Template talk:Marriage

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.
 

Year span[edit]

The problem with this template is it makes no distinction between the span of birth-death and the span of marriage. It is especially awkward where there is no link to the spouse to check when they were born. So Jane Smith (1900-1950) could be born in 1900 or have married in 1900. It should read Jane Smith (m. 1900-1950) so the reader knows which data is being presented. Several times I have assumed that the information was the marriage span and was the dates of birth and death, and I have also seen the other ... we need to add the "m." to the template. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Okeydokey Richard. Done. -J JMesserly (talk) 06:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Date Ranges[edit]

The form since 1996 should be used in favor of 1996–present in article text and infoboxes.

This seems clear to me, so does anyone mind if I change it to conform with this guideline? Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I for one don't care. Perhaps you should ping Norton though. -J JMesserly (talk) 02:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
This was said and apparently agreed a couple of years ago. It doesn't seem to have been done, at least for the date of marriage (see Rebekah Brooks). The use of "–present" is arguably against guidelines as it becomes dated and violates WP:DATED. In the case of a date of marriage maybe "m 1996" or similar would be better than "since". Pol098 (talk) 11:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Marriage template microformat incompatible with Infobox person template[edit]

There's a problem with the vcard tag added by this template overriding the standard microformat metadata generated by the infobox person when it is used within that template. Browser plug-ins, such as Operator for Firefox, can't partition vcards within a vcard at this time - so should avoid this on any Wikipedia person page. Will remove the marriage template until this can be fixed. Thanks. Rostdo (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem seems to be inherited from {{Event}} What a mess! I've removed some classes form that as an interim fix, as it's 1am here and I need to sleep. I'll return later. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - Agree it's better to have a clean root hcard on the bio page(s) now and figure out how restore valid marriage vevents later. One negative result is that Operator now applies the dtstart/end dates from the first nested marriage event to the root vevent on the infobox table. Also, some clarification is needed on my previous comment: the Microformat parsing rules DO cover nesting of valid Microformats. After a closer look, it appears the trouble had to do with uncertanty on how values from invalid nested objects should be handled by the tools (Operator, Oomph,..). So there is probably work to be done on both ends. But would still be better not to produce invalid vcard/vevent objects to begin with. Rostdo (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

We need to remove this template from all Infoboxes[edit]

This template is not compatible with Infoboxes. Infobox person, for example, already states the field "Spouse(s):", so the "m." portion of the date range is entirely redundant and cluttered. The spouse field in infoboxes should read "Michelle Obama (1992–present)", not "Michelle Obama (m. 1992–present)". This is redundant, and also doesn't apply to the "Domestic partner" field. Is there a way to easily remove this from all the infoboxes it has infected? Or can we remove the "m." from the template? Or can we simply get rid of this redundantly useless template altogether? Thoughts, please?. — CIS (talk | stalk) 12:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I would support removing the "m." abbreviation, or making it optional. Plastikspork (talk) 13:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Sounds fine, I've removed it for now as I am not sure how to make it optional. If someone reading this knows how to use the coding language in that respect, and wants to add the option, please do so. — CIS (talk | stalk) 23:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Uhhh, no. A consensus of two people is not enough. It is not redundant because it is formated the same as years of birth and years of death, and has been confusing people, that is why "m." was added. I am reverting it until a more definitive consensus is reached. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

We have "John Smith (1920-1960) (1940-1960)" or "John Smith (1920-1960) (m. 1940-1960)". Two years in parenthesis need to be distinguished so that people know which is years of birth and death and which are years of marriage. It isn't always clear which pairs are in the parenthesis. If the person doesn't have their own article, their birth and death years appear in the infobox. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Ending space[edit]

This template seems to produce an ending space in the output string. If the template is followed by a ref, there will be a space between the ref and the string, which does not follow MOS. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Template update[edit]

I think that we should remove the reason why the marriage ended and just keep it simple, putting the years in parenthesis and keeping it like that: IE 1991–93 or 1997–2000 if it goes into the new millennium. The reason why the marriage ended will be in the article, so I see no reason why it has to be in the infobox. 173.69.8.105 (talk) 02:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The reason field (why the marriage ended, divorce or death) allows the infobox to be a simple one-stop-shop for personal information, which is its intention. In many articles, this information can be missing or very widely dispersed. For instance, the Judy Garland article makes it very difficult to follow the actor's marriages without the detail in the infobox. That was the article that initially piqued my interest in this template, as I simply wanted to know about her marital history quickly. I believe it should be retained as useful information.--Tgeairn (talk) 03:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Then at least fix it so that the ending year is abbreviated with two numbers rather then the whole year: IE: 1992–1994 should be 1992–94. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.8.105 (talk) 03:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I have not done the research into why the MOS picked dates the way they did, but one place where removing the first two digits becomes a problem is that it can be ambiguous. My grand parent was born in 1906 and died in 2011. Do I show their dob/d as 1906-2011, while I show my great grand parent's marriage dates as 1901-11 (the other one passed away in 1911)? Consistent dates makes for much more readable copy, and they eliminate confusion or questions. --Tgeairn (talk) 04:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Well if the end of marriage or death date extends into the new millennium, then it should be four digits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.8.105 (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
No. No. Years given in WP should never use less than four digits. --Thorwald (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
WP:MOSDATE does say that 1901–11 is acceptable, and means 1901–1911. 1901–2011 would need to be used for the 100-year range. 1911-01 should never be used (unless the range is, by context, in end-to-start order). Saving space in this way won't work well/clearly with the prefixes for reason in front of the end dates, though: (m. 1901 – w. 11) is just ugly, I think. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
1901–11 can be read as 1901–November. The "millenium problem" was all about two digit years. I always prefer seeing 1901–1911 for the best clarity. -79.67.254.246 (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Spaced en dash[edit]

Hello,

I notice this template spaces en dashes in all contexts, so {{Marriage|Example|1940|1956}} produces "Example (m. 1940 – 1956) «start: (1940)–end+1: (1957)»"Marriage: Example to Marriage" Location: (linkback://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Marriage)". However, according to MOS:ENDASH, "the en dash in a range is always unspaced, except when the endpoints of the range already include at least one space." So the correct behaviour would be for {{Marriage|Example|1940|1956}} to produce "Example (m. 1940–1956)", while {{Marriage|Example|3 October 1940|1956}} would produce "Example (m. 3 October 1940 – 1956)". Can anyone make it so that the template detects whether the arguments are only years, and if so, unspace the dash?

