Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Adding ORCID numbers to infobox academic

Hi all,

I can't seem to see if this already exists, but wondered if it might be possible to add "ORCID number" as a field within the infobox person/ academic? "ORCID is a nonproprietary alphanumeric code to uniquely identify authors and contributors of scholarly communication as well as ORCID's website and services to look up authors and their bibliographic output".

I posted this within the academic infobox, but thought it might have to be actioned here instead? Jamzze (talk) 15:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Jamzze, The Authority Control template at the bottom of articles about people handles this. Wikidata entries include ORCID IDs. Add the ORCID ID to the Wikidata entry for the person and it will automatically appear in the Authority Control box. See the Robert Whyte article. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

This is exactly what authority control is for, as opposed to unauthoritative links to databases like MusicBrainz [sic]. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi both, thank you for your replies. That is great to know, but I had more in mind presentation of information for the reader. Like how books can have unique data fields both in their infoboxes and authority control, adding ORCID numbers to the infoboxes for people (specifical academics) would allow easier presentation of this information to more casual readers. It is not extremely obvious that it is in the authority control nav box, so presenting it also in the infobox allows for this to be seen straight away, easily accessible, and a quick reference point. Additionally, this would help mobile users as (as far as I am aware) the authority control template does not show on the mobile app, but the infobox does. Jamzze (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Replace "Time in space" part of template with more accurate terminology

This issue came to mind when editing the "time in space" section of this infobox on Jeff Bezos. Jeff Bezos was only in space above the FAA-defined edge of space/"astronaut line" for 2 minutes and 29 seconds, yet the infobox must list his time in space as over 10 minutes, the entire launch to landing duration of his New Shepard mission, according to User:Skoglundmike. User:Skoglundmike contends that "This is consistent with listings for all other ballistic space launches listed at Wikipedia, wherein “time in space” equates to “mission elapsed time”. Going with “time in space” = time spent above 50 mi altitude would require reduction of “time in space” for every astronaut or space flight participant from 1961 through June, 2021 listed in Wikipedia, of anywhere from 7 minutes for Alan Shepard’s Mercury flight to 25+ minutes for shuttle flights". Assuming this user's statement is correct, I feel that naming that field of this infobox "time in space" is misleading. I ask the community to consider renaming this field of the infobox "Spaceflight time", or some other less misleading label. During multi-day orbital missions or even months-long missions to the ISS as occurred in the past, mere minutes spent launching and landing did not constitute large errors when comparing actual time physically spent in space with the entire mission duration from launch to landing. However, as commercial space tourism becomes increasingly common, there are bound to be many Wikipedia-covered personalities who will fly to space as commercial astronauts on short suborbital hops into space lasting 1-3 minutes (with the majority of mission elapsed time being spent below the edge of space), making the errors between time in space and mission elapsed time very large (in Bezos' case, more than 300%). smileguy91^{talk x my huckleberrying} 06:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

This belongs at Template talk:Infobox astronaut. MB 13:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Other names

Is he "other_names" parameter also for spelling variations, or only for "stage names, maiden/married names, nicknames, criminal aliases, etc." as per the documentation page? I ask because at Natalia Shpiller I noticed that this parameter is used for "Natalia Spiller, Natalya Shpiller, Natalʹja Špiller, Natalʹia Shpiller", which are all just spelling variations. Debresser (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

The field should not be filled with variations of spelling of the persons name. The info is WP:INDISCRIMINATE info IMO. I found this several times with actors from the early silent film era and removed it. MarnetteD|Talk 16:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

"Template:Infobox biography" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:Infobox biography. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 6#Template:Infobox biography until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Permanent Residency

Is it can add Permanent Residency? Happygirl1976 (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Please note that the field was removed per this discussion Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 34#Residence parameter. MarnetteD|Talk 17:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Request to add Marital Status field

I used the this template for one of my pages and noticed that there is no field for marital status. How do we go about adding it? Alternately, the template could allow for custom fields so users can add their own field name and field information. Is there any other way to add marital status to this template? Elenatina (talk) 04:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

