Template talk:Infobox person

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

Bad example

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)

Death date and age template

Any reason why the (aged xx) part of this template is now appearing on a line break when used in the death date field? eg. [1] [2] Never used to do this until recently... can it be fixed? Connormah (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

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

death_name paramter

Would it be useful to have a death_name parameter? This would cover for cases where the person is not now commonly known by the name they had on their death. Yaris678 (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't | other_names = cover this on occasions when it is needed? (Though if significant it ought to be in the lede anyway). Do you have any examples in mind that could benefit from adding a death name parameter? GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The case that made me think of this is Joan Clarke. Famous for her code-breaking during WWII, she late married Jock Murray. It seems she took his surname name but kept her maiden name as a third middle name.

I'm open to suggestions of a better way to summarise this in an infobox.

Yaris678 (talk) 15:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

First Lady of Japan?

I'd say that's the Empress of Japan. The "second lady" would be the Crown Princess. Akie Abe is neither. Surtsicna (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

labelstyle's padding-right

Having just passed by Pythagoras, I'd recommend increasing labelstyle's padding-right from 0.65em to e.g. 1.0em. Anyone know if that would cause a malfunction somewhere..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Clarification on Children parameter

Is the Children parameter intended to display a number of children, or names of the children? The template docs are lacking appropriate explanation. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Typically only numbers, names if the children are particularly notable. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, Nikkimaria. Do you think there's any benefit to clarifying the template docs? If a preference for number vs name is split, I think at least the docs should contain some explanation that non-notable minor children should not be named, since that does come up quite a bit. (Can't remember the exact shortcut, but I remember it being a BLP concern.) Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

"For privacy reasons, consider omitting the names of children of living persons, unless the children are independently notable" seems fairly clear to me - what would you propose to add or include instead? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Holy crap I am an idiot. I was looking at the template, and somehow missed the text about the Children parameter. I think perhaps because there are no embedded notes in the blank template with all parameters. Anyhow, my fault entirely. I think maybe an embedded note summarizing the doc text might be helpful for idiots like me. Ack! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to doing that, but if we were going to I would think we would for more than just that parameter - "relatives" and "parents" both have a similar note in the doc text, for example. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

When should party field be included in the infobox?

Should the political party field be included for a non-politician who has self-identified with a party, absent any other support for the party or its candidates or affiliation with the party? There’s a debate going on over at Talk:Orson_Scott_Card#RFC:_Should_we_include_his_political_party_in_the_infobox.3F I believe that self-identification isn't enough to make it relevant (particularly in this case where there's a bit of ambiguity), that some real connection with or support for the party and/or its candidates is necessary, but others disagree. Bennetto (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Citizenship

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

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

• In the case of someone from the UK, an editor could use:
  • British (even though a large chunk or the British Isles, the Republic of Ireland, is not part of the UK) or
  • United Kingdom.

• In the case of someone from the US, an editor could use:
  • American (even though the US only constitutes one of the 55 nations in the Americas albeit with the US consisting of ~one third of the American population) or
  • United States.

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

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

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

• Chinese (disambiguation page), Indian (disambiguation page), American (disambiguation page), Indonesian (disambiguation page), Brazillian (disambiguation page), Pakistani (> Pakistani people), Russian (disambiguation page), Japanese (disambiguation page).
• American (disambiguation page), British (disambiguation page), Canadian (> Canadians), Australian (disambiguation page), New Zealander (> New Zealanders).

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

At the moment the:
Blank template with basic parameters
reads:

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

Can citizenship replace nationality or at least be added?

At the moment the:
Blank template with all parameters
reads:

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

Can this be reordered as follows?:

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

I think it makes sense for citizenship to follow residence and for ethnicity to follow nationality. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

I've been adding some audio and IPA pronunciations to various articles lately, and it occurred to me that while in some cases the information is very pertinent in the lead - say, for example, in the case of Maya Angelou, whose name is often mispronounced - it's often useful-but-not-required, and can sorta break up the flow of the article. So for example, I recorded the name Hadley, which is an intuitive-enough name to pronounce, but it doesn't hurt to have it there (presumably particularly useful for non-native speakers, who wouldn't have the same intuitions about how people pronounce names). I'd rather be adding these pronunciations to an infobox than the lead. Can we add a pronunciation parameter, similar to the "signature" parameter that already exists? 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 14:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