Thank you. InverseHypercube (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is with the m. and w. prefixes for the years, which are logically part of them just as a month would be, at least for appearance. (m. 1953–w. 1976) looks even more wrong than (January 20, 1953–June 11, 1976). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Widowed[edit]

How does one distinguish between the subject of the article dying or the spouse dying? Either would have the same date and reason. Do we need a "reason=is widowed" to indicate that the subject died, not the spouse? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

  • I agree with the above. The "reason=" parameter should be expanded and/or clarified a bit. --Thorwald (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
So, when arg {{{1}}} dies, reason=widowed. When the article subject dies, and is survived by arg {{{1}}}, how about reason=survived (abbreviated s.)? The problem is that we also need reason=separated (abbreviated how?) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Abbreviations only get in the way of quick comprehension. I had to think a bit before I realized "w" meant widowed. If the spouse died, "death of spouse" would make that clear. If the subject of the article died, we need no further explanation, because the same infobox has the date of that person's death.Peter Chastain (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
With the limited amount of space in the Infobox, though, they are necessary to avoid ugly multi-line constructs. I recently saw a situation where the subject died a couple months after their spouse, in the same year. In that case, the ending year by itself is ambiguous. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Questions[edit]

Unresolved

Can anyone explain the supposed advantages of the first of these examples, over the second, or even third?

{{marriage|Tanaya Paul|2012}}
Tanaya Paul (m 2012)
Tanaya Paul ({{abbr|m|married}} 2012)
Tanaya Paul (m 2012)
Tanaya Paul (married 2012)
Tanaya Paul (married 2012)

please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


Can anyone explain the purpose of this part of its coding:

|hide-coord=y|noHcard=

please? Why enter coordinates in the template, if they're not displayed, and not emitted as metadata? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


Can anyone explain the purpose of the |uncertain= parameter, and give an example of an article where it is used? If it's not used, why is it there? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


Can explain the purpose of entering "October 3," in:

{{marriage|Michelle Obama|October 3, 1992}}

when it renders as:

Michelle Obama (m 1992)

without the date and month, please? How does that differ from entering:

{{marriage|Michelle Obama|April 1, 1992}}

for example? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


Can anyone explain why:

{{marriage|Michelle Obama|October 3, 1992|show=[[Michelle Obama]] <small>(m. 1992)</small>|spouse2=Barack Obama |street-address1=Trinity United Church of Christ|street-address2=400 W. 95th Street|city=Chicago |lat=41.7219|lon=-87.6342}}

displays as only:

Michelle Obama (m. 1992)

and what, then, is the purpose of including:

|spouse2=Barack Obama |street-address1=Trinity United Church of Christ|street-address2=400 W. 95th Street|city=Chicago |lat=41.7219|lon=-87.6342

How is that different from, say:

{{marriage|Tarquin Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Olé-Biscuitbarrel|First of never|show=[[Michelle Obama]] <small>(m. 1992)</small>|spouse2=I'm a banana, la, la, la|street-address1=Third Rock from the Sun|city=Disneyland|lat=9999999|lon=-111111}}

which also displays as:

Michelle Obama (m. 1992)

for example? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Anyone? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

More questions[edit]

What purpose do the following parameters serve:

  • |street-address1=
  • |street-address2=
  • |street-address3=
  • |province=
  • |locality1=
  • |locality2=
  • |uncertain=
  • |region=
  • |state=
  • |department=
  • |postcode=
  • |country=
  • |hide-coord=
  • |noHcard=
  • |lat=
  • |lon=

are they used anywhere; and is there any reason not to remove them? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyone? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

???? - present[edit]

I don't know if this has been discussed or not, I browsed through the previous comments and didn't find it so I'm sorry if I'm repeating something someone has already said but is there anyway to put in (present) for the couples that are still together, it looks weird and not uniform when an infobox looks like:

John Doe (m. 1993 - 1999)
Bob Dole (m. 2000)

can't the template be updated to have (present) put in there? Like this:

John Doe (m. 1993 - 1999)
Bob Dole (m. 2000 - present)

I think it would look nicer and better. Lady Lotus (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Removing parameters[edit]

The recently-concluded TFD was filled with people objecting to the presence of many of this template's parameters: many delete voters saw them as reason to delete, and many keep voters (including me) saw them as extraneous and worthy of chopping. I placed this template at the Sandbox (revision) with all parameters filled out, and the template only displayed the following parameters:

  • 1= (the name of the person getting married)
  • 2= (the date of marriage)
  • 3= (the date of the end of the marriage)
  • reason= (the reason why the marriage ended)

Everything else is in the HTML, but it's only producing the microformatting that's apparently broken; see the block of text at the end of the final section of this version of WP:VPT. Removing the other parameters apparently won't affect the appearance of the articles in which these parameters are used, so can we remove them to cut down on template bloat and mangled microformats? I'd say yes, but I'm not going to do it without additional input. Nyttend (talk) 02:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll back this, I see no problem with cutting this down. Ducknish (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
This looks like a great proposal, I completely support it. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 02:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I would like to see what pages use the parameters that are under consideration to cut. I'll put in some maintenance categorization within an hour and put a little table below. If nothing is using the parameter, cut it. If it is being used, then it should probably be displayed. Technical 13 (talk) 11:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
A good idea. I'd also like to be able to code multiple marriages.--Auric talk 11:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
There's a version in the sandbox with less parameters (output is on the testcases page). The only thing it's missing from the list above is the reason parameter since it seemed like too much info to cram into the infobox field. — Bility (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Just waiting for the categories below to populate, then I'm sure we'll have a better idea of what is(n't) needed. Technical 13 (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Okay, based on the list below, there are some arguments that can just be chopped as they are unused:
      • spouse1
      • street-address3
      • province
      • locality2
      • locality3
      • uncertain
      • state
      • department
      • postcode
    • Technical 13 (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay, after some more work, the only parameters left used by articles are:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • reason
  • show
There are some you can see listed below that are being used, but not on articles... I'm untagging those to list articles only so we can see what else is using the template. Then all but the ones I've just listed can be chopped until they can properly be coded to be included. Technical 13 (talk) 13:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Maintenance list[edit]

Okay, so I've added all of the categorization to the template and here is a list that will show which parameters are used and which aren't.

