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, ~:71.20.250.51 (talk)

Birth name again[edit]

I think that we should include an html comment in the copyable text in the documentation for this field to prevent overuse like this and this this this this and this, to name a few. Birth_name IMO should only be used for a totally different name at birth, eg Bill Clinton, Gerald Ford, etc. and to a lesser extent those with known full names with middle names. We shouldn't be using the field for initialled named and names that are the same as people's "known" names, which IMO adds unnecessary repetition and bloat to the infobox. Connormah (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Support The use of this field should be limited to names that are "different" then the current name as with people like Michael Caine. Initials and first or middle names are not different they are just longer. They are also redundant. On the average bio page you already see the "name" in the article title, the first line of the lede (which is also the proper place for the initials and middle etc names), the top of the infobox and, occasionally, as a caption of the pic in the infobox. We just don't need it a 4th or 5th time within the first couple inches at the beginning of the article. MarnetteD | Talk 16:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
We should only exclude such information from |birth_name= if it is already included in the |name= parameter. The redundancy argument is a red herring; infoboxes are supposed to repeat key information found elsewhere in an article (including the lede) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
It is not a "red Herring" since the name is already at the top of the infobox. When repeated again and again it looks for all the world like a first graders 100 word essay which reads "I really really really really like my Xmas gift" thus leaving them only 92 more words to come up with. MarnetteD | Talk 17:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
In which case, it is not redundant if a middle name or initial (or whatever) is not at the top of the infobox; per my first point. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

User:DrKeirnan revised the page after the original post, before the first reply (diff 16:51). The other html comment remains
| name = <!-- include middle initial, if not specified in birth_name -->

Why does the instruction focus on middle initial? --P64 (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's how I see the whole middle initial thing - if a person's name at birth has just an initial (see Harry S. Truman), then it should be fine, however I think that we may be misleading readers in listing other cases in which we are not sure what the initial may stand for (if it does stand for anything). If a person has middle names that they don't use commonly, I feel that the field could be appropriate to list those too, but again as I mentioned, using the birthname field for a person named Robert Butler, whose full name that we have is Robert Butler, which also is in the article title, lead paragraph, infobox name field, etc. is redundant. Mainly though I'd use the field in cases such as Caine, Ford, Clinton, Hal Douglas, etc. Connormah (talk)

This issue is arising again at Dave Diamond, where User:Connormah is insisting on removing the birth name from the infobox on the grounds that the individual's full middle name is not known, though the initial is, and his first name and surname are quite different from the name under which he was known professionally. It seems to me that we are doing a disservice to readers by not including the correct name in the infobox, in circumstances in which we do not have perfect knowledge of the individual's full name. It is better to include an incomplete but accurate name, than no birth name at all. I know I disagree with Connormah, but I'd welcome other opinions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, I see it that unless we have a citation, we shouldn't assume birth names. A birth name is a name at birth, which sometimes may include initials that do not stand for middle names (eg Harry Truman), but we need cites for those. Birthname field in the infobox should only be for full names IMO. The lead paragraph is sufficient for initialled names. Connormah (talk) 12:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
The name, native_name, and birth_name fields need joint consideration. Probably all three rows in the table (Template:Infobox person#Parameters) should wikilink guidelines for the subject of the lead sentence in a biography --what precedes the verb, usually 'is' or 'was'.
For instance see Omar Sharif. Which elements of the lead sentence lead should be in the infobox? (Before arriving here via my Watchlist, I added" عمر الشريف (arabic) "to template {{Persondata}}.)
See also Bobby Jones (golfer), at least re name. Does anyone advocate 'Bobby T. Jones' with the subsequent field blank? (Now I see this uses {{infobox golfer}}, with fullname and nickname parameters, no birth_name.)
[extend at once] I would assign 'name=Bobby Jones' as previous editors have done, the common name as lead sentence of our instruction says. No thought of 'Bobby T.' or Robert T.' here in the infobox title bar. --P64 (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
--P64 (talk) 15:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
In which case, we need |other_name=, so that names which are not otherwise in the infobox can be included. And no, inclusion in the lede is not sufficient. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Social Media Pages[edit]