One's current martial status is not a core part of their notabilitly. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Notable people can be listed at |spouse= or |partner=.—Bagumba (talk) 05:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Essentially if you fill in spouse, it assumes they are married, partner - other long term relationship. Marital status by itself is almost never a salient point. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bagumba & @ Only in death Thanks for clarifying. I understand notability aspects. On a different note, Even though Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and it has no mandate to curb impersonation of notable people or clear up ambiguities regarding their personal life, This is an area where we can explore to clear the air and make cyberspace a safe place, especially since wikipedia is ranked highly by search engines and is the first thing people look up.Elenatina (talk) 08:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Sure. Notable content is fine for WP. Be wary of WP:NOTDIARY, even if the info is verifiable.—Bagumba (talk) 08:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Elenatina: there are parameters for both "spouse" and "partner", with instructions for each on adding info (dates, married, divorced, died, etc.). Just answering the question that was posted. No opinion or comment on any of the responses above. - wolf 14:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Deprecating the net worth parameter was a mistake

The net worth parameter should not have been deprecated. The whole point of the infobox is to summarize key aspects of the subject and present them in a quick reference form. Readers shouldn't have to hunt through an entire article just to find one piece of information. For people like Bezos, Musk, Gates, etc., their wealth is one of their key defining characteristics and a main driver for many of the readers seeking out their articles on WP. No matter how much we "summarize, contextualize, and explain" a subject's net worth in prose, there is still going to be a number, a final current number as of that sections last updating, and supported by the most recent, reliable source(s). There is no reason why we can't add that number to the infobox. The notion that we regularly rely on two sources, Forces and Bloomberg, should not be an impediment, if they differ, then we just post the two numbers as a range. If there are more than two sources reporting more than two numbers, we still just take the lowest and highest numbers and post them as a range. We can add a refnote that has a brief explanation, possibly the refs and directs readers to whatever section of the article that has more information regarding the subject's networth. Using the example above of Theo Albrecht Jr., the entry would be: $20.6-21.5B as of 11 July 2021. I don't see one person's difficulty understanding the "little red and green arrows" as a reason to delete a parameter, but that alone is a different discussion. Complaining that a value of an infobox parameter can be out of date at any given time again is not a reason to delete that parameter. The information reported in numerous parameters, especially for BLPs, is often dynamic and in need of constant updating. Some articles have information that will require perpetual updating. That doesn't mean we delete the parameter, it means we update it. That is one of the benefits of having a live encyclopaedia vs. a printed one. Reducing, and even eliminating, such a benefit is short-sighted. - wolf 18:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

note

Values that are continually changing are not a good fit for infoboxes eg. net worth, web site ranking, stock price. Invariably it will always be outdated (wrong) and/or give an appearance of accuracy that doesn't exist. At this stage, it would be interesting to discussing broader solutions to temporal data in infoboxes, this is not the first temporal data to be deprecated. There might be other ways to handle temporal data, technically. For example, maintain the data as Commons Tabular Data and present that in the infobox as a time-series graph that expands on click. -- GreenC 19:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

But the value doesn't have to be added on it's own. I had suggested adding an "as of (date)" and a refnote. The refnote can provide some immediate context, sourcing and direct readers to the section with more information. But even the "as of (date)" on it's own can be quite beneficial. It set a mark that immediately tells the reader that even if the current net worth has changed, the subject was worth "X on this date". Depending on how much time has passed, it tells the reader how current that value is likely to be, and whether or not it may need to be updated. It's better than having no information there at all. Like I said, this is a key piece of information that is bringing many readers to that article in the first place, they shouldn't have to hunt for it. In this age of immediacy, that can turn readers away. If they don't see it right away (especially since they used to) they'll just Google it and move on.

This is not to say I'm not interested in your alternatives, but I just found out about this change and I'm still not convinced it was a good one. - wolf 20:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The logic here seems to be that readers want this information, nobody can provide it accurately (as demonstrated ad nauseum in the previous discussion), so we should present made-up figures as if they are facts. This is completely anti-knowledge, against everything Wikipedia stands for. If readers want this to anything more than one significant figure then we should explain why it is impossible for anyone to provide it, not make things up. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I never said anything about "making things up". Your comments are actually illogical. If you have a problem with a source, RSN is right over →here. - wolf 13:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Bottom line: Don’t believe anything you read on a celebrity net worth site!Moxy- 13:45, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

The statement that "Readers shouldn't have to hunt through an entire article just to find one piece of information" is illogical. All articles are a collection of pieces of information Per that statement why have an article at all - just make each page one large jam packed infobox - readers will still have to hunt through it though. BTW the TOC is just as easy to skim through as infobox fields are. An item that changes every day or even hour is not useful in the infobox. MarnetteD|Talk 16:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Wow... why are all the people who voted to get rid of this parameter suddenly coming out with these hostile comments that are all supposedly couched in "logic"? Haven't you all WP:NPA? Deleting that parameter was a bad idea. Insulting me is not going to change that fact. - wolf 20:32, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