Given the above, and the below, what need is there, to keep this template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
The above is a representation of nothing since the maintenance categories were stripped out of the template. Kind of makes your question moot in my opinion. You are most certainly welcome to take it to another TfD to get a new consensus now that the extraneous arguments have been removed per the last discussion. Technical 13 (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The stupidity of this template[edit]

In the Meg Ryan article mentioned above, this template is entered (other examples omitted for clarity) as:

|spouse={{Marriage|Dennis Quaid|1991|July 16, 2001|reason=divorce|show=[[Dennis Quaid]]<br /><small>(m. 1991–2001; 1 child)</small>}}

which renders as:

Dennis Quaid
(m. 1991–2001; 1 child)

The text that is displayed is generated by the |show=, where it is entered as wiki-markup, thus:

  • |show=[[Dennis Quaid]]<br /><small>(m. 1991–2001; 1 child)</small>

In other words, the template not only emits no microformat metadata, but also does nothing to format the text.

The same result could be entered by typing:

  • |spouse=[[Dennis Quaid]]<br /><small>(m. 1991–2001; 1 child)</small>

which renders as:

Dennis Quaid
(m. 1991–2001; 1 child)

In other words, the text {{Marriage|Dennis Quaid|1991|July 16, 2001|reason=divorce|show= and the closing }} are utterly redundant.

Can anyone tell me the point of this farce? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm working on it Andy. Do you know how to make <categorytree>...</categorytree> tags show the collapsed version of the list? Once there has been some time for the new maint categories to run through the job queue, we'll have a better grasp on what needs to be done to the template. I've been told you are somewhat of an expert on microformat metadata. Can you link or explain exactly what it is so I can understand why some of these things were included in the first place? Technical 13 (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Can you answer my question? I have no idea what you mean by "<categorytree>...</categorytree> tags"; nor to which list you refer; nor why you've asked that and a question about what microformats are, in reply to this section, which is about the display of wikitext, and in which I point out that "the template... emits no microformat metadata". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
"<categorytree>...</categorytree> tags" was in reference to the section right above this one, which I have already figured out and am just waiting on the job queue to finish processing the change to the template to categorize all of the parameters. The template is allegedly suppose to emit microformat metadata, and I'm not entirely sure what that is, if you could point me to some information as to what that data is used for, I would appreciate it. Once I understand what was hoped to be accomplished by these additional parameters, and I see how many of them are actually used, I'll be in a better position to answer your question. Technical 13 (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
As you've been told, it's like any other basic template that formats content the same way across numerous pages. If we decide to expand the way that it displays the dates, we'll have a far easier time than we would if we just had plain text. This usage is odd, since "Show" isn't supposed to be used to do things that parameters such as the dates and reason are supposed to do. Nyttend (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
That's not dissimilar to the example given in the template's documentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I can't point you to what the microformat metadata is supposed to be used for; because this template doesn't emit any. I'm not sure how many more times I'll need to say that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Then I'm not making my question clear, and I seem to be frustrating you. Let's try it like this. Can you link me a template that DOES emit microformat metadata? Technical 13 (talk) 18:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Category:Templates generating microformats. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
There we go, now I understand the concept a little better. Now, let me ask a couple different questions. Are you opposed to this template emitting such data? Are you opposed to it "only" emitting that data and not doing anything else with the information? In the last 6 hours or so since I added the maintenance categories to the template, I'm not seeing most of the arguments being used at all (and I've modified the documentation to discourage use during this phase of the project). We should give the job queue more time, because I'm still seeing the numbers go up every time I visit, so I know it is not done. That being said, it looks like it might be safe to just chop these unused arguments off the template, which leads me to my next question. How does Wikipedia view maintaining templates for article histories? Unfortunately, viewing a specific revision of a page doesn't use the templates as they were at that time, but as they are now (I could put in a bug report as that probably wouldn't be hard to change). I know on other wikis, we take strong efforts to maintain article histories by making all templates as backwards compatible as possible. Is that a concern here? Technical 13 (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
No, that's not a concern. Are you near to being able to answer my question at the top of this section, now? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The show parameter seems to have been intended to allow formating to the output of the template to keep the other parts that were suppose to emit metadata from having all kinds of divs and spans in them for formatting. Unless, we are going to include h-card metadata, all of the pages that use it should be gone through and make sure the information is in the "other" appropriate arguments and deleted. Just my opinion. Technical 13 (talk) 17:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah-ha! I've found what the use of |show= is for in the process of trying to remove it from all the articles. See the Clay Felker and Victor Adamson articles. Technical 13 (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Given this edit, there still appears to be no need for it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Endash got un-spaced[edit]

Somehow, the endash between the years became un-spaced, in contradiction of MOS:ENDASH section 1: "The en dash in a range is always unspaced, except when at least one endpoint of the range includes at least one space." Based on #Spaced endash above, it was apparently correct at one point.

