers

Bad example[edit]

The example shown uses <br /> to separate list-items, contrary to parameter descriptions which state:  Separate entries using {{Plainlist}} or {{Unbulleted list}}. The 'plainlist' doc explains that this is preferred to linebreaks, and adds:  Detailed reasons for using this template can be found at WP:UBLIST.  At any rate, an "example" should be a "good example". It's not that I intend to be nit-picky, it's just that it would have been nice to have an example to go by instead of tracking down documentation elsewhere. ~Thanks for your attention, ~: (talk)

Signature below modules[edit]

any objection to moving the signature below the modules? for example, this would move it just above the website in Lindsey Stirling. Frietjes (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

It is OK for me. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I support the change. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 12:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Done! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


Through what bizarre turn of events did there get added a "television" parameter, described as "Television programmes presented by or closely associated with the subject." Why not "Classic cars - Classic cars restored by the subject" or "Most disliked - vegetable most disliked by the subject." EEng (talk) 05:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

As with many weird and wonderful parameters in this template, it's the result of preparation for a template merger, in this case Template:Infobox chef. It occurred more than four years ago - see this edit; this discussion; first TfD; and second TfD. Despite those two TfDs, the merge doesn't seem to have been completed: I think that Pigsonthewing and Plastikspork should be made aware. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Infobox chef is now a wrapper for Infobox person - check the former's source code. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
The merger-prep explanation makes sense -- I was just wondering. WP templates are like old abandoned cemeteries, with kicked-over gravestones, enigmatic inscriptions recalling the days of yore, and so on. By the way, is it just accident that there are two porcine-related editors active on templates -- "Pigs on the wing" and "Plastics pork"? EEng (talk) 13:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Tough crowd, apparently. EEng (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
It's not nice to make fun of the camelcase-challenged. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Infobox Spouse(s) — Should we indicate “spouse=None” or just omit[edit]

Copied from Village pump (policy)

Noticed an IP editor made this edit changing “spouse=Single” to “spouse=None” — no big deal, but it got me thinking, and looking for policy regarding, (in general) should InfoBoxes indicate ‘no spouse’ or should that just be omitted?  Is there any agreement as to what we should be doing… my sense is that we should probably just leave that out of the Infobox if they're single; if their marital status (or particularly their lack thereof) is important (such as for a star of The Bachelor or something), then it can be included in the article somewhere, but otherwise trivial information about what isn't doesn't seem appropriate for the InfoBox.  Cheers — Who R you? Talk 03:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