If you think these comments are "hostile" or are personal attacks then feel free to report them at WP:ANI. A WP:RFC was held in the proper manner. WP:CONSENSUS was reached. The fact that you don't like it is fine. That happens. Starting a thread so that you can blow off steam about the outcome happens as well. But you are mistaken if you think editors aren't going to respond to it. The fact that you feel the need to insult those who disagree with you by claiming that they are "wrong" or part of a "bad idea" or "illogical" isn't going to change the outcome of the RFC. MarnetteD|Talk 20:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) You are mistaken on several counts there. The comments are not hostile, are not only "supposedly" based on logic, are not personal attacks, and are not insulting. It is simply that you disagree with the consensus reached, which you are perfectly entitled to do, as long as you don't behave as if consensus was not reached. There have been many times when I have disagreed with consensus, but I've lived with it. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Given the closer's remarks, the RfC was more about numbers than consensus. In my initial comments, I didn't address any of you, just the problems I see with the deletion of this parameter. So, no... I my observations of this this action are not "insults", they aren't directed to any particular editor, (nor did I say anything collective, like "all of you", etc. So please stop with the strawman arguments). And countering the reasons for deleting this parameter does not make me "mistaken", just standing in opposition. I disagree with the outcome here and the reasons given for it. Stop treating it as an attack. All that has accomplished so far is this major thread derail. I think you two need to focus on WP:EDITSNOTEDITORS. I don't expect to change the minds of you two, so I think it's time to disengage. My objections to this action are on the record. If others who disagree wish to discuss collegially, great. If anyone agrees and wishes to add in, even better. But other than that, might as well leave this, and perhaps open another RfC in a few months. We're done here. - wolf 16:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

What a weird edit. You are the only one who has said here that any edits here are "insults" or "an attack", or has focussed on editors rather than edits. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

You seemed to have missed the point about "disengaging" and that I'm no longer interested in discussing this with you as long as you keep making this personal, and yet here you are with another personal comment. Let it go already. - wolf 16:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I have missed no points. You said that you were disengaging, and have now gone back on your word, but you can't demand that others follow suit. And I have not made anything personal. Please don't make such unfounded accusations, which violate WP:ASPERSIONS. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

You need re-read my comments about disengaging, I made no such "demands". If you wish to continue posting comments that have nothing to do with this template, or are of a critical/personal nature, (or if this is a must-have-the-last-word kind of thing) don't expect a response. I never claimed, nor would I, that I will never post here again. If someone wishes to engage in discussion about the template, I of course reserve the option to respond. Have a nice day - wolf 19:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

perhaps open another RfC in a few months We just had a pretty conclusive RfC. Unless there is some massive development that changes our perception of net worths, this really wouldn't be appropriate. ~ HAL333 18:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I seemed to have missed the part of close that stated: "this decision is permanent and may never be revisited again". Nothing on WP is 'forever'. - wolf 16:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Nice strawman. I did not say any of that. ~ HAL333 20:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

WOW! I've only just come across the discussion that net worth was deprecated from {{Infobox person}} last month. As a regular annual updater of the (Australian) Financial Review Rich List and, previously, before it became dynamic, the Forbes list of Australia's 50 richest people, I am deeply concerned that all the above discussion in the deprecation was focused mainly on the dynamic lists created by both Bloomberg and Forbes. It appeared to me that the discussion did not consider wealth lists that are/were not dynamic. A quick look at lists of people by wealth would have assisted in ensuring discussion had a world view. Perhaps the proposers (@HAL333, Chicdat, Nikkimaria, Phil Bridger, GreenC, Levivich, and Elli:) could've pinged @Mervyn: re the Sunday Times Rich List, @Leventio and Oceanflynn: re the Canadian Business list of Canadians by net worth, and myself and others regarding Australia, and also considered lists that don't use the dynamic tools employed by either Bloomberg or Forbes. We just had a pretty conclusive RfC. It's disappointing that such a RfC discussion did not openly embrace the spirit of Wikipedia and reach out to others not relying dynamic lists. I hope we can positively embrace a step forward that involves the use of net worth in the infobox. Where to from here? Rangasyd (talk) 11:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

