Template talk:Infobox person

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

Birth name, again

At Charlie Wilson (Ohio politician), the lead is:

Charles A. "Charlie" Wilson, Jr.^[1] (January 18...

In the Infobox, |name= Charlie Wilson. So, in keeping with usual practice where a common name is used for the article and name, I put his full name in the Infobox as: |birth_name= Charles A. Wilson, Jr. The change was reverted by User:Connormah with the edit summary:

the A probably stood for something

I reverted with the explanatory edit summary:

The "A" was well-used in his time in congress to diff him from Texas' Charlie Wilson. See house.gov. It's in the lead, and should be in Infobox.

He reverted with the edit summary:

unless there's a cite that his full name was actually "Charles A. Wilson, Jr.", then te lead is sufficient enough. wait for an obit that lists the full name

So, I put it back and cited one of many (200+) places the middle initial is used at house.gov, figuring that would be the end of it:

The Infobox is supposed to match the rest of the article, particularly because the name is different than the article title. I asked that you see house.gov, and have now cited one such doc there, his nom for #110.

He reverted again, this time as User:CMAH:

no, it does not need to match the article. This particular field, 'birth name' is used for the full name of ther person at birth...unless we have a cite that the 'A' stands for nothing and he was born with this name, it should be left out here

He even put the cite back in afterwards. So, he seems to ack that it is his name, but doesn't think it belongs in the Infobox, claiming that |birth_name= is only for the person's name at birth (literally on their birth certificate, perhaps). He apparently would even accept it if we knew what the initial stands for. I claim that we routinely use |birth_name= for a complete name when |name= is an abbreviated name, nickname, stage name, etc., and that we have sufficient evidence that his full legal name is Charles A. Wilson, Jr. (albeit with an abbreviated middle initial for now). Is |birth_name= to be used for this perhaps-not-quite-literally-as-named purpose or not? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Just going to chime in here, I had always thought that the field was for people known as a name other than their birth name, eg. Bill Clinton or Gerald Ford - IMO the field has become overused over the past while. For this case, I think that if we have the full name or a citation that the "A." stood for nothing then it would be fine in my view. – Connormah (talk) 02:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that the birth name parameter is for a birth name that is substantially different from the adult name of the individual. If the first name and the last name are the same at birth and later, then it just looks like needless repetition. DrKiernan (talk) 06:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

When you have a surname and given name that are as common as Wilson and Charlie, a middle initial does make an important contribution to clarifying which of (tens/hundreds/thousands of) thousands of people are being discussed. In the subject case, even more so, since another member of Congress named Charlie Wilson became famous after having a movie named after him and his work (Charlie Wilson's War). Moreover, I demonstrated that the subject was known almost exclusively within Congress, and often without, as Charles A. Wilson (Jr.). It's also the very first words of the article.

The argument that it's not OK because we don't know what the 'A' stands for seems completely hollow, and without any basis in policy. House.gov is an (perhaps the) WP:RS on the subject and it uses 'A', so we should reflect it, per policy, regardless of whether it is just 'A' or stands for something else.

The Infobox is supposed to summarize the important information of the article. To have his well-known-as name not appear in the Infobox does not make sense to me. If it doesn't go in birth_name, where does it go? Is the answer to move the article to "Charles A. Wilson, Jr. (Ohio politician)" and set |nickname=Charlie? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Until the election campaign of 1999-2000 got going, George H. W. Bush was simply known as George Bush here in the UK. He only gained the H. W. some years after the election of Dubya. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 July 2013

please update to this version of the sandbox, which adds |honors= or |honours= below awards. this will allow us to merge the honors infoboxes in articles like Jane du Pont Lunger. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done -- WOSlinker (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should the "influences" & "influenced" parameters be removed?

Should the influences and influenced parameters be removed from {{Infobox person}}? 19:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

It has been a week since the discussion was expanded into an RFC, and the consensus is clearly unchanged. Reinstating the edit that removes the parameters.—Kww(talk) 16:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 July 2013

Edit request relating to the removal of the parameters. This was enacted but then reversed to facilitate further discussion.

After thorough discussions involving a large number of editors since April, with postings at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, from which this has been transposed, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers pointing to that page, there is what appears to be unanimous support for the removal of the "influences" and "influenced" fields since these have been continuously prone — as the template's own directions warn — to uncited and sometimes grandiose claims and fannish POV. It has been a bucket-against-the-ocean situation in filmmaker articles, absorbing large amounts of time by Project Film editors in policing the generally unfounded claims placed there. Even cited claims, without context, add little useful information. We urge the admins of this template to please take these comments, gathered over months, to heart and work with us on this otherwise intractable problem. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Additional note: One other possibility, if other projects feel theses fields aren't prone to subjectivity, is to create an "infobox filmmaker" without them. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC) I removed the "Influences/ Influenced" parameters per the request, and tested it in a sampling of infoboxes. I did not renumber the parameters following the two deleted ones. If there is some reason that it is important to do so, let me know. I didn't believe the risk of screwing things up to make an unnecessary change was justified.—Kww(talk) 03:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikiproject Film discussion