In principle this should be discussed at Template talk:Infobox person. The documentation shown on the template page is silent on the matter, but I like Guy Macon's approach (diff) which is applicable here: Atheism is not a religion. Bald is not a hair color. Off is not a TV channel. Barefoot is not a shoe. Silence is not a sound. Never is not a date or a time. Clear is not a color. Johnuniq (talk) 03:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, both for pointing me to the right page to ask the question and for your response!  Cheers — Who R you? Talk 04:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Marital status being basic information that one reasonably expects to find in even the most basic bio, I think there should be an entry even if the datum is "None", just so the reader doesn't have to hunt around in the article for the answer. The same logic applies to "Children" though, for some reason, my intuition tells me it's not quite the same. In one article I included Spouse=None | Children=None precisely because it is commonly, and mistakenly, reported that the subject did have spouse and children (and of course the article text addresses that as well). EEng (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Omit the parameter. Marital status is rarely relevant to the notability of a person; in fact, I'd suggest that if the spouse isn't notable, the default should be not to include in the *infobox*. Most notable people do not have notable spouses. In response to EEng, I'd strongly recommend not including the names of children in the *infobox*, because the children are almost never notable on their own. In many cases, the information about children is incomplete (so better not to include at all), particularly for non-living persons; for young children of living persons who are notable but not celebrities, this can also be a child safety issue. Risker (talk) 02:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
"Omit the parameter" -- when? I was only talking about the case of Spouse=None or Children=None, and suggesting that those be included if they apply, rather than just saying nothing. That's what the OP asked; your talk about children's names if there are children has nothing to do with it (though for the record I'd suggest that if the article gives the spouse or children's names, the infobox should as well -- whether those names should be included in the article is a separate issue to be discussed in the general context of bios, not in the context of how to use an infobox). EEng (talk) 03:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Being married isn't notable. Having children isn't notable. The majority of our BLP subjects do not have notable spouses or children, and in many cases they are not even mentioned in the article. I propose that the "spouse" parameter only be used if the spouse is notable in his or her own right. I don't see much use for the "children' parameter. Both of these parameters are prone to vandalism and lack of correctness/completeness, so I don't see benefit in using them routinely. The purpose of the infobox is to give key facts related to the notability of the subject; it's not for providing answers to Trivial Pursuit, especially when it comes to information about non-notable living persons. Wikipedia should never be their #1 google hit. Risker (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I think I support "none" values to indicate we know there to be none, as opposed to not knowing. However, there are many more parameters to which that could apply, resulting in Infoboxes with a whole bunch of "none" in them – not good either.
As far as the tangent above, most any bio of someone, especially upon their death, mentions their family relationships, sometimes in great detail. It apparently is considered a proper part of a bio by most of the world, and I can see how it can contribute to the understanding of the subject. A person's family can often be quite influential on how they think and their public life, not to mention indicative of their feelings on birth control, education, discipline, etc. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 14:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
You're confusing a biography with an infobox, AlanM1. "He is survived by his wife Shirley and his two sons, Joe and Frank" might be fine in the article. There's no need to have this in the infobox if they are not notable people. This also gets into the territory of Wikipedians deciding the definition of "spouse" on behalf of article subjects. We have plenty of article subjects who have/had nontraditional relationships. Risker (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
No confusion here. I believe a person's immediate family are a notable part of their bio, and belong in the Infobox of their article, but I'm admittedly in the Infobox inclusionist camp. As far as unmarried partners, that's why |partner= was added, and seems to be attracting little drama. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


This relatively complex and unstructured discussion has a number of facets. I will summarise the outcomes in what I think is a logical order, which is not the same as the order they emerge in the debate.

Q: Should the "agent" field be deleted from the template?
A: No. There is no consensus to make that change.

Q: Should the "agent" field be left blank?
A: In most cases, yes. There is quite a lot of discussion below about whether including a person's agency is the same as marketing. Wikipedia is attractive to marketers for all sorts of reasons but the community is rightly very resistant to the use of Wikipedia for marketing purposes. With people at the top of their professions this is not a concern. You can take it to the bank that anyone who has legitimate business dealings with, for example, Stephen King is not going to look up his agency in an encyclopaedia. With people who are less well-established, there is more of a tendency to list the agent's name, and I don't doubt that this is sometimes done for promotional reasons. This is to be discouraged.

Q: Should the "agent" field be blanked?
A: Not without discussion on the relevant talk page. There is no consensus below to go through all the instances of this template blanking the agent field.

Q: When should the "agent" box be used?
A: This is much less clear from the discussion. I would think that if we have an independent third party source that says who the agent is, then that information is relevant and there should be a presumption to include it.

I hope this helps.—S Marshall T/C 00:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

There's some concern over the listing of agencies in info boxes on Talk:Tara Platt#Agent. Dmol (talk · contribs) says that agents in articles on actors should be removed per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and WP:NOT#ADVERTISING. However, the template states that an agent should be listed if it has notable coverage. I think we need to start a centralized discussion here if anyone has thoughts about including or excluding agencies and come up with some sort of consensus about this. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

  • How about no mention unless the person (or their own company, etc) doesn't have a website? Sardanaphalus (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm opposed to all inclusions of an agent in the info box. Even notable agents don't deserve a mention. There is an element of promotion with the inclusion, and it looks like many of the editors adding agent listings are only doing that and little else on Wikipedia. Should we also list an actor's hairdresser, make-up artist, voice coach, etc. Of course not, so why is the agent any different. As mentioned above, we are not WP:NOT#DIRECTORY or WP:NOT#ADVERTISING and inclusion seems to fall in to both categories.--Dmol (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to list an RFC so we can get more input. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Is listing a person's agency in the infobox relevant?[edit]