0x0077BE this has been discussed before in this thread. not sure if there was ever a conclusion. Frietjes (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer Frietjes. That discussion sure seems to have been scattered across many, many different pages. Surprisingly, it seems like there's broad support for the idea of decluttering the lead sentences, but no implementation. The most substantive discussion seems to be here and here. Honestly, I think we can implement a "pronunciation" or "pronounced" field in this template without any sort of requirement that the pronunciation be moved from the lede. Infoboxes usually tabulate information that is scattered around the article. For some articles maybe you'll want it in one place or the other. If I work something up do you think it would be a major issue to implement it? Otherwise, we can try to bring this to an RfC at the Village Pump to see what people think. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 21:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

0x0077BE, implementation is easy, if there is consensus concerning how/where it would appear in the infobox. Frietjes (talk) 22:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I would recommend that the IPA pronunciation either go under "native name" or above or below "signature". I can see the audio file going one of two ways, either you include it in the IPA template, like this: /ˈɡɪl/ , or have the audio file as a separate parameter in the infobox. The advantage of doing it the second way is that even if we want the audio file included in the IPA template, we would always have the option of switching to a full audio player just by changing the back-end. The downside is that IPAc-en, the preferred template, takes individual arguments for each phoneme, so I'm not sure how easy it would be to incorporate those into this template.

One technical question is about multiple pronunciations. Often you'll get pronunciations in multiple languages, and very frequently we'll use both IPA and pronunciation respelling for English. Should each of these get its own line / entry? Should we just add support for up to say 6-10 languages under |pronounced-1, |pronounced-2=, and |pronounced-lang-1= , or should we try to enumerate the items like |pronounced-us, |pronounced-ca, etc. My guess is that the first approach is preferable, but maybe there's an even better way.

Either way, is this the right venue for this? Should I be taking this to Village Pump or something to get consensus? 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 18:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

this is probably no better than any other place for the discussion. however, given that you probably want this change in more than just this template, you probably want to start an RFC and add pointers on other talk pages (e.g., {{infobox musical artist}}, and others). Frietjes (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Proposed addition of pronunciations to infobox person

There has been discussion before on this sort of thing, but mostly focused on whether pronunciation information should be in the lead or in the infobox. Without any bearing on the MOS question of whether the pronunciation belongs in the lead, I propose that we add a "pronounced" argument to this infobox, which can be used either in lieu of pronunciations in the lead, or in addition to a pronunciation in the lead, depending on the preferred style convention (either globally or article-by-article). I suggest that it be included under "native name", and preferably there would be slots for multiple pronunciation arguments, separated by language and/or country as appropriate.

The discussion that spawned this RfC took place here (hist link), and previous discussions have taken place in a variety of venues, the most substantive of which is here (hist link).0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 17:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Per the discussion above, I have left notices on all the derivative infoboxes I could find. I have also notified WP:Manual of Style/Biographies and WP:Manual of Style/Pronunciation, as previous discussions have taken place there. Finally, notifications have been left at WP:Village Pump (proposals) and WT:WikiProject Biography. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 17:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Poll

• Support as nominator. My impetus for this RfC was that I have been adding pronunciation information to a number of town and people articles, and while there are many cases where the pronunciation should probably be in the lead because the pronunciation may be counter-intuitive, such as Maya Angelou (pronounced /ændʒəloʊ/ - an-gel-oh, not /ændʒəluː/ - an-gel-oo), there are also a large number of names which are mostly intuitive to native speakers, but where it would be useful to be able to provide confirmation about pronunciation and syllable emphasis. In situations where it's useful but not critical information, putting pronunciation in the lead seems disruptive in a way that putting it in an infobox doesn't. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 17:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support, proving clear documentation is provided, encouraging the use of IPA rather than "an-gel-oh" style, as above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support, echoing Andy above. I've seen some past discussions regarding names in the lede, but I'm not sure if I'm familiar with any arguments against having them in the infobox. Is this controversial? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 21:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I personally don't think that it's controversial, but Frietjes encouraged an RfC to get consensus for addition above, and since Template Talk is generally not heavily watched, but this template is transcluded on a huge number of pages, it seemed like a good idea. I think similar earlier proposals were problematic because they were undertaken unilaterally, which put a lot of people off, and because they tended to be tied up with the question of removing the pronunciation from the lead, which, I gather, is a much more controversial proposition. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 01:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support Having pronunciation in the infobox is useful. However if this would lead to removal of pronunciation from the lead, I would retract my support. −Woodstone (talk) 07:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Provisional support*. If this is tied in with microformatting or wikidata, I think that the benefits would outweigh the risk of softening the policy rationale on pronunciations in the lede. If this is just slapping a new field into the infobox without integrating it into some of the larger efforts at organizing encyclopedic information, then I don't think it's worth it. VanIsaac_WS^cont 04:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • It's almost certainly the latter in its current incarnation. Can you clarify what you see as the downsides of adding new fields without microformatting or Wikidata? I'm not opposed to those things, but again I think they are generally independent of the decision of whether or not there is to be a new field, and I don't really know how they would work. Ideally, any feedback you can provide on how best to integrate it into the infobox in a way that may prevent future duplication of effort when merging this with wikidata and microformatting would be useful if this is indeed implemented. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 06:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • This has nothing to do with microformats. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support: and no concerns about having pronunciation in both the lede and the infobox. No different than stuff like birth date. Not an issue. Montanabw^(talk) 17:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I would have liked this to be an RfC about removing pronunciations from the lede at the same time as adding it to infoboxes. Also, WP:WikiVIP may also be relevant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The reason I didn't do it this way is that I see the two things as orthogonal. Infoboxes tend to summarize a lot of information that is included in the article, particularly information in the lead (dates of birth, dates of death, etc), so I think that whether or not the pronunciation is in the lead, it is also worth putting in the infobox. I felt that tying the two questions together risks muddying the waters, which can be a death knell for consensus in an RfC. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 17:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding WP:WikiVIP, excellent project - I had a similar idea myself when I was preparing a lot of these pronunciation files. Personally, I think that the voice introductions should likely be a separate entry in the infobox, at the bottom, near the "signature" parameter. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 17:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