Extended content

Note this section was copied from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Infobox: "Influences / Influenced"--Salix (talk): 18:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC) The following was copied to this page on 5 July. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC) It may be time to rethink this portion of the filmmakers infobox, or at least set specific standards. Right now it's little more than a dumping ground for fans' POV assumptions of who they believe influenced so-and-so, or who so-and-so influences. Yet virtually never do they give citations for these claims. And how could they? Mostly these claims come from own minds. At Tim Burton, people have added names with no basis other than the editors' own POV assumptions. Cites in the article body support only the two influences currently in the infobox — which has been cleaned out before, and will almost invariably get filled in again with fans' uncited presumptions. Do we really need those two fields in the infobox? Additions there are almost never cited, and these fields seem to do nothing but encourage amateur film buffs from adding their own POV claims. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC) This has been a problem ever since the "actor infoboxes" (in which we had eliminated several of these subjective POV fields) were merged back into the "person infobox". At the very least these should be sourced. IMO it would be better to have their mention in the body of the article where some context could be given. It would also be nice to keep them to a minimum but I don't know if either of these are workable. Whatever we decide we should note it at our MoS at the actors and filmmakers project. MarnetteD | Talk 20:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC) This may become less of a problem when the Infoboxes are migrated to Wikidata (due to start tomorrow), with the complexity to adjust them putting off those embarking on a simple POV insertion and more eyes (across multiple wikis) watching that subsequent changes. I agree entries should be sourced at minimum, ideally with a self-declaration for influences and a declaration from the 3rd party subject of the influenced field. for that field.Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC) I favor their complete removal from the infoboxes, where they serve no purpose. The infobox should be exclusively for simple facts (date and place of birth and/or death, etc.). A discussion of influences should be in the body of the article, with sources. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Support removal of field. In an article, influences can be discussed in prose with sources. The infobox should deal with hard facts, not subjective information like this. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Agree with The Old Jacobite and Rob Sinden, the infobox should be for simple uncontroversial facts.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC) I agree also. I've restored this discussion from Archive 46, since we reached what appears to be a consensus as of May 2 and no one made additional comments after enough time that the auto-archiving took this. No one acted on this consensus, but in the interest cautious and prudent before we remove that problematic field, let's post this one more time to make sure all voices have been heard. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC) Support removal too, per the rationales given above. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC) Support removal as well, per all of you. Corvoe (speak to me) 19:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC) Support Randomuser112 (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC) Support Fortdj33 (talk) 20:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC) Support removal. You are asking for trouble when you start adding anything but objective facts to the infobox. "Influences" makes little sense without accompanying context. Betty Logan (talk) 20:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC) Support removal. Along with the rationales provided the fields are a magnet for fan entries. I have seen IPs add all manner of names simply because the like the person the article is about. MarnetteD | Talk 21:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC) Support Man, great idea. Banish them from infoboxes for eternity. --SubSeven (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC) Support removal. Infoboxes should keep to hard facts. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC) Support. This is one of my pain points and pet peeves. Too many entries in these parameters are unsupportable. Delete both of them. Binksternet (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC) Support removal. A bare list does a poor job of presenting this type of information. For one thing, the definition of influence varies greatly from one case to another; e.g., "A was inspired to become a filmmaker at age nine after seeing a film by B"; "A is widely considered to be a slavish imitator of B";"A learned filmmaking from B and then went on to make films of a completely different kind"; "A once made a film parodying the films of B"; "A once expressed admiration for the work of B"; and so on. An infobox reductively lumps all these together as though there were no distinctions. Ewulp (talk) 09:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC) Just to make sure a related project is aware, I've put a notice of this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC) There is no doubt that we in the film project have agreed to remove the fields in question. I should point out that other projects - BLP & Biography, Novels etc - have not. Thus, if any of us were to go to the "infobox person" and remove the fields I am guessing there would be resistance if not outright WikiDrama. So, I want to suggest that we simply add to the MoS for the film and filmmakers projects that the fields are not used and to be removed from individual article infoboxes whenever possible. This is just one editors idea if any of you have other ones please feel free to mention them. I do hope that we move on this. We have had discussions in the past about altering the film MoS and then time goes by and threads get archived (as this one did) and we forget to followup. Please note I don't mean this to sound accusatory - I am as forgetful about this as anyone (as the thread I am about to add below will show.) Thanks to everyone for adding their thoughts and opinions to this thread. MarnetteD | Talk 04:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC) This project has, I think, a solid basis for removing this parameter from every person who is primarily known as a film director or producer. There might be a little resistance if we apply the removal to actor and actress infoboxes. Binksternet (talk) 05:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC) You are correct - although I can't really remember seeing the fields used in the later - not that they aren't out there I just don't remember seeing them. We can always direct editors to this discussion if they question our changes to the MoS's. MarnetteD | Talk 05:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose' for now. It's clear that some affected projects (films & acting; I assume in good faith) have been notified; but what about others? Such a wide-ranging proposal for change should be widely notified; to all affected projects, or through a centralised discussion. Note also that this issue is not a reason to fork the template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support removal. Orson Welles's infobox has gone back and forth for a year, now, with POV edits at regular intervals. — WFinch (talk) 01:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support Many others hit the problem: without context or sourcing, such lists are POV. They are also excessive for an infobox, which really should relate only key information, which this is not. Far better suited as a sourced section in the article body. Resolute 01:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with Andy Mabbett, that some care is needed. First we need to check just how big the effect of the removal would be. I would suggest adding a tracking category Category:Articles using the influence field of infobox person and adding the appropriate template code. Let that populate the category for a day or so and then see if it is just film people. We may well find that other professions use it, writer, scientist etc. Then when we see if its just a film thing or not we can proceed.--Salix (talk): 13:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Now tracking into Category:Infobox person using influence.--Salix (talk): 17:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The categories taking a while to fill but the first two are Martin Luther King, Jr. and Kevin Vanhoozer (a theologian) neither of whom are in film, so its looking like a wider issue than just film. I'm concerned that all the comments upto 5th of July are from one section of the community. For philosophy and theology there is a big tradition of schools of thought with people in one school influencing others, and philosophers often have a lineage of influence.--Salix (talk): 17:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Mention of the philosophers precisely illustrates the point that they need to be mentioned in prose in the body of the article. In the Vanhoozer article these names are in the infobox Robert Gundry, John Frame, Augustine, John Calvin, Karl Barth, Paul Ricoeur. None of them are sourced. None of the are mentioned in the body of the article let alone is there any description of how they influenced him. Thus, it is just a meaningless list of names. As you state "tradition of schools of thought with people in one school influencing others" in philosophy, but, if you don't describe how they influenced each other the info adds nothing to a readers learning and, indeed, leave one understanding less after perusing the article rather than more. MarnetteD | Talk 18:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose It's information that is commonly mentioned in reliable sources, particularly for painters and musicians. That tree of influence is of interest to some people and should be preserved. Having it in its own fields in the Infobox makes it easy to extract into Wikidata and will make it easy for it to be of use. Much of WP is not sourced because people don't always take the time to do so, not necessarily because the info is wrong. I understand policy to be to challenge something that has a reasonable chance of being wrong and give others a chance to defend it before swinging the axe. Wholesale assertion of a whole class of data as wrong without proof, without a chance to defend it, and deleting it all – that's just wrong. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: "Much of WP is not sourced because people don't always take the time to do so, not necessarily because the info is wrong." If people aren't taking the time to cite, that's a huge irresponsibility that cuts at the very core of Wikipedia policy and we have to spend the same amount of time policy that as policing incorrect subjective claims. And this category's very nature makes it the target of subjective claims by fans. It has been out of control for some time, and while we can argue theory about inclusion or removal of infobox categories, in the real world of editing filmmaker articles, these subjective and/or unverified claims are taking up an enormous amount of time and energy to continue addressing. And it won't end, because there are always going to be fans throwing subjective claims into infoboxes, where experience has shown us that wrong information will remain in place longer than in article bodies, which editors check more frequently. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support - This is information with should be in prose. Not in an infobox. Garion96 (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support away from just the film situation. As my example above illustrates these fields bring no understanding for readers who are not familiar with a given subject. MarnetteD | Talk 18:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support removal. "Influences", be it of an artistic or philosophical or political nature, are by their very nature a vague and complex issue. Of course our articles ought to treat such influences, as well-sourced statements in prose, but I find it hard to imagine a situation where they could usefully be condensed to a simple list of names that would be appropriate for a box, and browsing through several entries of the tracking category mentioned above I clearly get the impression that few if any of the existing uses of these fields have been useful. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support removal of the fields for the reasons given. It attracts cruft and encourages bad habits; and it does not fit with the purpose of an infobox. When the music articles stopped including the "Reviews" in the infobox it was a step in the right direction. The same arguments apply here. —Designate (talk) 12:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support removal. These entries require context so the reader can understand the nature of any influence and sources because otherwise they are just junk. Particularly if infobox data is to be transferred to Wikidata, it must be unambiguous and bullet-proof in the sense of "would survive any Featured Article Candidacy or Review of an article including it".

  I have checked a couple of items in the tracking category:

  • in the case of Steve Jobs, Edwin H. Land is listed as an influence. The article supports this with a reliable source, but I question whether, in the context of schools of philosophy and so on, this field was ever intended for influences such as "great admiration" or "individual role-model". The article can make the nature of the influence clear, the infobox cannot.
  • in the case of Jack Benny, Charlie Chaplin is listed as an influence but is not mentioned in the article at all! The influenced list has
    • Johnny Carson, both articles mention they worked together, no real mention of "influence"
    • Steve Martin, no other mention, Martin does not mention Benny at all
    • Richard Pryor, reciprocal mentions in the infobox, no other mentions in the articles. Pryor uses Infobox comedian, which still has these lists. Most entries in the Pryor lists are sourced, but as it happens the Benny entry is one of several that are not.
    • Phil Hartman, no other mention, Hartman does not mention Benny at all
    • Bob Newhart. Benny does not mention Newhart. Newhart has "in the Benny tradition" without an explicit source

  Thus, in just these first two articles I have looked at, most of the entries are unsourced and should never have been accepted in the first place. The rest are sufficiently subtle to require context in the article as well as reliable sources.