Many notable people maintain presences on Social Media. Should those pages be listed as additional website links? jbailey (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is not a directory of handy links: WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:EL. Johnuniq (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
That rather depends on the way they use those accounts. If they're using them regularly, and not just for promotional purposes, then they should be included. It would be ludicrous, for instance, not to have a link to the Twitter account of someone like Stephen Fry. While Wikipedia is indeed not a directory, it sometimes seems that WP:NOTDIRECTORY & WP:EL are trying to dictate community consensus, rather than reflecting it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
No. As for "using them regularly," first, they could be using it regularly today when their new album/show/book is out but not two months from now, and second, that doesn't speak to promotional use — lots of people on social media use it regularly for promotion. Also, I'm not sure what the significance of comedian-writer Stephen Fry is in the context of this issue. In any event, "If Stephen Fry does it, it should be OK" is not a valid argument. Indeed, what's the objective criteria here? Agree with Johnuniq that Wikipedia is not a links directory and add that it is not to be used as a promotional tool. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
You might need to re-read what I wrote. I specifically referred to use for promotional purposes, and I did not make the argument to which you refer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

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)

Date templates parameters[edit]

I've informed in the documentation that the templates {{Birth-date and age}} and {{Death-date and age}} accept all valid date formats, including YYYY-MM-DD, DD Month YYYY or Month DD, YYYY, as described in WP:YR. But user:Nikkimaria insists that YYYY-MM-DD is not "the way to go here"(?), even though it works as expected. What's the problem with YYYY-MM-DD? It's the recommended ISO 8601 standard! —capmo (talk) 02:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Spelling out the month is a more reader-friendly approach, and allows the date format used to be consistent with that in the lead and the rest of the text (which should not be all-numeric). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
These seem to be a variation on {{Birth date}}, {{Death date}} and their "and age" extensions, all of which use YMD parameter order, and are transcluded in many thousands of Infoboxes. We seem to be OK with using YMD internally. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
The difference is that the templates you mention emit a "friendly" date format (day or month first), whereas the "...and age" templates emit the date as entered: "{{Birth-date and age|1966-8-7}}" will emit "1966-8-7 (1966-08-07) (age 47)" which is decidely "unfriendly". OTOH, "{{Birth date|1966|8|7}}" gives "(1966-08-07)August 7, 1966". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
If you type {{Birth date and age|1966|8|7}} you get (1966-08-07) August 7, 1966 (age 47) which is quite friendly. BTW per WP:ENGVAR we also have the df=y command that allows the "Birth date and age|1966|8|7|df=y" you get (1966-08-07) 7 August 1966 (age 47) MarnetteD | Talk 05:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

There seem to be an inconsistency in the output between the two families of templates (1-2-3 vs 4-5):

  1. {{Death-date and age|1 January 2000|7 August 1966}}
    1 January 2000 (2000-02) (aged 33)
  2. {{Death-date and age|January 1, 2000|August 7, 1966}}
    January 1, 2000 (2000-02) (aged 33)
  3. {{Death-date and age|2000-01-01|1966-08-07}}
    2000-01-01 (2000-01-02) (aged 33)
  4. {{Death date and age|2000|01|01|1966|08|07}}
    January 1, 2000(2000-01-01) (aged 33)
  5. {{Death date and age|2000| 1| 1|1966| 8| 7}}
    January 1, 2000(2000-01-01) (aged 33)

Note that in the examples 1 to 3 above, the date formats are valid according to WP:YR. In the next example (and in the one given by Michael Bednarek) the date format is not valid neither by WP:YR nor by ISO 8601 standards (month and day should always be zero-padded when all-numeric):

  1. {{Death-date and age|2000-1-1|1966-8-7}}
    2000-1-1 (2000-01-02) (aged 33)

I agree with AlanM1's argument: we already have lots of pages using an all-numeric format (as in example 4), there's no reason to not allow the syntax in example 3, too. —capmo (talk) 06:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