Should a person's agency be listed in the infobox? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Yes, if notable - If the agent or agency is already present on Wikipedia, then I think concerns over WP:NOT#DIRECTORY/WP:NOT#ADVERTISING are moot. Do we have a module function that can check for a missing wikilink and fail the parameter (also, fail if its url-linked)? Also, different WikiProjects often have their own guidelines for what subset of infobox_person parameters to use. Agent/agency is highly relevant for fashion models, but perhaps not desirable for authors. If there's a concern like the Tara Platt article above, I'd seek guidance from WP:ACTOR. --Netoholic @ 04:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
    • While it may be appropriate to ask individual project members to comment, the projects themselves have no authority, per WP:OWN. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
    WikiProjects develop manuals of style which guide articles within their subject area. These MOS often include what infobox fields to use and how to use them. This is not about OWN, its about guidance. -- Netoholic @ 18:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • No Images do not have credits (unless relevant to the subject), see WP:CREDITS. Why should the Wikipedia article for an actor be available to promote an agency? If reliable secondary sources have commented on the significance of an agent for a particular person, that can be mentioned with an explanation in the article. However, the infobox should not have a spam magnet added. Since when is the agent for an actor one of the key facts a reader needs to know? Johnuniq (talk) 04:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Keep in mind that this RfC (as defined) covers -all- biographies using Infobox_person, not just actors. -- Netoholic @ 05:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • No How is a person's agent/agency notable to their life? How many articles mention the info in the text and of those, how many have more than a brief sentence? How many NY Times obituaries (the in-depth ones which cover notable facets of a subject's life) mention an agent/agency? --NeilN talk to me 06:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes; this is a piece of data about a person which is likely to be of interest to our readers. It breaches neither WP:NOT#DIRECTORY nor WP:NOT#ADVERTISING. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • No, but barely. For actors, the agent is mostly a means of contact, which would be like including their phone number or other contact info, failing the WP:NOTWHITE test (though we do include websites –Hmmm). I suppose it might be useful in categories to research amount of work or awards by agency. I wonder, though, how often they change, and how many one-man agencies there are, which could make this unreasonable. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
    • The agent is not "a means of contact"; that would be the agent's phone number. There's nothing in WP:NOTWHITE (an alias for WP:NOTDIRECTORY) to prevent the inclusion of the name of the agent or agency. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • No, The persons agent is not "key info" - if there is any reason, at all, to mention them it should be in the body of the article. MarnetteD|Talk 16:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • No, for the reasons stated above. Promotional, advertising, directory, and not key info, all apply here. --Dmol (talk) 06:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • No - Agency isn't really needed and its only purpose here would be to advertise them. –Davey2010(talk) 04:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes inasmuch as the general rule of thumb is that more information is better than less when it is relevant, and such information is relevant. Wikipedia attempts to be encyclopedic, and people who come to the pages are doing research. It is better to provide as much information as possible, reduce people's research efforts. Damotclese (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
    • How is such information a key fact? I would hope that all info in a biography is relevant to the subject - that doesn't mean every factoid gets put into an infobox. --NeilN talk to me 16:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Damotclese - Your reasoning would be adding non-notable info and we'd end up being like those supermarket tabloids about celebrities. As I asked earlier, should we also list an actor's hairdresser, make-up artist, voice coach, etc. There's no difference. --Dmol (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes it should have a field in the template. Using that field should be an MOS issue but the field should be available. An example would be baseball agent Scott Boras. Boras is notable and relevant enough to be mentioned and is often mentioned when a player is negotiating contracts, more so than other agents. Players that don't use Boras might not warrant inclusion based on notability of their agent. Not having a field removes the ability to include notable agents and agencies that are of interest to the reader. Usually, a notable agent is listed in the biography anyway and non-notable agents are not. Drew Rosenhaus is another one but for NFL football players. --DHeyward (talk) 12:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No. What happens when they change agencies and nobody tells WP? Not relevant. Also, per WP:Advert, Promotional, directory. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:21, 18 July 2014 (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.