  Finally, for clarity I would like to explain that I fully support the general principle of providing metadata separated from content. Those pushing energetically for this do their cause a disfavour by trying to extend the concept to unsuitable information. --Mirokado (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Strong support for removal, which should not be construed as opposition to the notion of tracking influences in many fields. The concept is enormously important, and often insightful. However, a field with either "influences" or "influenced" implies that the answer to the question "Did person X influence person Y" is a binary notation which can be fully answered with a simple yes or no. Even a numerical score would not fully capture the notion, as Nietzsche was undoubtedly influenced by Aristotle in some areas, but perhaps not in others. This is precisely what prose is well-equipped to do—discuss the extent to which one person influenced another. To reduce this to a single bit of information is over-simplification carried to an extreme. While this may have been prompted by editors interested in film, it is equally true of other areas, such as economists, philosophers and artists. It would be a bad idea even if it were an attempted summary of a discussion carried out in prose, but it is doubly a bad idea because I have seen it used often when the the main article does not even discuss the influenced issue, much less have references to support the claim.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support as not needed IMO & per all above!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support removal SPhilbrick points out that an infobox entry on incluenced/influences reduces the question to "yes" (person A influenced person B), or "no" (person A did not influence person B). That is clearly inappropriate because in almost all cases the question cannot be answered in an objective manner, and cannot be reduced to yes/no. It would not be reasonable to restrict usage to those supported by reliable sources because it is unclear how a source could be "reliable" on the question—all that could be done is to write "source X says A influenced B for this reason"—that cannot be done in an infobox. Mentioning influences in infoboxes would be misleading because it would show a very superficial tree supported by opinions on arbitrary cases (source X may say A influenced B, but if asked, X might have said "however, that influence was minor; it was really C and D that had a major influence on B's work"). Johnuniq (talk) 03:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support removal. Infoboxes should be restricted to unambiguous facts like birth and death dates; they're ill-designed for nuance or opinion or selective content. DrKiernan (talk) 09:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support removal: Although infoboxes are used to provide a condensed overview to article content, influences are best discussed in a relevant section within the article itself. There is absolutely no room in infoboxes to develop discussion beyond "who".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fylbecatulous (talk • contribs)
• Support removal. This is the sort of information that belongs in the body of the text, not the sort of "quick basic facts" expected in an infobox. Angr (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• Nope, it looks fine the way it is. WikiProjects who find it 'inaccurate' should not use the influence/influences parameter, but the other WikiProjects, such as Literature, should be able to use it, as it helps define the subject and perhaps further explain the reasons as to why a particular figure may have acted the way he/she did. I think it's not a discussion about removing it or not; I think it's more of a discussion about using it or not. You may want to put this under a broader RFC, as it affects WikiProjects throughout Wikipedia, not just the ones that you have mentioned above. --JustBerry (talk) 02:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

If you will scroll up you will see that nine different wikiprojects have been notified of this discussion. As to literature if you look at the Agatha Christie article, to give just one example, Edgar Allan Poe, Anna Katherine Green, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, G. K. Chesterton are listed as influences. None of them are sourced and only Doyle is mentioned in the article. So this leaves a list of names which may or may not have influenced her but are meaningless for the reader. No one is saying that the subject of an article should not mention the people who influenced them and those they influenced. What we are saying is that they need to be discussed in prose in the article with proper sourcing. MarnetteD | Talk 03:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Strong support for removal. A pointless fancruft magnet at the very best of times. - SchroCat (talk) 05:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support removal, having just deleted the singer from Mumford & Sons from G. K. Chesterton's "Influenced:" field. --McGeddon (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• Strong support removal--per all of the above. Riggr Mortis (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support removal. Johnuniq's analysis is accurate and eloquent. This is not appropriate material for value-attribute pairs. In addition, this parameter has cased hundreds of articles to have spurious "information" and will continue to so unless it is removed. Voceditenore (talk) 07:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose removal, support to handle the fields with care, with a notice in the empty template example that only people whose influence appears sourced in the body of the article may be listed. (Example for usage: Franz Kafka) The notice might stay in the article, to inform later editors. I personally will not add to the parameters in my infoboxes, but respect the work of others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support removal Infoboxes aren't special zones where core content policies can be ignored, especially those regarding unsourced material, undue weight and NPOV. "Influences" in infoboxes are particularly prone to such violations, as the examples offered by editors above show. Plus, the usual problem of round pegs into square holes... --Folantin (talk) 11:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support removal. Per the above concerns about sourcing, POV, etc. Even in articles where "influence" is properly sourced, the word is so vague and semantically overloaded as to be useless for this kind of summary. There's little to be gained from knowing that X "influenced" Y if you don't know how and in what way, and trying to feed this to machines is a textbook example of GIGO. Choess (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support removal, often POV, often uncited, often UNDUE, often ... ugh! Get rid of it, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support removal - Entirely subjective parameters. Infoboxes are bloated. Carrite (talk) 01:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support removal per the above — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support removal It's fancruft, and in excess of the level of "essential biographical information" I would expect encapsulated in 30-second summary. At best, such mentions of "influences" and "influenced" are subjective, and could cause problems of due weight even if sourced. At worst it can easily be pushed beyond reasonableness and into potential violation of WP:BLP. As such, this is best kept clear of infoboxes. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 01:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support removal influencers and influencees are rarely cut and dry or absolute, so this information belongs in the article body where context and proper explanation can be given. Information in the infobox can be taken out of context as "fact", when these categories are more matters of opinion or analysis. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 03:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support removal I don't care for Infoboxes but to the extent that they have a role it should be limited to factual information. The Influences are too open to POV engineering: BigCheese reviewed a work by the subject or name-checked the subject in passing in an article, therefore some inherited glory can descend on the subject; and these are the ones which can be clearly referenced, leaving just an undue weight debate to be had. Influence should be a matter of article discussion. AllyD (talk) 06:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support removal. These sections are just cruft magnets. They are rarely sourced and have little utility, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 06:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support These are probably the most problematic of all the common infobox fields. It is rare that this can be unambiguously reduced to one or two names, and if it includes more than that it misrepresents the situation, for the influences will be to a different degree (consider Freud, for example:c can think of an appropriate case: returning to psychoanalysis, the primary influence on Jung was Freud, although many more are listed in the Jung infobox (many based on an unreliable source, and not discussed further in the article--checking the articles on them, they did influence him, but clearly to lesser degree than Freud) Clearcut cases like this are not sufficient to justify keeping the infobox; the way I would handle them is to mention the primary influence by Freud in the lead of the article, and discuss the influences in sections in the article-. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 18:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support removal. This is too subjective for an infobox field. Better to describe the nature of the influence in the body. Kilopi (talk) 01:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support removal, goes against the concept of the infobox, which should be for at-a-glance facts nobody could possibly dispute. In situations where an influence is notable and supported by sources, for example Dali's many references to Vermeer or George Lucas' open admiration of Akira Kurosawa, then that info should appear in the article as prose. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The removal has happened. Of course it should be in the article as prose, sourced. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support removing from infobox to adding prose. –Quiddity (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support removal. Are there really people who imagine themselves qualified to edit an encyclopedia and think that this could possible be justified? I know that we are supposed to be making effort to be inclusive, but that inclusivity should only apply to people who have some modicum of clue. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Well said, and I agree. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

What blindness is it that lets you not see that it happened, - you don't need to pile on. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

It was still advertised at Template:Centralized discussion. I've removed it from there. DrKiernan (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it was enacted and there was an objection that it hadn't received enough attention so it was more widely advertised to gather greater consensus, which it has. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

It's disappointing to see this change enacted, despite there being no clear consensus here and the discussion not being more widely notified as requested, It should be reversed immediately, until the later is done and consensus demonstrated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Also, the outcome doesn't really make sense. Are we saying that we will not report influences/influenced at all, or just not in the Infobox? It seems that the primary argument is that "it's too hard to police", but that would be an argument to remove the info from the article entirely, and that's not what's happening, is it? For the Infobox not to include something based on this criterion, but the article to include it makes no sense. Also, I continue to contend that it is an important topic in the study of the arts, and widely mentioned in reliable sources. Ignoring it just because it's hard is not right. There are plenty of similar examples of types of data in WP articles that need a lot of policing. They get it, too. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