What started this thread was Nikkimaria's objection to capmo's use of YYYY-MM-DD. Unfortunately, no diff was provided, but I assume the disputed usage was in an infobox, and the objection was about the visible output. I agree that having the YYYY-MM-DD format anywhere in an article's visible text, except as accessdate in citations, ought to be avoided and should be changed to a more reader-friendly format when found. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
The disputed edit is this one, where Capmo made a change to the documentation for this infobox that would result in a visible output of YYYY-MM-DD. Internal usage of that format is fine when it is converted to a visible output that is not all-numeric. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Michael, I'm not sure what you mean by visible output. As my examples 1 to 5 above have shown, the visible output for article readers is always reader-friendly. The internal format of these parameters is currently open to each editor's choice. I'm not advocating to make YYYY-MM-DD the new standard, just to let it stay in the documentation as yet another choice. This would be especially useful in the English wikipedia, because people from the whole world edit it and many come from countries where this is the standard date format. For that same reason, YYYY-MM-DD was adopted as the standard format on Commons and is used in various other templates on the enwiki.
User Nikkimaria has agreed above that internal usage of that format is fine when it is converted to a visible output that is not all-numeric, so, do we have a consensus on this? —capmo (talk) 12:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Internal usage of that format was allowed prior to your change, as it's part of how {{birth date and age}} is written. However, your change would allow YYYY-MM-DD as a visible output - ie. what is seen in read mode - as in your example 3 above. That is the point on which we do not have consensus, as we argue that your example 3 is not in fact reader friendly. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

sizes: px or em/ex/% ?[edit]

In my opinion images should not be resized using pixel dimensions (px) as screen sizes differ more than ever. We want percent (%) of widths/heights or some relation to the font size (em/ex). For example signature_size (as well as image_size) should not default to e.g. 150px but to, lets say 20em or 80%. Kal666 (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

let me know when [[File:Example.png|20em]] works. Frietjes (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Image size parameter[edit]

Hi all, the image size default value has suddenly changed from 200px to 180px as is observed across the zillions of articles using this template. What consensus was there behind this change? Or was there one at all? The images are too small now for a visually pleasing infobox and quite detrimental. One of the articles have hardcoded image size parameter which is generally not advised per WP:IMG. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 12:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I've had to do some hard-coding myself because of this. Not sure what happened or why. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Please do not hard code and wait until the WMF fixes their screwup: Wikipedia:VPT#Infobox_Image. --NeilN talk to me 12:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I added |upright=1. Frietjes (talk) 13:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Influences/Influenced[edit]

Hey, this probably must have been discussed widely before, but I highly disagree with the removal of the parameters Influences/Influenced (old story, I know). Just take a look at the Template:Infobox comedian. It includes these parameters. I understand that it's specific to comedians, and since it's specific, it can include something that's restricted to comedians, but writers/authors also have and are influences, such as film directors, screenwriters, actors, scientists. Unless we create a single template to each and everyone, which would be excessive, these parameters should be included in this general infobox, as a valuable information about various kinds of people. I'm not there. Message me! 00:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, this has been discussed often and at length; see archives. The arguments against these parameters in the infobox include demonstrable usage without foundation and the often complex nature of this aspect of a person's life, which requires context, explanations, sources. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Embedding {{Infobox3cols}} templates[edit]

I think the template should be able to be embedded to {{Infobox3cols}} templates to make it a bit more flexible as a template. For example, {{Infobox football biography}}, for the sake of footballers who've gone on to prominence in other careers like Pelé, Michel Platini and Andriy Shevchenko. I've actually found a way of doing it, and it'll also need changes to the {{Infobox3cols}} and Infobox football biography templates. See my testcase or the template's sandbox. Davykamanzitalkcontribsalter ego 18:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

See also Template talk:Infobox3cols and Template talk:Infobox football biography#Embedding to .7B.7BInfobox person.7D.7D. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting question.svg Question: Testcases and code look okay, but since it's such a major change will this in anyway change the current function or design of templates already in use? —cyberpower ChatOnline 20:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
no changes to this template are needed per thread at template talk:Infobox3cols. Frietjes (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. It looks there is some controversy with this change. It will need consensus first. —cyberpower ChatOnline 20:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

"Television"[edit]

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)

change label from "Political movement" to simply "Movement".[edit]

Please change the label of {{{movement|}}} from "Political movement" to simply "Movement". This will help the field be used more broadly, such as for specifying non-political movements like art movements or philosophical movements. -- Netoholic @ 20:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. —cyberpower ChatOnline 20:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I feel like this is an innocuous, beneficial change. It saves a bit of vertical space in the template (avoiding the line break between the words) and makes the field apply more broadly as we tend to merge similar templates into this one. In biographies which refer to political movements, it is often paired with the "Political party" parameter, so it will still be clear in context. Existing template Template:Infobox artist have a Movement field already (art movement), and I can see this working for other things like philosophical movements. -- Netoholic @ 21:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done{{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 18:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Agent[edit]

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)

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]

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.

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)

"(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)