To fix it, the endash ("–") in the template code should be replaced with "&nbsp;– ", right? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Hi Alan. This edit is what changed it. Rrius seems to think that "year-only date ranges aren't spaced", so I've just pinged him (and am reverting) so that it can be discussed. Technical 13 (talk) 11:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but you don't appear to have read the policy. It says, "The en dash in a range is always unspaced". It then goes on to explain that when a certain condition is met, spaces are put on either side of the dash. That condition is that either the beginning or end point of the range contain a space itself. Since a year does not have a space, it does not meet the condition. As such, there should be no spaces around the dash. I am reverting. -Rrius (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
    • To be clear, what the policy is saying is that 1901–1930 is not spaced, but 1901 – February 1930 is spaced. This is because neither "1901" nor "1930" contains a space, but "February 1930" does. -Rrius (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
@Rrius:Yes, and the template seems to now always insert at least "(m. " in front of the marriage year (at least), meaning there is always at least one space and the endash should therefore be spaced (e.g. "(m. 1930 – d. 1946)"). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I believe John Smith (m. 1930–46) should not be spaced. seems like logic would complicated to make this work in all cases. a better option, in my opinion, would be to simply not use the template in the cases that it is not producing the correct spacing (or use the show= option). Frietjes (talk) 00:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Wrong. If it is m. 1962–1982, then the "m." applies to the whole date range; it is not a part of the first year. If you are using "m." and "d." together, there should be no dash (i.e., it should be m. 1962; d. 1982 or some such). -Rrius (talk) 02:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I've got an edit/idea sitting on my laptop until I get to school tomorrow where there is wifi to test that should resolve this issue. I don't see why full dates aren't being used but instead only years. Technical 13 (talk) 00:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
    • @AlanM1, Frietjes, Rrius: so I've played in the sandbox and I think I've finally got it working well to address all issues raised above. This includes full dates (in an abbr popup), using "; " if there is a reason specified, and no spaces for just years. I'm unclear from MOS: if the years actually should be unspaced with the full years available as popups though... I'm thinking that maybe there could be a new parameter that would allow full dates to be not in abbr popup, and include extra spaces around endash. Please see Template:Marriage/testcases and let me know if there is anything else that needs adding. Technical 13 (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


I am, of course, wrong. D'oh!Face-confused.svg.

  • In (m. 1930–1946), I agree that the "m" does apply to the range, not just the first year, making the unspaced endash correct.
  • In (m. 1930; d. 1946) the semicolon with trailing space is the correct punctuation, not the endash.
  • I'll note that the MOS currently says that the closing year of a range of years in the same "century" should have just two digits (i.e. 1930–46), but that's on my list of things to question, since I don't think that should be mandatory; as often as I run into 1930–1946, it may not even represent the majority of usage in WP. ("century" quoted because it may not be technically correct either)
  • Since the template is normally used in Infoboxes, I think years only is the correct format, given the limited space available.

—[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

    • AlanM1, so you support the sandbox version as it is? There is little I can do about the 1930-42 thing at this time, but I'd be happy to research and work on making that happen. Technical 13 (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
      • It sounds like we've reached a consensus. I would only add that I think the technical problems seem to me to justify ignoring the YYYY–YY thing, which is ignored pretty routinely anyway. Incidentally, MOS tends to apply with more force to prose than elsewhere, so there is still another reason not to get too bothered about ignoring the problem. -Rrius (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
        • With regard to the 2-digit year, I agree with leaving it as is – the performance penalty to "fix" it is too great in template code, and should probably wait for a Lua version (and I want to try to get it out of the MOS anyway Face-smile.svg).
        • {{Marriage/testcases}}: The doc says that |reason= is supposed to be either "divorced" or "widowed", but the code also appears to support aliases: "d", "d.", "div", "div."; and "w", "w.", "wid", "wid."; respectively. "s", "s.", "sur", "sur.", and "survived" are also supported. If the value is none of those, it just passes through whatever is given, whereas previously, it ignored the parameter. This last bit may affect existing usage, though I suppose it would have technically relied on undocumented behavior. I can do the doc changes. Does "survived" mean that the subject of the article survived the person named in the template, or vice-versa? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Sorry about my delay Alan. Survived means the person died and Widowed means the spouse died. I've also added the logic to deal with the MOS:YEAR issue that was raised again below. Let me know if there is anything else I can do. Happy editing. Technical 13 (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Template Violates WP:YEAR[edit]

Resolved

I've noticed that this template violates the terms of WP:YEAR. The YEAR page clearly states: A closing CE or AD year is normally written with two digits (1881–86) unless it is in a different century from that of the opening year, in which case the full closing year is given (1881–1986). For clarity, years with fewer than four digits may be written in full (355–372). Is there anyway to change the template so it does not violate such? livelikemusic my talk page! 14:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

  • I've spent an hour or so and this template now has the logic that this isn't an issue. Was throughly tested through /sandbox revisions and monitoring changes to /testcases. Happy editing. Technical 13 (talk) 00:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Abbreviations[edit]

There is a clear consensus to change the abbreviations to d., div. and wid. respectively. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:51, 22 January 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.

Please change the abbreviation for divorce to "div." and not "d." "d." is universally understood to mean died. DrKiernan (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Also, [citation needed] that this is "universally" understood. Also, it's not "d.", it is d. (put your mouse over it). Technical 13 (talk) 22:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • As far as death goes, this template uses s. or w.. Technical 13 (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Why would I run my mouse over it? Normally, people just read what's written. The abbreviations (apart from m.) are not clear because they are not in general use outside of this template. DrKiernan (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Even without running your mouse over it, we are talking about marriage here, the options for that ending are, "widowed", "survived", or "divorced". "Died" isn't in this list. So, please get some consensus to make this change. :) Technical 13 (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
  • A marriage obviously ends when one of the partners dies. DrKiernan (talk) 09:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay, yes, when someone dies the marriage ends. I'll give you that. Problem is "died" is ambiguous because it doesn't tell you ho died. This is why we use survived or widowed when dealing with deaths in marriage. Survived means the topic of the page died and left a spouse behind and widowed means the spouse died. Technical 13 (talk) 12:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think that is clear at all since I would expect the parenthetical comment to apply to the spouse not to the subject of the page. Hence, I read "survived" and "widowed" in the same sense: spouse survived subject of the page, and spouse was widowed. DrKiernan (talk) 13:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

My initial request was not to change widowed and survived to "d." but to change "d." to the obviously unambiguous "div.", I think now it is better to change this template so that instead of using abbreviations we've made up ourselves, we use abbreviations that are already common practice:

d for died [1][2]

div for divorced [3][4]

wid for widowed [5][6]