It's disappointing to see such a blindingly obviously correct bold move being contested and dragged into a pointless bureaucratic discussion that anyone with two brain cells to rub together would know could only have one possible outcome. Let's get on with writing an encyclopedia rather than have such ridiculous anti-intellectual nonsense cluttering up the central discussion list. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment From the comments above it seems there is a consensus the Film project find this parameter onerous. The infobox for people should contain generic parameters for documenting clear factual information that apply to everyone across the board, rather than a minority involved in certain disciplines. While "influences" may be applicable to philosophers and artists, it is overwhelmingly irrelevant to most occupations. Projects that have a specific need to document this information can easily provide it through project specific templates, or preferably through sourced prose where the context for such claims may be provided. Betty Logan (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment The removal of this parameter was supported by the above consensus. The parameter is a controversy magnet, guaranteed to engender endless debate and needlessly consume the time of good editors. Do you honestly think you can reduce a person's "influences" to a few words? This exemplifies Andy's blind spot perfectly. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
• There seems adequate consensus to remove influences/influenced. @AlanM1: Where appropriate, of course an article should discuss influences/influenced, but it should be done in the article where some context can be given (was the influence great or small? did the person acknowledge the influence? in what way is the influence recognizable?). In many cases, it seems likely that an attribution would be necessary ("critic X says A influenced B") because the bare statement "A influenced B" is stating someone's opinion in Wikipedia's voice as a known fact. In the vast majority of cases, there would be no objective way of assessing how much of B's work was influenced by A, nor would it generally be possible to decide why A should be mentioned as influencing B, but not C or D or E. The docs for Template:Infobox scientist say that influences/influenced should only be for people who had physical contact with the scientist—that is to avoid nonsense like listing 100+ names as being influenced by Einstein. Johnuniq (talk) 12:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no "above consensus", save for that at the film project, which doesn't have precedence here. Discounting the !votes copied from there, there seems to have been a 6:3 split. That's not consensus, and my call for wider participation remains unaddressed. Why not see what the community's view is? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Since the above post was made, and following wider solicitation for comments, it seems clear there is a far wider consensus for removal than by any one Project. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

If you want to solicit more input, by approaching other wikiprojects or by listing this as a general RfC, feel free to do so. But the prevailing opinion as expressed here so far, including all the opinions from a wider audience registered after you posted at WP:AN today, is clearly in favour of removal, so it will certainly be justified to keep the fields out for the time being, pending any hypothetical swing of opinions in the other direction. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

My posting at WP:AN was a procedural note asking for an admin to enact the above {{Editprotected}}; nothing else. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I know that, but it's evidently had the side-effect of also bringing more previously uninvolved editors from a wider audience in to comment here. So far, every single one of them has supported the removal. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Andy, there most certainly is clear consensus here, so that aspect of your complaint is obviously invalid. And FTR, my support for removal applies to all professions using this infobox, not just film and actors. It's a bad field everywhere. Resolute 15:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm marking this edit request as  Not done. First off, I agree with Andy that there were procedural problems with the removal of this parameter. While there was a strong consensus for removal from the discussion at WikiProject Film, this template affects many more projects than just that one, and I think there should have been a discussion involving a broader section of the community before the parameter was actually removed. Having said that, the initial consensus from discussion on this page is also for removal of the parameter, and so it seems to me that not much would be gained from reverting. For the purposes of discussion, it doesn't really matter whether the parameter is present or not in the live template, and if we reverted we might only end up reinstating the edit again. This template has 130,000+ transclusions, so we should avoid reverting unnecessarily. Instead, I think it would be better to let the discussion run its course, and perhaps expand it into a full RfC with a listing at WP:CENT. After the discussion has finished we can ask an admin to close it (I am willing to do so - just leave a note on my talk page) and then the edit can be reverted or not as necessary. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Update: I have just noticed that Kww has restored the parameter pending the outcome of this discussion. I should have checked that before writing the above post, but I'm going to leave it in place as it is mostly still relevant to the discussion. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm seeing something like two editors against the change out of the large number who support it. And one of those two editors seems to be saying that this is about removing any mention of influences from articles, which is just not so — this is only about the two fields in the infobox. I know this isn't a poll or a vote, but I'm not sure "consensus" means "unanimous". --Tenebrae (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

There are more than two of us opposing and the reason is that this decision will have wide-ranging effects, but the proposal has not been widely advertised by its proponents. One project - no doubt in good faith - has effectively been canvassed,while others affected have not been informed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I've gone to the first two entries at Category:Infobox person using influence, which are architect Rajon Das and "senior talent recruiter and motivator ... involved in planning terrorist operations" Anwar al-Awlaki, and while a couple of the influences/influenced entries in their infoboxes are cited in their articles, the bulk of them are not. I'd have to think that as bad as unreferenced claims of influence are in the filmmakers project, it's probably far worse to have such uncited claims in articles involving politically related subjects. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Andy's objection—at least his initial one—seems to be that the unanimous support disproportionately draws from one project. Given the subsequent comments I don't think that argument quite stands any more, but at the same time it wouldn't hurt to reach out to other projects. You should slap an RFC tag on this discussion and get some site wide input and see where we end up. Betty Logan (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of a contentious RfC now, and a discussion at another talk page seems headed that way. I don't think I have the emotional wherewithal for a third. Honest to God, these things take it out of you.... --Tenebrae (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I've taken care of it. If it becomes contentious then the parameters won't be getting removed anyway, but if the position is largely supported then we may as well push ahead. Betty Logan (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thoughts. I can understand the reasoning behind removing it, but I suggest editors do not go around and remove the field from articles until a consensus develops to avoid edit wars and wiki-drama. See Alan Moore for example. I'd also caution editors that removing sourced material from an article, again Alan Moore is an example, is not a good thing. I would strongly recommend that any influences which are sourced should be added into the text of the article, or failing that placed on the talk page rather than lost in the edit history of the article. That's the best service to our readers and to previous editors and I hope a consensus to remove the field does not result in a removal of the field from a template and the loss of valuable, sourced information. Editors should be prepared to do some legwork to support the recommended change. Hiding T 15:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The proposal is to remove the influenced/influences fields from the template. The text would still be in the article wikitext, but it would not be displayed. It would be up to those following particular articles to move any useful (but not displayed) wikitext from the template to a suitable place in the article, if any. I agree that no one should go on a pointless rampage to delete all the wikitext—leave it up to someone who will care for the article, although I can see why a couple of editors think that Alan Moore has a rather large number of people mentioned. Johnuniq (talk) 23:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Note that removing parameters from an infobox template also removes contnet from articles, but without creating a watchlist notification for those following particular articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

That is true with the respect to watchlist notifications. However, in this particular case, if the "influences" are discussed and referenced in the article's text (where such a subjective judgement must be), removing that parameter does not remove content at all. If they are not discussed and referenced in the article's text, the loss of this spurious "content" is not a problem in my view. Voceditenore (talk) 07:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I think in this case a project could help by an advice to its members to carefully look at the parameters and in case of doubt better not use them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The potential help from individual project guidance is both minimal and impractical. As we have been told many times, no one is required to take a blind bit of notice of what projects say in their guidelines. Besides, many (probably most) of the misuses of this parameter are not added by editors who are members of specific projects. Often they are drive-by edits from people desperate not have an orphan tag on "their" article or are ones from editors seeking to make their subject look more important than he/she is. Most active projects which deal primarily with the content of articles in their scope are small, with very few truly active members (who already have a lot on their plate) and many articles in their scope. They simply don't have the people-power to go around monitoring all the infoboxes to look for problems created by others. The larger umbrella projects don't do significant content work at all. Many, many articles have only the umbrella Biography Project banner on their talk pages or at most a couple of other banners for defunct, moribund, or only tangentially related projects. There are over 1 million articles with the Biography banner. Voceditenore (talk) 09:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Concur with Voceditenore. The abuse of the infobox "influence" parameters is simply too widespread and recurrent to police. And concur with Gerda Arendt that in case of doubt about the way a parameter is used, it is better not to use them, i.e., remove them. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I feel misunderstood ;) (It happens.) I said "not use them", in the future. I did not say "remove them" because it would affect the efforts of previous contributors. See above, look for Kafka. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

My apologies. I'm sure you can see how "not use them" could be taken the way I'd interpreted. I've struck out that portion of the above.