Change Notable work(s) to Notable work[edit]

I propose we change "Notable work(s)" (as in specific, titled creations) to the broader, yet inclusive, phrase "Notable work" (as in professional body of accomplishments). For authors/painters/etc., their "Notable work" is in the production of titled creations, so nothing changes there. For other people their "Notable work" might be something like a specific field of study, a discovery, a significant first, etc. - professional types of work which don't have a particular title associated with them. For example, Jonas Salk's "Notable work" would be the first polio vaccine" (a fact which currently uses the more generic "Known for" field). This change also has a minor benefit of saving 3 characters from one of the longer, more commonly used labels, which can often give more room to the data/value column in the infobox. I propose changing the default parameter name also to {{{notable_work}}} (but of course we will preserve support for the existing notable_works). --Netoholic @ 18:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - seems sensible. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • As presented this would seem to be redundant to "known for". Nikkimaria (talk) 01:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
    Can be cleared up in the documentation. "Known for" is a broad description of notability - "painting", "murder victim", "Winner of Big Brother", etc. "Notable work" is for important output from a profession - major books, works of art, discoveries, theories. -- Netoholic @ 02:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
    And the description you've just presented of "known for" overlaps with the description of "notable work" you presented above, as I said it would. "painting" = "professional types of work which don't have a particular title associated with them"; "Winner of Big Brother" = significant achievement. Better to keep the general "known for" and the specific "notable works", as this overlap is very likely to cause confusion if implemented. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
    Certain fields already overlap ("Occupation" also slightly overlaps with "Known for" if not documented well), but if you are confused its only because the documentation needs clarification. "Notable work" is for specific works/achievements of a professional nature. "Known for" is general statement of notability. I'm not just sure if its just you, or just me, but I think I've explained the difference several times in several ways. --Netoholic @ 02:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
    If you have, then perhaps the difference is not significant enough to warrant separate parameters. Notable works is more specific and more definable. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Given a need to accommodate the particular and the more general, perhaps the options to use "Notable works" (and see below) or "Notable work" and, separately, "Known for" are worth providing/maintaining? Sardanaphalus (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, looks better and is still understandable. We did the same for |librettist= in {{infobox opera}}. If the reader sees two listed, there are two, obviously, while "work(s)" and then only one item looks strange, see Robert Stoepel. Actually, I would prefer to drop "notable" also. Shouldn't everything in the infobox be notable? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I think the issue with just Works (or Work) would be that people would tend to dump everything in there. I think also that "notable" has different meanings for WP editors than it does for readers. Someone just reading an article would see Notable work and know that its just the highlights. --Netoholic @ 06:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Let's distinguish: I support "Notable work" instead of the present "Notable work(s)". My other remark should probably go below. Assumptions about tendencies to "dump" seem not helpful. Look at the above example: there is no dump but exactly one work. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Related query/suggestion[edit]

For labels such as "Notable work(s)" in this and similar infoboxes, has anyone else wondered whether a plain plural "s" rather than the s-in-brackets "(s)" might be more appropriate?:

  1. If there's only one item listed beside a label such as "Notable works" (i.e. without the brackets), it means the number of notable works (plural) is one, either in total or until more are added/accepted;
  2. Labels without the brackets would be two characters shorter, i.e. that bit less likely to linewrap or squeeze the space available for the righthand (data) side of the infobox;
  3. Labels with the brackets need some extra code to prevent the "(s)" being wrapped alone;
  4. (More subjective, I imagine:) The brackets tend to distract from the rest of the label and/or any other adjacent labels nearby.