These abbreviations in brackets beside the spouse's name would indicate to me that they apply to the spouse, i.e. the spouse died or was widowed in that year. DrKiernan (talk) 13:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

  • You're overlooking why it was chosen to use single letter abbreviations with the {{Abbr}} template in the first place. This template is most often used inside of an infobox with very limited line width an longer words or abbreviations don't fit on one line. Technical 13 (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Then put a space in like the formatting at Charles, Prince of Wales, or Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. It's much clearer than the formatting created by this template. DrKiernan (talk) 17:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support proposal to change to "d.", "div.", and "wid." These are unambiguous, and I agree with Dr. Kiernan that d. generally speaking does mean "died", and thus using it for divorce is confusing. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • support proposal to change to "d.", "div.", and "w." to "wid." per TonyBallioni and Dr. Kiernan. Frietjes (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support change to "div." or similar. I have long thought that this was unnecessarily ambiguous and confusing, but I assumed there was consensus for it. Reliable sources and consensus seem to clearly favor DrK's proposal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as I think it takes too many lines and is bulky in the infobox... Template:Marriage/testcases#Testing in an infobox shows what I mean, having the extra 4 characters forces some lines to take two lines instead of one as in the Billy Bob Thornton example. Technical 13 (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support change to div. to avoid confusion. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support change to div. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:53, 18 January 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.


Ambiguous Abbreviations[edit]

Please change remove all of the abbreviations for married, divorced, survived, and widowed from this template. "m" means "male" or any number of the 67 ambiguous terms listed on M (disambiguation), Mar is most universally known as March, "d" means daughter or any number of the 93 ambiguous terms listed on D (disambiguation), Div is most universally known as divide or division, "s" means "second", "w" means "win" or any number of other things as can be seen on W (disambiguation). Since there is so much ambiguity here, let's just do away with abbreviations all together. Thanks Technical 13 (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's any confusion with "m.", "div." and "wid." when they are immediately next to a row label "spouse". I could find no transclusions using survived, so I think that parameter can just be cut as unused and ambiguous. The ambiguity as I see it is that it is not clear whether the parenthetical "survived" refers to the subject of the article surviving the spouse, or the spouse surviving the subject of the article. As I said above, I think it's clearer when the parenthetical abbreviations are (1) standard abbreviations that are widely used, and (2) refer to whether the spouse died (d.) or was widowed (wid.), i.e. whether the spouse died (d.) or whether the subject of the article died (wid.). DrKiernan (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Eh, personally, to me d/wid is still ambiguous, because the antecedent is ambiguous, but overall I'd come down on the interpretation you suggest, albeit feeling uncertain. SamBC(talk) 23:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • If you claim there is no confusion with "m.", then you are wrongfully overlooking the gay male marriage and the fact that it "could" be used to indicate that. If you truly believe that "died" is an acceptable alternative for d. in a template that only accepts parameters of annulled, divorced, married, survived, or widowed; then there is no reason for you to argue that it is possible for someone else to interpret m as male, div as diversion, or even wid as something else... So, I saw let's do away with all of it. I'll make the appropriate changes in the sandbox if someone wishes to make the change live. Technical 13 (talk) 01:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Edit: Sandbox updated. Technical 13 (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
The template does accept the parameter died: Jane Smith (m. 1985; died 2005). The only reason it doesn't show d. for died is because you keep using it for the divorced parameter despite clear consensus that that is inappropriate. I never argued that "it is possible for someone else to interpret m as male, div as diversion, or even wid as something else". That was you. I said the opposite: see my comment of 23:46, 22 January 2014 above. DrKiernan (talk) 07:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
There is no consensus to add died to a template about marriage. You misread what I said, what I said (let's rearrange the words a little here) is that you are claiming it is impossible for someone else to interpret m as male, div as diversion, or even wid as something else yet are dead set that those same people will interpret d as died in a template that has no consensus for allowing died as a parameter because the correct term is either widowed or survived. Does that not reflect what you are saying? Technical 13 (talk) 15:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
The reason I call this a straw man is that there's no reasonable evidence or even logical supposition that anyone would misinterpret it that way - why would 'male' be attached to a date, and what does 'diversion' have to do with marriages at all? Okay, on the first of those, it could be to do with a gender reassignment, but that's a pretty outlandish thing to suppose. Meanwhile, a marriage can end by both divorce and by death. If I'd been in the original discussion, I'd say that d shouldn't be used for anything, because it's ambiguous, but I agree with the closer above that the consensus expressed is to use 'd' for death. I think the conclusion is wrong in an objective sense, but the closer has given an accurate depiction of the consensus. SamBC(talk) 15:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Nice straw man, well done, I applaud you... SamBC(talk) 23:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Survived parameter[edit]

Consensus determined in section #Remove survived parameter entirely is to remove the survived parameter. DrKiernan (talk) 19:12, 22 February 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.

Should the current use of "survived" as a parameter be changed? DrKiernan (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Henry VIII
Infobox per User:Technical 13
Spouse
Henry VIII
Infobox per User:DrKiernan (with or without abbreviations)
Spouse

Change current use: Let me try once again to explain why "survived" is being misapplied in this template, and why it should it be replaced with "died". If you look at the two examples opposite, Technical 13 wants "survived" to mean that the spouse was survived by the subject of the article. So, on Henry VIII's article, Technical 13 wants the template to say that Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour and Catherine Howard were survived by Henry. However, no-one ever uses that term in that way, and using it like that is confusing and unusual. I would go as far as to say it was unique to wikipedia.

In the second example, I demonstrate how "survived" is commonly used, i.e. as a synonym for "widowed". So, only Catherine Parr "survived"; she was widowed. The three wives who died are only ever described as died (or beheaded).