That said, responsible contributors would have put that information, with citing, into the article of the body, not just in the infobox, which is a summary of the article and does not contain information not found in the article. I would agree with the overwhelmingly majority of editors here in favor of removing the problematic fields from the infobox. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Come to think, I'm not sure what's meant by "not use them". If they remain in the template, they'll be used. Which is the root of the problem, their being used by fans pushing uncited POV. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Now I come to think. Look at Kafka, both parameters are there (not by me), names that appear sourced in the article. Removing the parameters would cause them disappear from the infobox without even a warning to the authors that something changed. Do you think that's fair? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

What does fair have to do with it? Changes to templates, infoboxes, editing methods, etc happen all the time around here. For instance we lost the OBOD a few months ago without any notice at all. It is part and parcel of editing an online encyclopedia. I hope that you realize that everyone who edits an article is one of the "authors." As has been stated by numerous contributors to this discussion a list of names in the infobox gives no indication how the subject was influence by those people or how the subject influenced others. If they are not discussed in prose in the article then the mention of them in the infobox is meaningless. MarnetteD | Talk 23:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I realize that every contributor to an article is an author, but how would you name someone who made some hundreds of edits to an article compared to one who made one or two? - We are talking about example Kafka, where the selected people (of many more) who influenced him and the selected ones (of many more) who are influenced by him ARE discussed in the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the Kafka article makes the case for dropping the parameters to be honest. Things like his birth date and alma mater are factual content well suited to the infobox i.e. they don't require any extra exposition for us to understand their nature. As for the influence names, it is impossible to know how they relate to Kafka without reading the article. Any data in the infobox which requires exposition in the article to be fully understood probably isn't suited to the infobox. The infobox should be self-serving in giving us a brief factual overview of his life, but there is no way to square that with such incredibly subjective parameters. Betty Logan (talk) 07:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

You can't see in the article anymore what I wanted to explain, because the parameters were removed. Anybody who knows what Søren Kierkegaard, Heinrich von Kleist, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Gustave Flaubert, and Franz Grillparzer stand for, could see at a glace what influenced Kafka. I find/found that helpful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

While this subject is now closed I will point out that Wikiepdia's articles are for readers who "don't" know what those people stand for or have in common. The only way for an average reader to discover any connection between those people is for it to be expressed in prose in the body of the article. That is precisely what people who took part in this discussion pointed out again and again. MarnetteD | Talk 19:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

May I point out that the parameters were collapsed, and of service for those who were interested enough to click "show". Why not add something for their understanding? - I am also afraid that those who don't know Dostoyevsky will likely not get far in reading Kafka, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

You just don't seem to understand that a name in an infobox is meaningless without context. Those that don't know Dostoyevsky won't get anything by his name being Kafka's infobox. BTW there are all manner of learning styles out there. I have no doubt that there are men and women who have read Kafka who have gotten plenty out of his works without reading a word of, or even knowing who Dostoyevsky is. MarnetteD | Talk 20:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see why we should keep the parameters and their associated fields when the parameters are no longer called. If the influences are notable and are sourced, they will all be in the body of the article, so removing these parameters should not result in any loss of qualitative information. It would just serve to clutter up the already very busy edit window, and maybe as some sort of sop who dream one day of resurrecting the appearance on the face of the infobox, with all the concomitant problems that that restoration would bring. I suspect that the problem is widespread enough for a bot request to be made to remove |influences= and |influenced= along with their associated content from articles that use this infobox. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 02:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to make Infobox scientist a module of this template

Please see Template talk:Infobox scientist#Module. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 July 2013

Please change the signature parameter from label to header. Visually, it's much better, like in the website parameter. --Rezonansowy (talk) 04:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

 Not done for now: @Rezonansowy: I've added this to the sandbox - see Template:Infobox person/testcases#Bill Gates. However, I think there needs to be more time for people to comment on this before I update the main template. If there is consensus for this change after a week, please reactivate the {{edit protected}} template so that a patrolling admin will the request. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: I've mentioned this request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Support Looks better, and matches image captions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

religion parameter

Some users fills this parameter with None, because they believes that Agnosticism is not a religion, however the same is the case of Atheism. I think, this may be really problematic. In my opinion this parameter is not for define a type of subject's religion, but to define its position on this matter. So it should be look like below:

|religion=Atheism or Agnosticism etc.

--Rezonansowy (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with not using "None" -- just remember that it has to be cited from a reliable source (in the article body) and that it needs to be relevant to the person's public image or career. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a perennial issue; see the archives of this talk page. Atheism is not a religion, nor is it a belief, and for atheists (of which I am one) the correct value in that parameter is "none". Suggesting that atheism is a person's "religion" or "belief" is factually false, illogical (the oft-used analogy is "Fred's hobby is not collecting stamps") and offensive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Atheism can definitely be described as a belief: An atheist believes no gods exist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.130.90 (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Atheism can be described as banana. That doesn't make it one. I do not merely "believe that no gods exist". See the stamp collecting analogy; and please read the many examples of this tiresome debate on the archives before deciding whether to continue this one would benefit the encyclopedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits

Atheism is definitely a belief (at the risk of offending), and I accept that it's not a religion (even though that's debatable -- there's an atheist church in London and atheists are trying to get atheist chaplains in the U.S. military), but "None" should definitely not be used. It should just be left blank. "None" should never be used in an infobox at all, and there's a difference between being Atheist and being non-religious. --Musdan77 (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you mean some atheists are... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Why do we show signatures? They don't tell you anything about the person

A person's signature doesn't reflect anything. People that write with their hands instead of using a computer, like old people did back in primitive days, have better handwriting than those who seldom write anything at all. Some people have steadier hands than others. It doesn't mean anything at all. Why do we show signatures of people? Dream Focus 18:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. They're never sourced, either, and they're usually not a picture of the actual signature. Why do we allow editors to crudely trace people's signatures in order to convert them to SVG and pass them off without a source as the real signature? —Designate (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

If you have evidence of such images, nominate them for deletion. That's not an infobox issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: "Cleaned up images", I asked about that at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Typography#Handwritten_signatures - I'm still dubious that they ought to be allowed. Replies there, or someone taking this issue in hand, would be appreciated. –Quiddity (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of forged images may not be only an infobox issue, but Dream Focus's post certainly does identify an infobox issue. Infoboxes are fine for a quick overview of basic deatils about a topic, but we seem to have accumulated far too much unverifiable cruft in them, particularly in this one. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I would like to see prior discussions that have surely occurred, around the topic of handwritten signatures in infoboxes - does anyone have time/interest to compile a list? (It's hard to search for, given our in-house usage of the word "signature"...). Thanks. –Quiddity (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:SLP is an essay ("signatures of living persons"), and two discussions I know of are Infobox officeholder and BLPN. I'm pretty sure there are more. Johnuniq (talk) 01:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

There is actually an essay on this, Wikipedia:Signatures of living persons. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Gender

In a discussion elsewhere, this template;s lack of a |gender= parameter was raised. This makes it difficult to query Wikipedia for things like "women born in Germany in 1975"; and even, in some cases, for a reader to see at a glance whether the age is about a man or woman. I have previously made proposals to add such a parameter; the display of which need not be obtrusive (say a ♂ or ♀ icon in the top or bottom right corner of the template. Can we progress this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Isn't this the sort of thing Wikidata is ideal for? As a visual element, I don't see any real need. Resolute 23:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

A visual symbol would allow people to make a quick check, without needing to read an indeterminate amount of text looking for gender-specific pronouns. Wikidata may carry such values, but does not yet, and does not display them to our readers; and it's not a reason for us not to; after all, it will also carry DoBs, but we won't remove them from Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The percentage of articles where the gender of the subject is not immediately obvious is vanishingly small. Enough that I don't see this as a valuable visual addition. Lets be honest here. This is about metadata and the inability of machines to easily parse a subject's gender, not a human reader. Even if Wikidata is not sufficiently mature for such today, it will be, and that will be the proper place for things like this, imo. Resolute 00:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Lets be honest here. This is about both, as I said in my first post. The gender of "Albert Smith" may be obvious to you and me, but what about to a kid in Ulan Bator, who has never heard the name "Albert" before? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I am one of those who disagree with the addition of this parameter. In the past there was a place for speculations, unsourced statements about some artists and other persons. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