Thoughts, please? Sardanaphalus (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Why are we using the term "Notable" in the parameter from the get-go? As an editing term of art in WP, we evaluate WP:Notable and notability in terms of developing or keeping articles as topics. Using the term in the infobox implies that the work meets WP notability standards, which is often not the case. With this in mind, I have two suggestions: 1. We limit the listing of "notable works" to those items which have a WP article. E.g., listing War and Peace in Tolstoy's article would be appropriate. 2. In the alternative, we use the term "noteworthy". This would allow for WP:Noteworthy items to be listed. – S. Rich (talk) 03:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Background color[edit]

Wikitable allows background color and it looks good. Why not in infobox? Abhi (talk) 08:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

to avoid turning it into a bag of skittles. Frietjes (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

change or add tag line for "Criminal status" to "Judicial status" (or "propose name" status) for BLP[edit]

This rather important discussion turns on whether it's appropriate to use the phrase "criminal status" about someone who has not been convicted of a crime. There is a clear consensus that this is not appropriate, and DHeyward's version from the sandbox here should be implemented. Note that the consensus is that it is appropriate to say "criminal status" about someone who has been convicted in a court of law. The RfC is silent about people who's been convicted of a crime but the conviction was overturned on appeal. I would suggest that in that eventuality, "judicial status" is better than "criminal status".

I hope this helps.—S Marshall T/C 16:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template is used to indicate status of persons awaiting trial or "wanted." The keyword criminal_status is probably okay as a tag, but the Infobox should change the display to "Judicial status". As an example, James Eagan Holmes is awaiting trial or other judicial process. The only tag that is close is "criminal_status" and is displayed as

Criminal status Jailed, pending trial

problem is that he has no status as a criminal as he is in the system pending outcome. The status is still important but a BLP violation to say he has a "criminal status". Please add a "judicial_status" tag and display or change existing display to "Judicial status". --DHeyward (talk) 08:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The documentation says that "Criminal status" is "For convicted criminals only", so it shouldn't be used on James Eagan Holmes at all.
That said, I would support propose changing the label and parameter to "Legal status" (legal_status), as that field would apply to people pending trial, and also be more broadly useful potentially in other situations. --Netoholic @ 09:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with assessment of my provided example and I don't know how prolific that field is used. There are many arrested/awaiting trial in jail/not convicted statuses that could be conveyed by changing to legal status. I am not skilled enough to change a field (adding is easy, but changing may be a bot). I also didn't want to add a field without other input. Changing to "Legal status" (or anything similar) would be my preference as a non-prejudicial legal status field for a generic person infobox. --09:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DHeyward (talkcontribs)
I'd be happy with a change to "judicial status", but "legal status" is ambiguous ("married" is a legal status, for instance, as is "holds temporary residence permit"). I've disabled the "edit protected request" template, until consensus is reached. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I have working version in sandbox using legal_status but can easily be modified for judicial. I have nopreference. The Implementation is that the label follows the tag. Label is "Criminal Status" if criminal_status and "Legal status" if legal_status. I used the same data54 field so as not to grow the template and upon conviction it requires just the change in tag. Please review. --DHeyward (talk) 11:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be more prudent to omit such a contentious parameter from this infobox and leave it to {{Infobox criminal}}? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)0
No. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I oppose changing "Criminal status" to "Legal status" because when I read "Legal status" I think in terms of ('Illegal alien', 'work visa', 'citizen', etc) or ('married', 'divorced', 'separated', 'annulled', etc). The reason this parameter exists is because these people are being tried in a criminal court, and as such we should call a spade a spade and not try to tone it down. The hearings are called "criminal hearings" and not "judicial hearings", and we should follow that legal precedent and call it a criminal status. As long as it is clear that the case is still being tried, and that the outcome is pending, I don't see any issues with it. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 13:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Avoiding referring to an innocent person as having a criminal status, is not "censorship", it simply accords with our BLP policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Please review the implementation. It avoids giving persons that are not convicted criminals a "Criminal Status." The template clearly says not to use "criminal" fields on non-convicted BLP's. However there are conditions where persons are awaiting trial, in jail, out on bond, etc, etc, that is useful information that, in the example given, is using the "criminal status" field. The name we give that field should depend on whether they are convicted or not. For convicted criminals, it stays the same. For BLP's of person's not convicted, the name can be "Legal status", "Custodial status", "Pre-trial status" or "Judicial status." Pick one or propose one but I'd rather keep the data and change the label where appropriate rather than having to delete pre-trial status. Otherwise, that data needs to be removed for those persons like in the example. --DHeyward (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I support Michael Bednarek's comment and recommend removing the parameter altogether. If a criminal conviction is so noteworthy, e.g., one of the "key facts about a subject", then {{Infobox criminal}} works fine and ought to be used. Otherwise the parameter is subject to the problems discussed above. – S. Rich (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, there are plenty of people who are notable for something else, but still have a conviction (or are awaiting or undergoing trial). More importantly, {{Infobox criminal}} is simply a wrapper for this template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - reading the responses, I think we should keep things as they are, and just enforce the guidelines that are in the documentation to remove use of criminal_status from non-convicted. The known_for field is available, and can be tailored to fit the needs of those people awaiting trial. I also don't mind careful use of {{Infobox criminal}} for those known only for being charged with a crime, as long as they choose fields that don't imply guilt (like criminal_charge is fine, for example). --Netoholic @ 18:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Andy. As for those awaiting or undergoing trial, I support the legal presumption of innocence and am loath to include such information. (Do we want Wikipedia to be another venue for the perp walk?) Regarding the "wrapper", I'm afraid that is a technical matter which I don't know anything about. (No need to explain 'cause I can study it on my own.) I'll restate that adding convictions to the infobox, when the person is not noted for being a criminal, is not a good practice. – S. Rich (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Another rationale to avoid "pending" type descriptions is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. – S. Rich (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
These aren't "pending" type descriptions. James Eagan Holmes is "jailed, pending trial." That is infobox material, but not criminal material. He may never be convicted of a crime and be incarcerated in a jail until he is able to stand trial. The edit to the template to allow this information without the BLP violation is already done in the sandbox and the same field supports both criminal and non-criminal status. If it's not implemented, though, it will be removed from the infobox material completely. This isn't an additional field either, just a translation just as {{Infobox criminal}} maps "conviction_status" to "criminal_status." Just as we can use {{Infobox person}} for a wide variety of people, we can use the status field to have appropriate labels depending on their record. --DHeyward (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