In this template, "survived" should be used to mean that the spouse survived the subject of the article not the other way around. If the spouse dies before the subject of the article, then it is simpler and easier to just say so. DrKiernan (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC) Change current use: In the example opposite, I demonstrate how survived is commonly used, i.e. as a synonym for "widowed". So, of Henry VIII's wives only Catherine Parr "survived"; she was "widowed". The three wives who died are only ever described as died (or beheaded). In this template, "survived" and "widowed" should be used to mean that the spouse survived the subject of the article not the other way around. If the spouse dies before the subject of the article, then it is simpler and easier to just say so. This is the usual wording used in histories, biographies and genealogies. DrKiernan (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


Henry VIII (linked here for reference)
Actual infobox per Technical 13
Spouse
  • Okay, let me explain.
It is pretty clear to me based on all of these definitions from multiple sources that "survived" when used as a transitive verb in this context as relating to a married couple means that the topic died and left the listed spouse behind. As a side not, I have no objection to using the more specific "beheaded" if in fact the spouse was beheaded, and this was never before discussed. More clarity is good in my opinion, less clarity (going from survived meaning the topic died leaving the spouse to simply died leaving it totally ambiguous) is not acceptable. Technical 13 (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Frankly, I haven't a clue what you're talking about. You state that survived means "the topic died and left the listed spouse behind", which is EXACTLY what I am saying. You're making no sense whatever by then going completely against that statement and doing the opposite in your edits. DrKiernan (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
It still makes no sense. Seymour wasn't widowed in 1537. She died. It makes no sense to arbitrarily decide that "widowed" relates to the topic only, while "survived" relates to the spouse only. It is clearly confusing. DrKiernan (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Henry was widowed, no? The text that is displayed by the template is to relate the topic's association to the spouse. Therefor, the spouse died, the topic was widowed, the topic died, and was survived by the spouse. Is that clearer? I sure hope so because I do believe that you have good intentions here, but are completely misunderstanding how the template is suppose to work. Technical 13 (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
No. Henry didn't survive Catherine. He died. So the parenthetical comment does not relate to the topic's association with the spouse, i.e. "Henry survived Catherine Parr" is wrong. DrKiernan (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Again, you are not reading the discussion... Henry was survived by Catherine. Yes, he died. So the parenthetical comment does relate to the topic's association with the spouse, i.e. "Henry was survived by Catherine Parr" is correct. Technical 13 (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I am reading the discussion. You just won't accept that someone has a different view. DrKiernan (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Edit: I've updated the sandbox to be clearer. It now has the full verbose of "survived by" so that you won't be confused. Technical 13 (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
No. Now it just looks as though the date is uncertain, which makes it more ambiguous. DrKiernan (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I should point out, that I went through all the transclusions yesterday and couldn't find any that use the survived parameter, so I believe it could be removed immediately without any loss of data. DrKiernan (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Then there needs to be some going through all of the transclusions and fixing where people are misusing the template. It most certainly should not be removed in favor of a more ambiguous, less defining term. I'll work on that with AWB soon Technical 13 (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
As I said, there are no misuses to correct. It is not in use. DrKiernan (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that Technical 13 has very specific ideas about how such things should be written and read, and is determined that everyone use them. If there is some authority behind this, like general practices in genealogy, or some earlier established consensus, that might carry some weight, after due consideration. However, at this point, it feels a bit like a case of ownership of the template, where others simply want to make the template produce results that are easiest for readers. Sure, we can try to make sure that every editor using the template knows how these are meant to be read, but that doesn't help readers at all. Thus, the information should be presented in a way that is not ambiguous to readers. SamBC(talk) 22:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

  • There is no ownership here on my part, and I am all for removing the ambiguity. I've linked above in bullet points dictionary definitions for these words and phrases, which I would consider an authority on the definition of the words. I would hope that they would carry some weight with due consideration. I am all for making changes to this template as consensus dictates. In this section, User:DrKiernan has set forth his or her opinion, I have set forth mine with multiple various sources explaining the definitions of these words as is written in dictionaries, and I await input from the community to see a consensus form. If people want to add ambiguous terms and ideas to this template, I would be happy to make the edits to employ those terms. At some point though, this template is going to become so full of ambiguous crud, that it will be worthless as a template, and I will support its deletion at that time as unsalvageable. Technical 13 (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Dictionary definitions aren't that helpful here, because the problem is the unclear antecedent. You're saying 'widowed this date' when there are two people being referred to. The same, frankly, applies to died. In all three cases, the user can work out which it was by looking at other biographical information. Is there an advantage to using separate terms for the two cases when that doesn't tell the reader anything without them either knowing our convention, or checking biographical info? Of course, to English-speakers, many will have heard the rhyme for Henry VIII's wives, and expect the use of 'died' and 'survived' in that way. Not sure that's a great guide, though. SamBC(talk) 22:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