That is fair point other Rich Lists published globally like you mentioned were not considered, and looking back on it, it does seem rather US-centric. I thought it was a mistake in order for us to serve our readers and thought our oppose arguments were strong, but I do not think there is much we can do.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 13:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

A majority of net worth parameters use Bloomberg or Forbes. It would make sense that a heavy portion of the discussion revolved around those two. However, it is not accurate to say that only dynamic values were discussed. Static values were discussed within the context of deceased persons. Also, the NPOV and equal weight arguments put forth by supporters in the RfC apply to the static net worth rankings. Why should they be given more weight than Forbes or Bloomberg? The solution, as the 2:1 majority consensus above reached, is that opposing and conflicting estimates should be positioned against one another in the prose. ~ HAL333 16:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

This feels like a supremely dumb case of trying to right a perceived wrong. The Bloomberg and Forbes numbers are widely used throughout all media and have been for ages. As long as that practice doesnt change there is no reason for Wikipedia to not also reflect that common usage. Instead removing a very useful metric in hundreds of articles because a group of editors doesnt like the lack of variety in sources seems incredibly destructive (and also wrong, see the comment above about a number of alternative net worth lists). It should be undone asap. jonas (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Rangasyd, Spy-cicle, and Jonas1015119: The RfC that resulted in the depreciation of the net worth parameter was initiated over three months ago, and closed July 11. It's both a well-established and widely accepted fact that consensus can change, so at some point if someone wishes to initate a new RfC to reinstate that parameter, they are free to do so. (Just ensure you are aware of the rules on wp:canvassing before you notify anyone). From what I've seen here, it's quite possible that a new RfC will be successful. - wolf 17:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

New tracking

Primefac, William M. Branham is in Category:Pages using infobox person with unknown empty parameters. The articles uses {{infobox clergy}} which still has |ethnicity=, but is flagged by the new check in IB person. MB 17:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed at {{Infobox clergy}} per this 2016 RFC. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposed bot task to update infobox nationality parameter

Your input would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BattyBot 61, a request to change values in the |nationality= field from country names to nationalities in various biography infoboxes (e.g. United Kingdom or [[United Kingdom]] → British, United States or [[United States]] → American). Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Alternative for associated acts?

What should we use if a person was part of a group like a notable dance or theater group? If I remember correctly, notable works and known for are discouraged, other editors keep removing them. Known for would be incorrect especially if the person is now more notable than the group. Carl Francis (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Carl Francis: Hi there! How about using |organization= for the group? GoingBatty (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Spouse(s) and Partner(s) fields

Hi, I have a question about what to do when a notable person is married to someone whose name is unknown. Is it necessary to mention their marital status in the infobox, as with Freddie Highmore or Park Hae-soo, or leave it blank as with Ed Helms? If we are to mention it in the infobox, can we set up some kind of standard for doing so? Related question, what about when the first name of a celebrity's spouse is known, but not the surname? I've noticed editors will use the surname of the celebrity (ex: Christopher Eccleston), but I'm not convinced this is the best solution to this issue.

My last question concerns the Partner(s) field when a celebrity has died. For spouses: "For deceased persons still married at time of death, do not include the end year." For partners, there's no such guidance in the template. I've seen some editors write (2015-2019; his death) in the Partner field. Is this acceptable, or is there something else we should be doing? Thanks! --Dog Starkiller (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The documentation indicates that the spouse parameter should be used for names, so if the name is not known the parameter should not be included. If only the first name is known it could be included, but see WP:LPNAME. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

What if the spouse is not notable? Should we add his/her name to the infobox? As far as I know we can't mention not-notable children or relatives in the infobox per it's documentation. I request a same clarification should be given about the spouse(s) and partner parameter(s) also. So that there will be no future doubts. Eevee01^(talk) 14:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

NikkiMaria, thank you for the answer regarding my question about the Spouse(s) parameter. Is there an answer for my final question, about the Partner(s) parameter? Eevee01, I think WP:BLPNAME answers your question. It is acceptable to include a non-notable spouse if their name is properly sourced, and to include a non-notable partner if the relationship is "particularly relevant" (stated in the documentation on this page). Dog Starkiller (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@Dog Starkiller Thanks you! Eevee01^(talk) 16:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Why were weight fields deprecated but not height?

