Template talk:Infobox person

For pending merger proposals (2009 to date) see Template talk:Infobox person/Mergers

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

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

I don't see why a list should not be used for two entries. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

That's where my mind goes as well, since I'm not sure why you would use something other than a flatlist up to two, then change it.

Actor, model

• Actor
• model

• Actor
• model
• producer

Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: The guidance was a compromise between another editor and me. I wanted list markup always; the other editor wanted commas, as would be used in normal prose, and they didn't like the mid-dot. I conceded that a screen reader would benefit very little from a list of two items. Nevertheless, the benefit increases as the size of the list grows, and the other editor conceded that we should recommend list markup for longer lists. Since then, I created {{cslist}} to remove the aesthetic objection to the mid-dots:

Actor, model

• Actor
• model

(← this is actually an html unordered list)

• Actor
• model
• producer

(← as is this)

I can't remember the name of the other editor, nor when and where the discussion took place, but it's in some archive, somewhere.

Please feel free to rehash a new consensus: you won't have objections from me. You might want to consider if there are any ramifications for WP:FLATLIST, though. --RexxS (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

RfC: Adding a "pronouns" parameter

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

Survey

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

Discussion

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

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

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

burial_place vs. resting_place

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

Thats correct. If the parameter is part of the template (in this case the template supports both resting and burial) you can use either. Usually if burial is confirmed, some editors use burial, if its not confirmed they were buried but the location is, use resting (eg crematorium and interred above ground). In this specific instance, if the sources say she was buried, you are fine to use burial place. Only in death does duty end (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

You may want to read this and the associated linked discussions there. The burial vs resting is a recurring discussion. Essentially you are either buried or you are not. If you are not buried, resting-place is a convenient but euphamistic catch-all for the numerous other ways these days of disposing of a corpse. Since no one genuinely wants more 3, 4 or 5 different parameters for indicating where the body is, discussion always ends up going nowhere. Only in death does duty end (talk) 02:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Only in death. I appreciate your comments. Eddie Blick (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

What is the point of the signature parameter?

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2021

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

• Support – I can't see why the change of formatting the parameters is an improvement. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

IceWelder [✉] 07:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

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

The "partner" parameter

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