It's worth noting that someone elsewhere has suggested that this should be seen as an MoS issue. What do people think of seeing (and discussing) it in that context? Is there an appropriate MoS section? SamBC(talk) 15:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: Perhaps WP:MOSBIO? SamBC(talk) 15:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I've added policy and style to the RfC header to add it to those categories that would attract MOS people. I really don't care what does or doesn't go into this template as long as the process is followed to achieve consensus. So, I'm all for bringing in more editors from MOS since this is essentially a WP:MOS issue as Andy suggested on AN/I. Well, the "which abbreviations do we use for which words" part anyways. As far as to whether or not we should do away with survived and/or widowed and opt for more ambiguity, it's not a MOS issue, but I'd still be very interested to see what the people that come for the MOS part of the abbreviations have to say about whether or not we go from "divorced, survived, widowed" to "divorced or died". I'd actually quite like to do the opposite and expand the options to "annulled, divorced, survived, widowed". I don't think that "beheaded" is really an acceptable default option because it doesn't say anything about the marriage itself and does not apply to the topic of the page. The topic was not beheaded, the spouse was. Even if the topic was beheaded, they were survived by the spouse and the detail that they were beheaded belongs in the prose and not in this infobox enhancing template. Technical 13 (talk) 15:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
    • The problem with all of the parameters under consideration, died, survived or widowed, whether abbreviated or not, is that they are all ambiguous and unclear - which party died, was the subject of the article survived by the other party, or did they survive them? At least the user can usually look in the same infobox to see if that's the date the subject died, but it's still unclear. If it's impossible to be both clear and succinct, what are our priorities? That said, if there's an existing, outside-Wikipedia and fairly universal, convention on this, for example in genealogy, it may be worth following that, though clarity to readers should, IMO, be the most important thing.
  • The questions that need to be asked about who the term is about are: "Who is the page about?" and "Who is the infobox about?" It is pretty clear to me that if the page is about Jon Doe, and the infobox with all of the information is about Jon Doe, then the terms on the "spouse" line of said infobox on said page must be about "Jon Doe". You wouldn't go to a store and ask that clerk "What isle is milk in?" and have him respond "In this store?", so why would there be content on a page that isn't about the topic of the page? Just my thoughts. Technical 13 (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Except that widowed and survived are both transitive verbs - so yes, the verb is applied the the page subject, and to the spouse, but which is subject, and which object? It is not obvious, knowing which is meant would be a matter of convention, and if there isn't an existing convention 'out there' in the world, we shouldn't be inventing one. SamBC(talk) 20:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Henry VIII (linked here for reference)
Actual infobox per Technical 13
Spouse
Henry VIII (linked here for reference)
Actual infobox per Technical 13
Spouse
  • In newspaper obits I frequently see the phrase "X was survived by..." followed by a list of close relatives of X, usually spouse, children and parents, sometimes grandchildren or nephews/neices (X being the deceased). I don't know how more technical works on genealogy use "survived". I would rather that we were clear than concise. Perhaps the template could contain a link to a legend page to explain any abbreviations? Just a thought. DES (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • DES is what I have to the right here what you had in mind? Technical 13 (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • DES would the one further to the right not work just as well and look even better? Technical 13 (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I object to that because inventing our own abbreviations is contrary to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Abbreviations. The guideline rightly seeks to prevent unnecessary confusion by promoting the use of standard abbreviations only. DrKiernan (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Who said anything about inventing our own abbreviations. We would still use whatever is consensually agreed upon as the "normal" abbreviations. Technical 13 (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
    • We need to determine what are the normal abbreviations based on evidence, rather than our own common sense (because common sense isn't that common, as in it's not generally the same between different people). I had a look at some genealogy glossaries, and they mention w. and ww. for widow (and wwr. for widower), but don't have 'widowed' mentioned - the person is labelled, not the date, apparently, and then the date of the change of status (to widow, for instance) applied to the status. The abbreviations used for married are m. or md., and for died, it's d., for what it's worth. SamBC(talk) 20:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I already provided 6 references in the last discussion. DrKiernan (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
The references I'm seeing are references to the meaning of words, not to conventions on abbreviation. Or do you mean in another section? SamBC(talk) 20:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, lost track of who I was talking to, so was looking for references from the wrong person. I'll check the references :) SamBC(talk) 20:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • DES, I've taken the rightmost one even further and made a full sentence out of most of the terms there so there can be zero ambiguity. Technical 13 (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Given that you've now altered the template to read "Marriage was widowed by Anne Boleyn", it's difficult to believe that you're not deliberately trying to make the template look more and more ridiculous. DrKiernan (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


  • Something along those lines, yes. But instead of "Topic was widowed by spouse." which is technically correct but I think confusing, I would suggest "Widowed: Topic's sposue died during the marriage". DES (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Why not just say "spouse died"? I don't see why the complex is being favored over the simple. DrKiernan (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Because it doesn't get much more ambiguous than "spouse died". Technical 13 (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
"Anne Boleyn died" is obviously clearer and more succinct than "Henry VIII of England was widowed by Anne Boleyn", which is what your current sandbox3 would generate. DrKiernan (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I find it more ambiguous. So what she died? "died" is not directly related to being "married", being "widowed" is. Stop trying to force our readers to have to think about what it means that she died. It is an extra mental step "oh she died, so that must mean that he was widowed... well hell, why didn't they just say he was widowed in the first place"... Reader don't like being made to jump through hopes to arrive at the information they want. This is an encyclopedia, and the facts should be stated as clearly and concisely as possible to how something relates to another. Technical 13 (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
    • That goes both ways... you could say "it says he was widowed, so that must mean she died... why didn't they say that in the first place?". Except, of course, that if it just says 'widowed' you don't know who was widowed, being as there's perfectly good reasons to guess either way. SamBC(talk) 21:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I suppose, but wouldn't the information about her death belong in her article? Technical 13 (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
    • It can be read either way. You assume that it's about the article subject, which is a reasonable assumption. I (and my non-'pedia-editing OH I just checked with) would read it as being about the spouse because that's the person it's written nearest the name of. Both are reasonable and plausible. It's ambiguous. That said, the glossaries I've been checking don't seem to have 'survived' used as a thing at all, presumably because in genealogy the convention is that the word/abbreviation is written by the name of the person they apply to, which would be nearer the way I read it. SamBC(talk) 21:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion by Nickmxp[edit]

Henry VIII (linked here for reference)
Infobox per Nickmxp
Spouse

How about using divorced, died, beheaded and saving widowed for the last one? (presuming she was his wife when he died) when using words like dead, beheaded, and then "survived" in the same list.. it kind reads like one almost got killed but got away... Nickmxp (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

survived by is generally used when talking about the deceased and widowed is usually used when talking about the deceased's spouse.. example john married jane... in 1982 john died, he was survived by his wife... (survived by being used relative to the deceased)... Jane was widowed in 1982 after her husband john died.... since this list is in reference yo the spouses i would say widowed would be the more accurate term... the terms died or beheaded are also accurate because widowed is only listed once ergo all other deaths where relative to the wife... which is what this list is aboutNickmxp (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. DrKiernan (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Remove survived parameter entirely[edit]