If there is room for common sense omissions where there can be no debate on how a name is pronounced for any variant of English (eg Matt Smith). --MASEM (t) 23:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I once knew someone called Smith, pronounced Sm-eye-th. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I think more importantly is that from an international perspective, it might not be obvious to non-Westerners how to pronounce even uncontroversial names. I know a Chinese guy whose name I've been mispronouncing for months, because when I first asked him if I was doing it right, he figured that it was close enough. Presumably there's only one way to pronounce the name "Ramachandran" or "Sudhapalli", and no Indian person would think to put IPA in a very common name, but it would still likely be useful information for non-Indian readers. I'm thinking that we could take these "uncontroversial" names on a case-by-case basis and remove IPA if the infobox is becoming over-long or cluttered. Having the infobox option where it definitely doesn't need to be in the lead (like Matt Smith), opens up a useful place to put potentially helpful but not critical information. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 15:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Not a concern, we have lots of stuff in the lead or text narrative that's also in the infobox (number of children, job, birth date, etc.) the two do different things. I don't see a problem here at all. Montanabw^(talk) 17:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
• Many times an infobox is not created until long after the article, so if a pronunciation is helpful, it may need at times to be in the lead paragraph. Also, pronunciations are needed for many other things besides people, so unless all of the infoboxes are changed, pronunciations will sometimes be found near the beginning of the article whether or not this change is made to the infobox. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think the question of pronunciations in the lead needs to be addressed in this RfC any more than the question of birth/death dates in the lead need to be. My position is that it is not at all uncommon for the infobox to duplicate information from the lead or the rest of the article anyway. If people want to have a separate RfC on the question of pronunciations in the lead, I think that's entirely a separate issue. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 13:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Four of the labels

Any support for / objection to the following label amendments, please?:

1. "Notable work(s)" → "Notable works" or "Notable work" or "Key works" or "Key work" or something else not including bracket symbols;
2. "Opponent(s)" → "Opponents";
3. "Spouse(s)" → "Spouse" (may be more than one, but meant to be only one at any one time);
4. "Partner(s)" → "Partner" (may be more than one, but usually only one at any one time).

Sardanaphalus (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes to plural form for (1) and (2) but No to singular form for (3): there are parts of the world where polygamy is practised: Noyster (talk), 12:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

No to all of them because the labels must account for either one more or of each. Softlavender (talk) 11:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Religion means what?

There is a discussion at Talk:George Will regarding the meaning of the religion category. I think it means a person’s public position toward religion, which can include the category atheist. Another editor says it should be blank because atheism is not a religion. This, in my view, suppresses the information available about a person’s stance toward God, and verges on POV suppression of atheists.Rjensen (talk) 07:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a perennial question; atheism is not a religion, just as "not collecting stamps" is not a hobby. As an atheist, I don't want "atehism" listed as my religion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Correct, atheism is not a religion; it's the absence of a religion. (And on another topic, the Category "atheists" must be substantiated in the article by a quote from the subject publicly identifying as an atheist.) Softlavender (talk) 08:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

This was discussed at length at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 142#Changing "Religion = none" to "Religion = Atheist" on BLP infoboxes. Opinions were mixed, but the two positions with the most support were "Religion = None" or removing the Religion entry entirely.