It appears a lot of people are stating opinions on whether criminal status should be used for non-convicted persons. That is not being proposed. Nor is the proposal to change 'criminal status' to something else for those that have been convicted. As I said, the sandbox and testcase show the same field number with different labels to accommodate the particular person. The data type and terms are generally the same ("in jail pending trial" or in "jail pending execution" are similar data with different inferences). The label of that factual data is what varies, not the circumstance. Supporting multiple labels for that field has already been done and is in sandbox. The question is what do we label the status of someone that is jailed or out on bond or held for extradition, etc etc. What is the label name? That's the only question. --DHeyward (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

RfC on proposed change to have context specific tag for "criminal status"[edit]

- from above discussion, broadening to bio editors but also reducing scope of work as it's already been created and no additional template work is required.

In the {{Infobox person}}, one of the fields in the template is "Criminal status." This template is transcribed into other templates including {{Infobox criminal}}. The instructions for the use use of the three "criminal" fields is that they only be used for convicted criminals. This makes sense since the label is "Criminal status" and is a BLP violation to imply that someone that has not been convicted is a criminal. We have a number of people, however, that are in the system awaiting trial or out on bail or any other possible pre-trial status or even acquitted. Therefore "Criminal charge" is a valid field label if they are indicted or charged with a crime, but "Criminal status" is not valid unless they are convicted.