If the gender is not known, or sourced, then it shouldn't be added. We could use a third symbol for "gender queer" or some such. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Isn't this what the article is for? Why the drive to constantly expand the infobox? The addition of this particular fields is an especially bad idea, as it is going to continuously generate arguments with people that believe there are more than two genders.—Kww(talk) 23:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not part of a "drive to constantly expand the infobox", so I can't answer that question, but I explained the reasoning for this proposal in my opening comment, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see why we should have symbols for male and female. I am against discriminating men from women. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not discrimination to state someone's gender, any more than it is to use a "he" or "she" pronoun. Similarly, giving their DoB does not discriminate on the grounds of age, and so on. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The information in the infobox has to be significant to the information that is given.. Sex is not significant. The ability to query information about the sex can be / should be found at Wikidata. GerardM (talk) 11:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Baptism

For some time, in Western Europe, the practice was to record the baptism, not birth, date of a baby, This applies to Beethoven, for instance. I propose that we add a |baptism_date= parameter, but code this so that it will not display if the birth date is entered. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

When I was working with Tom Morris and Justinc to code a demonstration of how we could import from Wikidata into {{Infobox person}}, I suggested that we needed a three-way decision: (i) parameter not present -> do not display; (ii) parameter present but equal to nothing -> get the data from Wikidata if available; (iii) parameter present and set to a value -> display that value. I think that may become accepted as a way of retaining the ability to override Wikidata with a locally supplied value, which may be occasionally needed if enWP has a different convention or view of a particular parameter from the rest of the world.

I wanted to flag up that in future, we probably won't have a binary decision like (display || not display), so making one parameter's display dependant on another's absence may be slightly more complicated to code - and the logic needs to be predetermined early to avoid having to recode a lot more as Wikidata starts to be used dynamically as a source. Checking wikidata:Q255, I see that Beethoven's date of birth shows as "December 16 1770 Gregorian", source: English Wikipedia! So it looks like they have that wrong already even without an infobox. Oh well, no doubt we'll get a chance to debate that over there. The deWP article says he was baptised 17 December 1770 and was "wahrscheinlich" (probably) born on 16 December 1770, so it's no different from enWP. The French have an infobox and give his dob as "16 ou 17 décembre 1770" and don't even mention his baptism. You don't want to look at it. Oh well. --RexxS (talk) 01:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I may have too simple an approach, but why not have a way to (optionally) show both, usually only one of course? - Interesting that Wikidata is wrong, quoting enWP which is right ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

For most people (say, Philip Glass or Boris Becker), the baptism date is trivia. It's only significant if we have no birth date. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

That's what I mean, I would not mention it for Glass and Becker, but the parameter could be there, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Please sync from the sandbox. I've coded this, at least for now, so that it won't display if a birth date is entered. See test cases. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Redrose64 (talk) 15:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Parameters for voice files

Resolved

Please add:

<code>
| header73   = {{#if:{{{voice|}}}
  |{{#ifexist:Media:{{{voice}}}
     |<hr />{{nobold|[[:File:{{{voice}}}|{{#if:{{{voice_header|}}}|{{{voice_header}}}|{{{name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}'s voice}}]]}}
     |{{#if:{{{voice_header|}}}|<hr />{{nobold|{{{voice_header}}}}}}}
   }}
  }}
| data73 = {{#if:{{{voice|}}}
  |{{#ifexist:Media:{{{voice}}}
     |[[File:{{{voice}}}]]
     |{{{voice}}}
     }}{{#if:{{{voice_caption|}}}|<div>{{{voice_caption}}}</div>}}
  }}
</code>

This will allow the embedding of voice files per Wikipedia:Voice intro project and prevent the awkward layout seen at, for instance, Corrie Corfield. The code has been tested in {{Infobox gymnast}} and can be seen in use in User:Pigsonthewing/sandbox2. Thanks to user:Frietjes for improving my rudimentary code.

(You might want to move the out-of-sequence parameters #64 at the same time.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to have this in the infobox? I would prefer it simply in the article where it can be placed at the right spot. Garion96 (talk) 08:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing here saying that an audio file has to go into the infobox; just making it possible that it can do, where it is sensible to do so, such as in the example given, where, as noted above there is a visually jarring mismatch between the two current templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Corrie Kear Ware Corfield
Born	1961 Oxford, England
Education	Stratford-upon-Avon Grammar School for Girls
Alma mater	Goldsmiths, University of London
Occupation(s)	Continuity announcer and newsreader
Employer	BBC
----

Corrie Kear Ware Corfield
Born	1961 Oxford, England
Education	Stratford-upon-Avon Grammar School for Girls
Alma mater	Goldsmiths, University of London
Occupation(s)	Continuity announcer and newsreader
Employer	BBC
----

Corrie Kear Ware Corfield
Born	1961 Oxford, England
Education	Stratford-upon-Avon Grammar School for Girls
Alma mater	Goldsmiths, University of London
Occupation(s)	Continuity announcer and newsreader
Employer	BBC

I see nothing wrong with the current formatting. The suggested addition adds extra code for a purely cosmetic change. If it's the lack of a horizontal rule between the listen box and the other infobox parameters that's bothering you, you can simply add ---- above the listen box, without the need for any extra code (per the example on the right). DrKiernan (talk) 09:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not merely the "lack of a horizontal rule that's bothering me". Frietjes and I experimented with a number of formats and methods; forcing {{listen}} into infoboxes (as you have just done at Corrie Corfield, so my use of it as an example no longer makes sense) widens the infobox, unnecessarily, as can be seen by comparing those above; the code in the requested edit does not, as can be seen from the examples in my sandbox page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

You can retain a link to the old revision by linking to the revision rather than the article. I have changed your comment above to do this, but you are of course free to undo my changes to your comment. It still looks like a cosmetic change rather than useful pedagogically, and your favorable view of larger infoboxes is balanced by other users' distaste for them. As these are cosmetic choices (the arguments often come down to "I don't like infoboxes"/"I like infoboxes"), I think it better here to err on the side of caution. The middle, balanced view is to say "OK, we'll have infoboxes but we'll keep them small and compact". In my opinion, adding extra parameters skews the infobox more towards the "I like infoboxes" side and so, consequently, I'm not in favor of this addition. DrKiernan (talk) 11:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Clearly. Under what circumstances would you be in favour of adding parameter? Or is your objection to adding parameters per se, rather than to the proposal at hand? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

While generally I disapprove of new parameters, I'm not always against them if they appear useful or replace another less ideal parameter: I didn't object to the baptismal date suggestion. DrKiernan (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

What do others think? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

we could probably make the module version work without undue stretching of the infobox. we could have a 'border=child' option or 'embed=yes' option or something that does everything that 'plain=yes' currently does, but also removes the padding. a demonstration with some of the padding removed has been added above, but it would be good to have that automatically set with a 'embed' or 'border' or 'child' parameter. Frietjes (talk) 17:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

That would work for me. @Frietjes: could you make it so, please? (watch for the out-of-sequence parameter 64). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved, Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Website parameter formatting

Out of pure curiosity, why is the formatting for the parameter "Website" different from almost all of the others? Instead of displaying with "Website" on the left and the address on the right, it uses a centered two-line approach. I'm assuming there's some reason for this, but I can't think of one, so I'd appreciate any enlightenment.--Lemuellio (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Presumably, to allow the maximum possible line length before forcing the box itself to widen? Some URLs are loooooong! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Information available at Wikidata

Increasingly information is becoming available to Wikidata where the same information is not available in a specific Wikipedia like the English Wikipedia. When information that is shown in the infobox is available in Wikidata, we could show this information. In this way we provide the best available information. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 11:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Native name

Is this supposed to be in native script (if such is not Latin)? Widsith (talk) 05:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

yes, that's my understanding. Frietjes (talk) 13:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Influences/influenced

The influences and influenced parameters were disabled here two months ago. (Discussion still appears above, section 3.) {{Infobox writer}} followed one week later. This weekend I revised three biographies of writers that include the latter template with influences and influenced data. In each case I moved the infobox data to Talk, under the current header, with some explanation.