Per WP:V, If anyone insists on putting "Religion = Atheist" in any Wikipedia infobox, they must first provide a citation to a reliable source that established that the individual in question is is [A] A self-declaired atheist, and [B] considers atheism to be a religion.

Evidence that a significant number of atheists object to calling atheism a religion:

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathm_rel_religion.htm

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2009/06/atheism-is-not-a-religion.html

http://factschurch.com/sermons/sermon004.html

http://www.thegoodatheist.net/2013/03/18/for-the-last-time-atheism-is-not-a-religion/

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=131

https://blevkog.wordpress.com/2009/02/26/why-atheism-is-not-a-religion/

http://www.ibtimes.com/atheism-not-religion-we-dont-want-your-tax-breaks-ffrf-feds-1396635

http://noscope.com/2014/atheism-is-not-a-religion/

http://www.nyu.edu/clubs/atheists/faqs.html (Question #3)

BTW, the claim above that "Another editor says it should be blank because atheism is not a religion" is factually incorrect. I changed it to "Religion: None". I did not blank it. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

"Religion = None" would be the correct entry. Leaving it blank can imply that editors have not got around to adding that bit of info, or are unsure. Atheism is not a religion under any circumstances, for any of the dozens of reasons listed already. --Dmol (talk) 09:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

"Leaving it blank can imply that editors have not got around to adding that bit of info, or are unsure." No, it would mean their religion was not relevant, which is the case in the overwhelming majority of bio articles. That parameter is relevant in only a very very small fraction of infoboxes; e.g. people whose life revolved around religion or whose public life actively included activity in or regular mention of a religion. Softlavender (talk) 10:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• Religion: None is the only sensible way to go here. Blank for cases where the information has not been reported in reliable sources etc. pablo 12:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Give the readers a little credit here. If we list "atheist" under religion, no one will conclude that the person worships every week at the local atheist temple. In that circumstance, the average reader will understand that "atheist" describes a person's religious view rather than membership in a religion. Listing a person as "atheist" under religion is much more informative that putting "none"; none may mean atheist, or agnostic, or deist, or may designate a nondenominational Christian. As an agnostic myself, I would certainly not object to having that listed under my religion. But I must hurry off now, because I'm studying for the Agnostic priesthood. Plazak (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

It may give readers more information, but it is giving them false information. We should not do that. Stating "Religion: Atheist" is simply untrue. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• To repeat yet again, anyone's religion is only to be mentioned in the infobox if it is relevant (per the template guideline) -- that is, if it is or was an important part of their public life. If Wills is notably and publicly an atheist, then put either "Atheist" (if that's what he repeatedly calls himself, publicly), or "None" (if that's what he repeatedly says about himself). If on the other hand he has only ever mentioned his lack of a belief in a deity once in some obscure interview or publication that someone has had to dig up from the bottom of the barrel, then don't put anything. Softlavender (talk) 23:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

That would be correct if the parameter were "Attitude towards religion". His "attitude" could be correctly summarised as "Atheist". But the infobox does not say that; it says "Religion" - to which the answer is "None". If you want to change the wording of the parameter, or the meaning of the word "religion", this is not the place. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The primary question is whether or not self-identified, sourced, relevant atheism should be included or excluded from the template. If the consensus answer is "no" then I agree with Rjensen that this amounts to a clear cut case of POV suppression of atheists. Someone expressing that they are an atheist when discussing religion is demonstrating that it is relevant. If instead the answer to the question posed above is "yes", then the second question is how/where should it be included in the template?

• There is some circular logic being used to exclude the information by stating that it is the absence of religion and therefore the only possible entry is "none." (See Guy Macon's [B] requirement above, which ironically is being flatly rejected by another editor on the one page that has directly linked the two per the criteria.) But this "none" is not a singularity as suggested. It has multiple flavors, including atheism. Clearly "atheist" represents some persons' views of religion and therefore is noteworthy in the context of this template entry. So "none" works where no specific flavor is given but is misleading with respect to atheists.
• One can have no professed religion without being atheist. So qualifying "none" with a subset such as "None (atheist)" seems an appropriate entry that addresses the problems simultaneously and does not mislead or "shock" the reader as some have suggested.
• The only flaw I see in the "None (atheist)" solution is when the person considers their atheism religion. This is a gray area that is hard to address because it is at odds with "none" as an entry. It is a matter of consensus definitions and might require an exclusion to allow the entry "Atheist" alone according to the [A], [B] test above.
• Religious sects that actually feature atheism can be listed by their specific names. They do qualify as religion, whether or not atheism in general is considered to be a religion.