It seems when Template:Infobox person was merged with Template:Infobox actor, the weight fields were deprecated, but the height fields were retained. Both should be still available. Some people are notable solely for their weight. Especially when using Modules to specify multiple Template:Infobox_sportsperson for multisport athletes, having the weight retained in the overall Template:Infobox person is important Karsonkevin2 (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it has to do with the general fact that weight is in such an ever-changing flux that it would be almost impossible to maintain its reliably sourced accuracy whereas height is pretty much a constant throughout one's adult life. --John Cline (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that weight is something that should go in the infobox, for the reason given by John Cline. For most actors it's not relevant, and for people participating in sports where it is it can fluctuate a lot. Many boxers, for example, have fought at several different weight levels. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Request to add Pronoun parameters under Personal Information section

I want to expand Infoboxes to include the most up-to-date pronoun usage for an individual. As more sites expand on the ways in which individuals can make their pronouns known, Wikipedia should begin to reflect a similar attitude. Many pages already discuss a person's pronoun usage and are updated according to said usage (such as Demi Lovato's page both discussing their public statement of identifying with they/them pronouns and implementing that usage throughout the article). It is only logical for biographical pages such as theirs to included a quick section which identifies their pronouns for both clarity and ease. This would (and should) apply to people of all gender identities. Articles for Demi Lovato and Sam Smith, for example--two individuals who identify as non-binary and use they/them pronouns--would list their pronoun usage as well as articles for individuals such as Tom Daley and Gina Rodriguez-LoCicero--two cis-gendered celebrities who have listed their pronouns in their instagram bios (he/him and she/her respectively). Adding this section would not only provide relevant information to the user reading the article, but it would also serve as an easy tool for editors to remember the pronouns they are meant to utilize throughout a given article.

Currently my attempts, namely in an article using the sportsperson infobox template, have yielded an error message. I think this would be a very helpful and relevant parameter/section to add, especially within articles which explicitly discuss a person's pronoun usage.

(If this already exists then I apologize. I am still fairly new to wikipedia editing. However, as far as I can tell, this option is not included in any biographical infobox template) REVILL97 (talk) 19:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

We already had an RfC on this some months ago with the result being not to add such a parameter. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 October 2021

Please add an |otherparty parameter like the one {{Infobox officeholder}} has. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 21:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Why not just use the other infobox? I suspect that this will need a WP:RFC to gain consensus for the addition. IMO it is not relevant enough info to a non-politicians article. Though it can be mentioned with a source in the body of the article. MarnetteD|Talk 21:50, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

The officeholder infobox is only for people who have held political office. I'm not suggesting adding any new information; previous parties are already widely listed in the existing political party field. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 21:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I still have my doubts since it will inevitably draw unsourced entries. A RFC is still probably the way to go. MarnetteD|Talk 22:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

My main reason for the suggestion is that when there is a switch made from the officeholder infobox (which is often erroneously used for candidates) to the person one, the otherparty entry often gets left behind, resulting in an error. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tartan357: As of October 1, there were no {{Infobox person}} templates with the |otherparty= parameter. Editors must be doing a good job of cleaning up those errors. GoingBatty (talk) 03:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I fix it whenever I see it, and was starting to get tired of doing it, most recently over at Andrew Yang. What is your objection to adding the parameter here? All it does is break up existing information more cleanly. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tartan357: I did not make an objection, just an observation. Are you requesting the addition because you're getting tired of doing the cleanup, or because it would provide value to the reader? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I've thought for a while now that this would be a more intuitive way to present the content. I think the separation of current from former parties that the officeholder infobox uses makes it easier for the reader to see what the subject's current party is. And since we're already listing party histories with this infobox, I see no reason why the parameter would be appropriate for the other template but not for this one. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 04:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: @GoingBatty: do either of you maintain a substantive opposition to this change? Generally an RfC isn't necessary if talk-page consensus can be formed without one. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Elli: I do not maintain a substantive opposition to this change. GoingBatty (talk) 15:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

A little research shows that the |otherparty= param appears in the politicians' ibox as Other political affiliations. If the param is added to the persons' ibox in this manner, then I don't see the harm. Question would be: would the OP go back and re-add the param to the iboxes from which they've removed it? Are we talking about a lot of them? Would you need help with that? and so on. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 09:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I've stated my worry but if others are okay with it then that is fine. My thought is that there should just be a politicians ibox for everyone instead of that one and the officeholders ibox. I'm guessing combining the two would be a lot of work though. Thanks to everyone who is commenting on this. MarnetteD|Talk 17:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done. To editors Tartan357, MarnetteD, GoingBatty and Elli: went ahead with this request. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 14:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Sir Edward Crosbie's Infobox Query