Furthermore, after providing a longish explanation for Ray Bradbury --whose long influences/influenced lists had been questioned under the current talk header-- I provided a short explanation with cross-reference to the Bradbury talk on the second and third occasions. Talk:Jeanne Birdsall#Influences/influenced

Comments solicited. Moments ago I solicited comment at Template talk:Infobox writer#Influences/influenced.

P.S. My incipient boilerplate includes a two-line comment referral to Talk, which replaces the two fields in the infobox code. Its text: Infobox writer no longer supports the fields influences and influenced. See TALK. --P64 (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• Re: boilerplate - What exactly are you proposing? A change to the documentation (I'd support), or a change to the template itself (I'd want more detail)?
• Re: Article updates - Your efforts to move-to-talkpage and reference and replace-but-within-prose are perfect. Kudos.
• Re: other infoboxes (mentioned in the Ray Bradbury thread), I made a notepad list/draft[1] a few weeks ago. Once we've got the items above sorted out, I'll get around to pasting that draft below, and soliciting feedback at each of the templates. –Quiddity (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Boilerplate? I mean talk page boilerplate, maybe the wrong term, a standard talk page message about all this. If a robot were to delete all influences/influenced fields, there would be at least a standard edit summary. Perhaps it would be best that a robot, if any, copy the data to Talk with a standard new section there.

Oops, I didn't make it clear here, as at Infobox writer, that I used (copied) the same talk section at Talk:Clive Barker#Influences/influenced and Talk:Jeanne Birdsall#Influences/influenced; same infobox comment in those two biographies. That is my personal boilerplate, which I'll continue to use, but slowly as I don't seek out influences/influenced data. --P64 (talk) 23:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, ok. That is fine then. :)

I don't believe there has been any suggestion/discussion about automatically moving/removing this content. I don't think it would be useful to delete it, as the info does no harm in its hidden state. Moving it to the talkpage automatically might be a good idea, but there is no rush to do that. –Quiddity (talk) 04:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

What Quiddity said, including kudos to P64's efforts. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• I disagree, Quiddity, a lot of the "influences/influenced" information should be in the article if its sourced and probably summarized in the lede in a better written article. The infobox was just redundant. The other issue with it is--often these influences/ed are not sourced. Who am I to say Basil Bunting was inspired by T.S. Eliot? (He was, sorta, but became a decidedly un-Eliot modernist). That kind of nuance is lost in a quick, drive-by, infobox mention. Besides, policy says we're not to move content to the talk page just for "storage" or until we figure out what to do with it. It's best discussed in the body of the article.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Bad news. Yesterday I said hopefully, "If a robot were to delete all influences/influenced fields, there would be at least a standard edit summary." I suppose that would be true of any dedicated robot that would be approved. But my watchlist today includes two nasty-comprehensive (Script-assisted fixes: per MOS:NUM, MOS:CAPS, MOS:LINK) that incorporate deletion of infobox writer} influences/influenced fields. Leiber diffs Ellison diffs(2) Those edits trouble me otherwise, recently discussed elsewhere (Overlinking and conversion of Retrieved YMD format).

Now too tired of Talk spaces to say more or to do anything :–(
Good night. --P64 (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

At the close of section 3.4 above, OhC seems to recommend a bot request to make such deletions. Good night, again. --P64 (talk) 19:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Just now I fixed the link named "Ellison diffs(2)". Previously I grabbed only the minor second one of two successive saves. Sorry about that.

About 30 hours ago I reverted both of those and moved the old influences/influenced to Talk (and same for Leiber). No surprise, the Ellison influences/d were one of more egregious with 13 bluelink names and zero references or other notes. --P64 (talk) 00:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Automatic deletion. Evidently we do now have one editor deleting influences/influenced data automatically and without identification in the edit summary, User:Nikkimaria (contributions). The current and intended target of that link is roughly the first 100 of 300 revisions dated today.

The edit summary is grossly inadequate, "per template documentation". For example, H. G. Wells (-857 bytes); Isaac Asimov (-262). Those two are the only ones on my watchlist, neither with any source data.

--P64 (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not "automatically", it's manually reviewing and editing according to editorial discretion. And as those entries were inadequately sourced anyways, they shouldn't have been there in the first place. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Re deletion of the data please read section #Discussion and this one.

If you proceed, please provide a more substantial edit summary as the template documentation does not specify that unsupported parameter values be deleted. --P64 (talk) 02:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Already did. The template documentation specifies that "content of biographical infoboxes should follow Wikipedia's verifiability policy, infobox style guideline and biographical style guideline". The examples in question did not, even before the changes to the template. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Is it too much to ask to provide a more specific edit summary, e.g. "-unused infobox parameters influences/influenced"? That would give future interested editors a hint in the article's history where to look for these if they want to incorporate them properly. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Such a summary would not be accurate in either of the cases mentioned, as other changes were made to the template at the same time. Nikkimaria (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Nikki, why not just add "including infobox influence parameter" to the edit summary (where appropriate). I agree with P64 and Michael Bednarek here. It's not asking you a lot to add this and it would be a help to other editors. Voceditenore (talk) 12:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The #Discussion shows, for example, "The proposal is to remove the influenced/influences fields from the template. The text would still be in the article wikitext, but it would not be displayed. ..." --User:Johnuniq. OhC suggests using a bot to remove all (still the last contribution in that section), which would also use a dedicated edit summary, I take for granted.

I suggested, and used in illustrations linked above, edit summary including "delete influences/influenced data (see TALK);" which other clauses may precede or follow. If do not take time to use article Talk pages, a cross-reference to this page--and later to its archive--will have have similar effect. Compare your use of "rm per WP:ELNO" in a subsequent batch of revisions (whose target is a content guideline).

Offhand I think "delete ..." or minimally "rm per WP:INFLUENCE" is adequate if there is such a shortcut with target here. (That blue link is a trivial redirect available for this use.) --P64 (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

"Partner" and Spouse

Two questions:
a) This template specifies a "partner" is an "unmarried life partner" but there are no parameters on what qualifies as that. Some Editors are adding names of individuals with whom the subject had a significantly long, committed relationship (say, five years or longer). But including the term "life" implies that this relationship lasts throughout most of the subject's life, but that kind of relationship is far less common.
What do you think about eliminating "life" from the the description? Take Clint Eastwood...his Infobox lists:

• spouse = Maggie Johnson (1953–1984)
  Dina Eastwood (1996–present)
  
• partner = Sondra Locke (1975–1989)
  Frances Fisher (1990–1995)

He had significant, well-publicized relationships with both Locke and Fisher and, Locke, especially, was practically considered Eastwood's common law wife (he was separated but not divorced from his first wife during 1978-1984 when he was with Locke). But while they were significant, these were clearly not relationships for "life".

b) Spouse field. This template indicates that the correct formatting of Eastwood's relationship with Dina Eastwood is:

• Dina Eastwood (1996-present)
  

..but another template is becoming more common in Infoboxes. In Dina Eastwood's Infobox, you can see:

• {{marriage|[[Clint Eastwood]]|1996|}} which prints out as

Clint Eastwood

​

(m. 1996)​

I think the marriage template should be added as an alternative to be used for the Spouse listing.
What do you think? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Other Wikipedia

Is there a way to use this infobox in the Wikipedias? Like in the Cebuano Wikipedia?

imported, but missing documentation. Frietjes (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

'Net worth' and icons

It is extremely unfortunate that we are promoting the exceedingly materialist attitude that one's worth can be measured by financial assets. If Net financial assets is what is quantified, then describe the field as such.

The example given exhibits (exhibited: I've edited) the very poor practice of an unkeyed symbol. Even if one were to intuit which of the three directions in which an equilateral triangle points is intended, and to guess that some kind of increase is the intended communication, the amount or timescale of the increase is not indicated. If it simply means that interest accrued has exceeded expenditure in some unspecified time scale, then in does not merit inclusion. The infobox instructions should advise against this. Kevin McE (talk) 09:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Nationality

I recently removed the wording "Should only be used if nationality cannot be inferred from the birthplace" from the description of {{para|nationality} because, as I said in my edit summary, it does not reflect current usage. I have been reverted with the unhelpful edit summary "rv". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The parameter is often used incorrectly, yes. Just because something does not reflect current usage does not mean that you should unilaterally adjust the documentation to suit. For example, the vast majority of implementations of this infobox for India-related subjects misuse the parameter simply because the people that set it up on the various articles are clueless. Which is not the same thing as having consensus. The entire nationality/citizenship issue is more often than not impossible to verify except by inference anyway. Obviously, there are exceptions but they are relatively few, eg: Cyrus Pallonji Mistry.