In this way all options can be addressed without suppressing information or adding undue external POV to the subject. Red Harvest (talk) 21:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding "The primary question is whether or not self-identified, sourced, relevant atheism should be included or excluded from the template", Consider what would happen if multiple reliable sources showed that Lady Gaga decided to list "Banana" as her birth date. We would document that fact in the main article with a citation to a reliable source (along with other sources that disagree and say she was born on March 28, 1986). We would not put "Birth date = Banana" in the infobox. A reliable source that shows that Lady gaga considers her birth date to be Banana would not justify a "birth_date = Banana" entry in the infobox. It would have to be in the text of the article where there is room to give necessary context. In other words, the fact that the text on the right side of the equals sign is self-identified, sourced, and relevant. is not enough. The text on the left side also has to be sourced. If I were to edit the Lady gaga page infobox to say "occupation = March 28, 1986", the best sources in the world saying that she was born on that date would not suffice. I would also have to establish that March 28, 1986 is an occupation. In like manner, to edit a BLP infobox with "Religion = atheist" or "religion = None (atheist)" the best sources in the world saying that the LP self-identifies as an atheist would not suffice. I would also have to establish that atheism is a religion. (Religion = None (atheist)" is better that "Religion = atheist" -- it can be read two different ways, only one of which implies that atheism is a religion -- but "Religion = None" in unambiguous.) --Guy Macon (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Really? That's what you are going with? Birthdates have nothing to do with bananas, while atheism is a central issue concerning religion (hence, all that "non-believer" rhetoric witnessed from a pew.) If someone says they are an atheist there is no doubt that they are referring to a religious viewpoint and not some random subject as you chose above. The template option is "Religion" and atheism is by definition directly related to that, even if one concludes it is not itself a religion. If you are trying to illustrate how weak the argument is against listing atheism in some form in the template, just continue with that banana line.

The assertion/POV that it is impossible to list atheist for religion aside, there are those who consider atheism a religion and, as has also been pointed out, even religious sects that are atheist. So "Religion = None" is itself ambiguous and in some cases misleading. It is fine when it represents a person's expressed view, but not fine when it doesn't. In encyclopedic context it appears more an effort to hide the person's religious view, rather than to inform the reader of them. And that is the central concern and objection I have to the claimed existing consensus on this matter--a "consensus" that appears quite dubious in looking at discussions and reverts.Red Harvest (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

If you think that there is a consensus for atheism being a religion, I suggest posting it in an RfC. Wikipedia:Centralized discussion would be a good place for such an RfC. I am confident that the consensus is that atheism is not a religion and that "those who consider atheism a religion" are simply mistaken -- even if that is a common opinion among evangelical christians.

As for your "hide the person's religious view" argument, it mirrors the many times that someone has come to Template talk:Infobox person and argued that putting information in the article and not in the infobox is somehow "hiding" it, as if a significant percentage of readers readers only read infoboxes and not articles, and thus we must cram every detail and nuance into the infobox. Good luck trying to sell that one. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Atheism is not a religion, and stating "Religion: Atheist" would be misleading and wrong. However, one part of the current issue is whether the words "Religion: None (atheist)" (as opposed to simply "Religion: None") imply that atheism is a religion. In my opinion they do not. Adding the word (Atheist) simply provides additional neutral information to readers as to the particular stance adopted, but does not suggest that atheism itself is a religion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Guy Macon, the question is, is the information relevant to the box, as relevant as a religion: If you think there is consensus for not allowing "atheism" in some form in the "Religion" box then you haven't actually read that prior MOS discussion you linked to (and created the discussion about.) It looks like there was more opposition to your interpretation there than consensus with it.

The "it has to be officially a religion to include it" argument doesn't stand scrutiny because as noted, classifying atheism as a religion is not a necessary condition to informing the reader. As several said in that other discussion, atheism is linked to religion and relevant to that box, whether one defines it as a religion or not. I've not seen any good rationale for excluding the term altogether from the infobox, which seems to be your sole aim. A rather simple compromise provides the distinction from religion that you desire: "None (atheist)" which of course leaves you without an argument for excluding the term. It is less ambiguous than simply putting "None" for the plethora of possible alternatives, when the alternative is actually known. Wasn't avoiding ambiguity one of your primary stated concerns? Your current interpretation is doing the opposite, essentially equating everything else with atheism. Does everyone who doesn't have a religion want to be equated with atheism? I doubt that. If someone is a self-avowed atheist, then I would expect a mention of that in the Religion entry, not simply "None" which provides little information.