I have made a change to the template that allows the same field number (that determines data order) to allow for different descriptions depending on context. The testcase side-by-side comparison is here. [1] The first two persons are BLP's that exist today. Richard Reid is a convicted criminal and there is no difference or change in his description. James Eagan Holmes, however, has not been convicted and the template modification changes the field description to "Legal status" and replaces "Criminal status" as the label. By reusing the same spot as "criminal status", the template stays the same size and the only the labeling changes at the editors discretion. The change is made such that "Legal status" preempts "Criminal status" and there is only one field in the template. "In jail, awaiting trial" is the same status in both the current and proposed template. Using the current template as it is currently, is a BLP violation and the proposed one in sandbox is not.

This change doesn't affect existing criminals that are convicted (i.e. it stays "Criminal status" as can be seen in Richard Reid (per WP:SPADE). It only adds an overloading feature for the "Criminal status" such that information about pre-trial/non-convicted status can be communicated without calling a person "criminal" prior to trial. If a person is subsequently convicted, the "Legal status" can be changed to "Criminal status" and maintain the same position in the template. Likewise, an acquittal or hung-jury can use "Legal status" for description and occupy the same space reserved for criminal status.

This isn't a change to "Criminal status", rather it's an additional option for editors to describe BLP subjects' status without creating a BLP violation. Not implementing this feature means that persons like James Eagan Holmes will need to have "In jail, awaiting trial" removed from their infobox.

Please comment on the testcase above [2] and indicate if a neutral language judicial status should be an option for persons that are not convicted, whether "Legal status" is the proper term or state a preference or if the context dependant labeling should not be added and status should be removed from existing BLPs. The template has already been modified in the sandbox and tested so no additional work is required, just update the template with sandbox version. The testcase area is probably the best way to view the proposal as it would be implemented. --DHeyward (talk) 05:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: I changed "Legal status" to "Judicial status" per Andy's comment. The testcase reflects the update.

  • Support as submitter/template editor to implement template modification to allow editors to have a neutral language status labeling option for BLPs like James Eagan Holmes whose status is "In jail, awaiting trial" but are not criminals. Wording of label "Legal status" seems okay but open to other options as long as it's not BLP violation implying criminal. --DHeyward (talk) 05:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support with caveat' I and others pointed out above why legal status is not an appropriate label. Why was this ignored? The label should be judicial status. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry if it appears it was ignored. That wasn't my intent. I don't have a preference and coded "Legal Status" but will change to "Judicial status" if RfC decides that's best. I asked for the preferred terminology in RfC question so "Judicial status" is certainly valid option and, at this point, the preferred one. I listed a lot of terms in previous section that might be applicable. --DHeyward (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Update: I changed it to Judicial status in sandbox and testcase. --DHeyward (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • 'Support' this modification to the template to allow editors to use more accurate language when labeling the legal/judicial status of a person.
  • Comment: I looked at the links [1] and [2] but saw no differences between the left and right-hand boxes for Holmes: they both read "Criminal status". //No harm if the change has already been implemented, but was there a problem that needed fixing? We all have a criminal status, which may be "No known convictions" or "Awaiting trial". Likewise, we all have a marital status, which may be "Single": Noyster (talk), 16:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Easier solution, merge with existing "Status" label[edit]

There is an existing Status label, currently used for {{{disappeared_status}}}, but we could easily change that to {{{status|{{{disappeared_status|}}}}}} and make that line more generally useful. -- Netoholic @ 21:27, 23 July 2014 (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.

Status of template-edit request[edit]

Yes check.svg Done – The contents of the sandbox has been transferred to the live template. Please update the documentation where necessary. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 18:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

"(s)" in labels[edit]

The suffix "(s)" added to some of this template's labels – specifically, the brackets – mean these labels...

  1. need some linewrap management;
  2. tend to increase the amount of space left unused (by reducing the width available for data);
  3. can draw attention away from the rest of the template (e.g. "Notable work(s)" in {{Infobox philosopher}}).

Would anyone object to these brackets' removal (meaning the left/right bracket characters, retaining the "s")..? I don't believe there's any grammatical problem, as e.g. singular answers to enquiries framed in the plural are commonplace ("Do we have any examples?" "Only one, so far..."). Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


I was wondering whether the concept of citizenship could be brought to more prominent positions in the infobox listings.