I've got to be honest and say that I didn't really follow all of the recent palaver concerning infoboxes at ArbCom etc. However, you were involved and I am astonished that you decided to adjust the documentation in such a significant manner - there is bold and there is reckless; frankly, given the kerfuffles, you were really reckless here. Have you not had enough time in the spotlight of late? - Sitush (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I am new to this topic. Please point me to a relevant discussion explaining why nationality "should only be used if nationality cannot be inferred from the birthplace". I don't understand this limitation. I can think of many locations where the nation changed in history, and inferring would require historical knowledge or search. Verdi's birthplace was French when he was born, for example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm at a loss as to why you think me reckless. And because a parameter is misused in a minority of cases is not a reason to advise editors not to use it, in others. Indeed, the misguided caution which I removed does nothing to resolve the examples you give. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, I agree that, for example, someone born in British India may have one of several modern nationalities and that they might be appropriately mentioned (if sourced). More generally, I think that all of you - Gerda, Andy and Nikkimaria - need to back off before this becomes another stupid war. "Go find something more useful to do", would be my advice because the next time this heads to ANI people are going to find themselves blocked etc. It is already obvious to me that battle lines are being drawn. - Sitush (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I hear "battle" too often. I try to find out why a restriction would be applied here for a single parameter, and if there was a discussion. In a different template, the wording is "The template is very general and therefore offers a great choice of parameters. For a given composition, use only those of relevance". I could imagine something like this here. The wording as it stands leaves no room to fill "nationality" when a reader could infer from a birth place, but might not easily be able. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you hear "battle" too often. Perhaps if you and others did not engage in this area then you would hear it less. I'm sure that you all mean well in your own ways but, really, there are far more important things to worry about than the content or even existence of infoboxes. I won't hesitate to take this to WP:AE if things escalate here. - Sitush (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me Sitush, but these two people know what they are doing and it is important to AGF on these issues. There is a much wider discussion of the role of infoboxes and the people who care need to not be shut down here. Personally, I am quite concerned that one or two other editors can freely screw things up all they want and emerge untouched, while the capable and knowledgable are sanctioned and told to go away. That is inappropriate. National identity is actually a very significant question, and frequently NOT in the least correlated to a person's birthplace, even when they may wind up famous in their homeland; look at the latest group of Nobel Prize winners, some of whom did their most significant work outside their nation of birth. Montanabw^(talk) 17:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I engage in this area, infobox person, only the second time, and I wish to ask a question related to the content, may I? Parameter nationality should normally be inferred from the content, I understand. Could our template editors please code that, so that |nationality= is (normally) taken from the place of birth, but can be overwritten by coding it and only then shown separately? - Can we say that mentioning nationality or not is a matter of taste (as having an infobox or not is a matter of taste)? - So, until we have a coded solution, could each editor please be permitted to code the field as they like, without being reverted? The present documentation says: "should", not "it's forbidden". - I personally don't care much about nationality. My very first discussion (2009) was about the nationality categories of musicians that I didn't understand. I support an editor who wrote in his editnotice: "The only real nation is humanity". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

That coding is unlikely to be feasible, and adding superfluous parameters to accommodate it undesirable. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

In my experience, there is no harm to adding extra coding and parameters. The people who don't know how to use them just don't use them, but they are there for the more syntax-savvy folks who do. There is no harm that I can see. I also think nationality is often very important, particularly for historical figures who became famous outside of their homelands. Also true for a lot of modern sports figures. And musicians, for that matter... one's birthplace seldom is the sole definer of who they are or where they identify their home. Montanabw^(talk) 17:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, the people who don't know how to use parameters often use them anyways - as can be seen from the problems Sitush mentions above. That's part of the harm. As to the rest of your statement, a) where nationality is not correlated with place of birth, we already say you can include it, and b) most sportspeople don't use this template, but something in Category:Sportsperson infobox templates. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

"People who don't know how to use parameters" is not the issue here; unsubstantiated assertions about them doubly so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

If we only enter nationality "if [it] cannot be inferred from the birthplace", then how do we differentiate between someone born in, for example, New York, and who is American, and someone born in New York whose nationality is not known, or not yet determined by us? |nationality=American is statement that the nationality is known; its absence is otherwise ambiguous. That is why it is rightly common practice to enter the subject's nationality, and why the wording I removed is both wrong and harmful. Wikipedia does sourced statements, not inferences. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

If someone is born in New York, they are assumed to be American unless we have sources to say otherwise. You cannot reasonably expect that everything that is known be filled in in the infobox, as that is contrary to both MOS:INFOBOX and common sense. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

"If someone is born in New York, they are assumed to be American unless we have sources to say otherwise." Bullshit. We assume nothing. Unless we have a source, we say nothing of the kind. What you describe is weaker even than original research. There are people born in New York to illegal immigrants, overseas diplomats, foreign tourists and people on a variety of other visas. None of them have US nationality. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

You fail to understand the dramatic differences in "nationality" and citizenship laws. For example, Louisa Adams, first lady, wife of John Qunicy Adams, was born in Britain to a father who was an American diplomat. This is not an unusual situation; many famous people were born in a nation that is not necessarily their land of legal citizenship, or, as with Albert Einstein, left their native land to become a citizen of another nation. Montanabw^(talk) 23:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

And where their nationality and/or citizenship is not inferred from their place of birth, we can include it. @Andy, only the children of foreign diplomats are excluded from birthright citizenship; the other categories you mention are all generally held to be US citizens, and by extension hold US nationality (as all US citizens are automatically considered nationals). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Very well; substitute one of the many countries where such births do not confer nationality; my point stands. Further, people born in the USA to overseas parents will most likely not simply be American nationals, but have dual nationality. I note from my watchlist that you continue to remove nationality data from this template, in many articles. Please desist, until this dispute is resolved, since such mass edits will be difficult to reverse if consensus is against you. As such, I'm confident that sound-minded neutral third parties would view your continuing as disruptive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

By your logic, we should be removing most of these parameters as unsourced anyways, regardless of what the documentation is or will be. Again, where nationality cannot be inferred simply from place of birth (as with dual nationals), we already provide for its inclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Spouse parameter mimics and is easily confused with (DOB-DOD)

The spouse parameter provides for a date range consisting of a year of marriage to a year no longer married, by whatever mechanism, divorce, death, etc. It currently reads (in relevant part):

Name of spouse(s), followed by years of marriage. Use the format Name (1950–present) for current spouse and Name (1970–1999) for former spouse(s).

The problem is that when we see a person's name followed by, for example, (1933-2003), that is the common way we indicate a person's birth to death.

I am not saying that if told, "no that's the marriage span", that would not also make sense as to what it could have been, but I do think the misunderstanding that it is a date of birth to a date of death is naturally made and likely to happen for many people. Indeed, it would not be at all unusual to write or read somewhere: "In 1950, X married Y (1916-2003), but they were divorced in 1974 after Y discovered X's extramarital affair with Z".

The incident that brought this up earlier today was a help desk post in which the apparent daughter of an article subject complained that her mother's date of birth was 1916, not 1933, and when I looked at the article I corrected it with the same misunderstanding the IP had of the import of the date range in the spouse parameter. I only learned when I was reverted of the issue that brought me here. I don't think this person or I was unreasonable or outré in our confusion.

Accordingly, I think the documentation for, and our way of describing this in, the spouse parameter should be changed. I am not certain about the best form of correction, and would welcome suggestions (if anyone agrees with the underlying issue), but I propose it be as simple as adding "married" inside the opening parenthese:

Name of spouse(s), followed by years of marriage. Use the format Name (married 1950–present) for current spouse and Name (married 1970–1999) for former spouse(s).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. DrKiernan (talk) 15:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)