If it is so unimportant to have it in the box, then why have the box at all (not just the "Religion" entry, the whole thing?) Answer: Because the boxes provide a ready summary that draw a reader's attention to some key information. Rjensen is correct in noting that this "verges on POV suppression of atheists." By your logic above, the religion entry should be removed for everyone because we can't "cram every detail and nuance into the infobox." But deleting the religion option doesn't have much support, and it isn't clear to me that you support it either. In the interest of shortening the infoboxes we could require all religions to be listed using only 4 ambiguous characters as suggested for atheism. Or perhaps just: "Yes or No". From here, it appears that you want to keep the nuances for some groups, and for others allow only "None." Do you not see how prejudicial and generally screwed up that looks regardless of the group? Red Harvest (talk) 10:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to deleting the entry, Changing the "religion =" part of it to something else, or any other alternative that cannot be read as implying that atheism is a religion. I don't care how the problem is solved, as long as the solution isn't "ignore it and use wording that some will interpret as implying that atheism is a religion."

I agree that "Religion = None (Atheist)" can also be read as not implying that atheism is a religion, but I do not agree that that is the only possible reading. I assert that "Religion = None (Atheist)" is ambiguous and it is my considered opinion that a significant percentage of readers will read it the way I did when I first read it. Furthermore, I find zero harm in using a simple, accurate and 100% unambiguous "Religion = None" in the infobox with a fuller explanation of the person's views in the article.

I really wish that others would stop trying to read my mind and telling me what my motives are. My motive is to not imply something that is not true and offensive to many people. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Birth and baptism dates

The parameter |baptised= "will not display if |birth_date= is entered". However, where we know a subject's approximate birth date (i.e. the exact month), and an exact baptism date; we should be able to display both. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Political party parameter in non-politician bios

I thought it might be worth having a discussion on this issue as there seems to be an inconsistency with the use of the political party parameter. I recently undid this because although the subject is on record as supporting a political party, she's not a politician. But I soon became embroiled in a discussion about whether or not its use was relevant for non-politician bios, and there seems to be some indecision now over whether or not to include it. I've always understood that particular parameter is reserved for politicians, but it seems to be used in other bios. Several people in the public eye have spoken of their support for one or other political party, or undertaken fundraisers for various individuals or causes. Adele and Cheryl Cole have voiced their support for the UK Labour Party, for example, while William Roache is well known as a Conservative supporter, who spoke in support of William Hague during the 2001 UK general election. Sean Connery has publicly and financially supported the SNP, while Oprah Winfrey has endorsed Obama. Gwyneth Paltrow also famously endorsed the US President recently. Yet not all of the articles about these people have the parameter. Any thoughts on this? This is Paul (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

If the subject is a politician or their political stances are particularly notable, I would say it's worthy of inclusion. Otherwise, no, though there may occasionally be exceptions such as Oprah, whose political endorsements are quite notable (emphasis on may - I'm not completely sure it belongs in her infobox). For the likes of Adele, Cheryl Cole, and Goop, it's a definite no. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is marvelously inconsistent. IMHO, party is more likely to be relevant in the body of a biography than in an infobox, but sometimes the "political persona" of the subject seems exceedingly strong. In the US, one can track donations, but that often is misleading, as $5,000 donations are not major sums to the very wealthy. Best source would be self-categorization, as always. Collect (talk) 12:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

There was a recent discussion over at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Orson_Scott_Card. In this case the only connection to the party was an (occasionally qualified) self-catagorization; nearly all other expressions of support were aligned with the other party. Most of the opinions were that party should be removed from the infobox, and it was.

I agree self-catagorization is necessary but I don't believe it's sufficient. Anyone can say they are a member of a party (at least in the US); it doesn't imply any real connection. It seems to me the appropriate standard is that there be a reciprocal relationship, e.g., the subject has won a primary, been employed by the party, held a formal volunteer position, or been given a podium. Bennetto (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

For Card, the "occasional self-identification" is quite a bit more than "occasional." And yes, self-identification on such matters is the strongest source. In fact, he specifically seems to support a variety of socialism. That noted, I know of no case where a person who does not self-identify with such a group should be labeled as part of such a group on Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)