In comparison to "nationality", "citizenship" gives more flexibility:

On a POV basis and, while not claiming to be an expert, I would be much more inclined to promote Patriotism than Nationalism.

Being a patriot the example I checked through was Paul McCartney (no prizes for guessing where I'm from). Although I did not do an extensive search, the parallel article in the majority of other languages tended to name the nation at the end, or following, the birth section of text.

A notable difficulty with the proper noun terms is that they frequently link to disambiguation pages:

As examples:
>The code for "Chinese" can either be written: [[Chinese people|Chinese]] or [[China|Chinese]].
>The code for "American" can either be written: [[Americans|American]] or [[United States|American]].
>The code for "British" can either be written: [[British people|British]] or [[United Kingdom|British]].
Both types of option are used so, I guess, some editors have the priority to indicate nation even under the name of nationality.

At the moment the:
Blank template with basic parameters

| residence    = 
{{Infobox person
| name        = <!-- include middle initial, if not specified in birth_name -->
| image       = <!-- just the filename, without the File: or Image: prefix or enclosing [[brackets]] -->
| alt         = 
| caption     = 
| birth_name  = <!-- only use if different from name -->
| birth_date  = <!-- {{Birth date and age|YYYY|MM|DD}} or {{Birth-date and age|birth date†}} -->
| birth_place = 
| death_date  = <!-- {{Death date and age|YYYY|MM|DD|YYYY|MM|DD}} or {{Death-date and age|death date†|birth date†}} -->
| death_place = 
|  nationality = 
| other_names = 
| occupation  = 
| known_for   = 

Can citizenship replace nationality or at least be added?

At the moment the:
Blank template with all parameters

| residence    = 
|  nationality  = 
| other_names  = 
| ethnicity    =      <!-- Ethnicity should be supported with a citation from a reliable source -->
|  citizenship  = 

Can this be reordered as follows?:

| residence    = 
|  citizenship  = 
|  nationality  = 
| other_names  =      (a section that I suspect is rarely used)
| ethnicity    =      <!-- Ethnicity should be supported with a citation from a reliable source -->

I think it makes sense for citizenship to follow residence and for ethnicity to follow nationality. Gregkaye (talk) 14:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Notable parents only in infobox[edit]

I take "Names of parents, if notable" as only list them in the infobox if they are notable, like they have their own article. Just like relatives and children. Non-notable parents shouldn't be in there because what's the point when nobody knows who they are? LADY LOTUSTALK 11:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Not everyone who is notable has their own article, yet. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Not yet, if they are by Wiki standards to be notable then by all means. But if an actors mom is a teacher, I don't think she should go in the infobox. LADY LOTUSTALK 12:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Children parameter[edit]

Further to an ongoing debate on Robin William's talk page[1] regarding his infobox and whether his non-notable children should or shouldn't be mentioned, I would like to have some form of consensus to that effect. I attempted to point out that this page was relatively clear on not using non-notable children (as was the case on Robin William's ex-wife's page[2]) but with the torches and pitch forks approaching it was a good idea to have this matter settled here. The Infobox Person has had the notable children only to be named criteria since 05:30, 12 June 2007,[3] so it's not like everyone should be in a panic over a new way to do something.

It may also be a good idea to add to this page whether it is simply a suggestion for users or a guideline. On the French version of Wikipedia, the Infobox Biographie[4] page is much more obvious on how it should be used, as it clearly gives out assignments for each parameter. Hoping for some clarification from the higher powers. Thanks. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 02:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe also may consider adding the term widow and widower to the Infobox Person as a new parameter, so people may chose it in lieu of spouse for recently deceased individuals. The current practice of writing "1997-2014 his death" is not becoming of an encyclopedia. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 05:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


Death date and age template[edit]

Any reason why the (aged xx) part of this template is now appearing on a line break when used in the death date field? eg. [3] [4] Never used to do this until recently... can it be fixed? Connormah (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

the template in common in both examples is template:death date and age, so perhaps you should ask there? Frietjes (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)