Henry VIII (linked here for reference)
"No survival" infobox
Spouse

It seems reasonable to me that if the template doesn't show when the marriage ended, the spouse survived the subject. Displaying a survived date is confusing and misleading, IMO. Surviving is not an action that occurs on a particular date; the spouse continues to survive the subject until the spouse dies. Surviving just means that the spouse lived longer than the subject. Kaldari (talk) 01:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I agree. As is clear from this discussion, the use of "survived" just causes confusion. The are perfectly good other terms to use instead. Neljack (talk) 08:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree too: it's essentially a confusing way to repeat the death date of the topic, which should be given in the infobox already anyway. DrKiernan (talk) 10:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I thought initially that I'd be more inclined to agree with the suggestion in the subsection above, using "widowed", as being the least ambiguous and most information-rich. For example, in the situation that the subject has fewer spouses to be listed than Henry does, in omitting that field, it may not be as obvious to the unfamiliar reader that the table is meant to indicate the end date of the marriage as well. On second thought, though, I think most readers would assume the marriage went the distance if it doesn't say otherwise...right? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I think adding widowed to the last marriage of the man's life would be beneficial to the average reader because it would help the firgure out how long the marriage lasted... it also kinda looks like the marriage is still going when there is no end date...Nickmxp (talk) 03:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree that leaving it empty implies that the marriage is still on-going, however, it would be confusing to use the words "widowed" (implying the spouse died), "died" (entirely ambiguous not offering any insight as to whom is dead and whom is still alive), or "survived" as there seems to be some people that are greatly confused between widowed and survived and who the article is about. So, the next logical step is to not use a template at all and let the user just write the formatting as they see fit on the article and delete this template. — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 03:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think widowed would imply the wife died... the chart lists what is happening to the wives here...it lists information about the beginning and end of each wife's marriage in order to show how those marriages in his life played out... (considering the names are placed first)... if the focus of the marriage was on Herny's life it would start with the dates of his life first then list the person he was married to... (like Married 1500 divorced 1526 - Jane Smith) but since the dates come after the wives then it reads as if the events are in relation to the life of the wife... so the end of those marriages would be in relation to the wife... anullment,divorce,death,widowed are all clear descriptors of what happened to the wive's marriage...Nickmxp (talk) 04:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm telling you that is what it implies to me and based on discussions above, I'm not the only one it's implied to. — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 16:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Henry VIII (linked here for reference)
Per — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec)
Spouse
  • I'm trying to understand why.. considering that beheaded and died doesn't refer the the husband , why would widowed? I guess if you were to do it in relation to the husband.. you would put widowed where died and beheaded are noted and put death in the last marriage...then it would show the marriages that made him a widower (the beheading isn't related to him) and the marriage he had that lasted till his death...but I would suggest an order where the name of spouse isn't listed first in order to show the items in the chart are related to the husband...Nickmxp (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Apparently you are not looking at my example above. Where did I include beheaded or died? Here, I've put another copy of the infobox down here attached to my previous post to make it easier to find. — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 19:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC) ⇒

In that example death might be more appropriate.... at the end Nickmxp (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

  • As I alluded to before, I think it's important that - no matter which way it's decided - that it make intuitive sense even without multiple wives to give context to what is meant by the description. Not all article subjects will have multiple spouses listed. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 06:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Stating that someone was survived by someone else on a certain date doesn't really make sense to me (even if I know that it's referring to the original person's death). To me, "survived by" implies a length of time, not a point in time. What's wrong with just not putting anything in the event that the marriage did not end prematurely? It is, after all, "until death we do part". Kaldari (talk) 05:46, 12 February 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.

Microdata removed[edit]

I have removed <span itemprop="spouse"> and the corresponding closing tag, as it transpires that mediawiki strips out the microdata, which does not therefore appear on the rendered page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Questions, redux[edit]

The wikimarkup:

{{marriage|Michelle Obama|October 3, 1992|show=[[Michelle Obama]] <small>(m. 1992)</small>}}

renders as:

Michelle Obama (m. 1992)

with the source code:

<span><a href="/wiki/Michelle_Obama" title="">Michelle Obama</a> <small>(m. 1992)</small>

Please can somebody explain to me (and I have asked this before) the purpose of entering October 3, 1992 in that example?

Note that:

{{marriage|Ole, ole, banana!|Whoop whoop whoop!|show=[[Michelle Obama]] <small>(m. 1992)</small>}}

also renders as:

Michelle Obama (m. 1992)

again with the source code:

<span><a href="/wiki/Michelle_Obama" title="">Michelle Obama</a> <small>(m. 1992)</small>

I'd love to know what the purpose of this is. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Andy, there is no purpose in entering the date in your example...

Proper usage: {{Marriage|[[Michelle Obama]]|October 3, 1992}} Renders: Michelle Obama (m. 1992) Contains code: <span><a href="/wiki/Michelle_Obama" title="Michelle Obama">Michelle Obama</a> (<abbr title="married">m.</abbr> <abbr title="October 3, 1992">1992</abbr>)</span>

Is the purpose of the template. The "show" parameter is a waste at this point, and I'd all but written it out. I only left it in there to allow for some backwards compatibility until I can make sure that it is unused. I've not yet had the ambition to do that, but you are welcome to go through and make sure it is unused and deprecate if fully.
Also, you made an edit to the template, removing the microformatting that I had added saying there would be an explanation on the talk page, and I don't see that explanation. If you would, please. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 16:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I didn't remove any microformatting; as I tired long ago of telling you and others concerned with this template, this template emits no microformats. I did, however, remove some microdata markup, which is why the section above this one, in which I explain why I did so, is titled Microdata removed. But thank you for confirming the pointlessness of the |show= parameter; another reason why this template is not needed. Since you imply that the example I give is improper;, why is it in the template's documentation? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I apologize for missing the above section, I clicked on the section link on my watchlist and therefor it was completely out of view. If the MediaWiki core software is removing microdata that we are adding, then a bug report needs to be filed and that needs to be fixed (or there needs to be a clear reason why it shouldn't be fixed). The "show" parameter is no longer in the documentation (you could have just removed it from the documentation). While I was at it, I also updated the doc to use templatedata so it is now more VE friendly. — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 16:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

underscoring[edit]

Why is it necessary to define "m." by underscoring it with dots and having a question mark pop up? Surely, this is a standard abbreviation that does not require definition when one hovers over it. Furthermore, it is obvious from the context that it means married. This function is unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.221.61.66 (talkcontribs) 07:38, 26 August 2014‎ (UTC)