Please could someone tell me whether it is possible to adapt a basic Infobox in order to include some elements not normally included? Sir Edward is a special case - hanged and beheaded for a crime he did not commit. His page is here: Sir Edward Crosbie, 5th Baronet and the items I would like to include are emboldened here: User:Arbil44/sandbox#Infobox information copied from the CA page (because those elements were critical in his death sentence). Anne (talk) 22:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

You can embed for example a military infobox within this one, but be aware that |religion= is deprecated as per this RfC. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

The residence field is also deprecated per Template_talk:Infobox person/Archive 34#Residence parameter. MarnetteD|Talk 04:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria Let me ensure I get it. It is highly unfortunate that "Residence" cannot be used. Crosbie was executed (he was innocent) because of what happened at his "Residence" (as is explained in the text). If I copy and paste a military infobox from a page which uses "Residence" will it still be rejected? In order to fit in "Allegiance" do I copy and paste a military infobox and add to what is already there, then delete all the unused parameters which are either already completed, or which are irrelevant for a non-military subject? Or do I start from scratch with a military infobox, again filling in the relevant items, then delete everything not being used? My IT abilities are extremely poor (I can only C&P), so I am expecting the worst-case outcome. I did a dummy-run (Infobox officeholder) in my sandbox, but it failed to save and deleted what was there before (goodness knows why).Anne (talk) 09:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Have a look for example at the coding for Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson, which has a military person infobox embedded. Yes, you should avoid repeating parameters that are already used in the main template. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, thank you, I have already done as you suggested. I have done a trial run in my sandbox User:Arbil44/sandbox. Would you look there, and be kind enough to rectify where "military service" has crept in, when I copied the British flag? Crosbie was loyal to Britain but was not in the military.Anne (talk) 13:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

It looks like it's a built-in part of the template when the allegiance field is included, as it's intended to signify military allegiance. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

How disappointing. I can't put residence, which was critical to his execution, nor can I put his allegiance, which was critical to his defence, nor his religion which made it highly unlikely that he coulld have been a rebel. Shame there is no latitude. Furthermore, it turns out that the image of him I found, is not him!Anne (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 29 October 2021

Please add a |nickname parameter like the one {{Infobox officeholder}} has. ― Umbis710 ^Talk 13:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

This infobox already has |other_names=. MB 13:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

The deprecated net worth parameter still shows references to it

Although the deprecated net_worth parameter is no longer displayed in articles, references to it are still shown if the parameter and reference are still in the infobox wikitext. For example, in the Jensen Huang article, the Bloomberg reference appears as the first reference, even though the referenced field no longer appears in the rendered article. Zarex (talk) 07:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

The citation for net worth is still in the infobox and needs to be moved to the body. Patapsco913 (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Image credit to photographer

MOS:CREDITS says: "Unless relevant to the subject, do not credit the image author or copyright holder in the article ... image credits in the infobox image are discouraged, even if the artist is notable". But Template:Infobox person#Parameters says: "Try to include the date of photo, some context, and the photographer if known". This goes back to 2007 where Zyxw added: "Try to include date of photo and the photographer".[1] I think the photographer is rarely mentioned in practice. There is a 2012 discussion at Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 13#Image caption. I suggest changing the documentation to: "Try to include the date of photo and some context, but not the photographer per MOS:CREDITS". PrimeHunter (talk) 02:17, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree. The MOS is applicable project-wide. I have boldly changed the documentation here to comply with MOS:CREDITS. MB 02:36, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@MB@PrimeHunter I mostly concur, with the exception of instances of instances where the image is a painting rather than a photograph. I think we probably should be mentioning Leo in the infobox image at Lisa del Giocondo. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

MOS:CREDITS says othersize. It uses the term photographer or artist. Why is is any more important to mention an artist than a photographer. This is a difference of technology. MB 21:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

MOS:CREDITS has several caveats that I think cover the instances in which I'd want to see the artist included, and we should be careful that our documentation doesn't erase those. It allows inclusion of the artist if it's relevant to the subject, which would certainly be the case for e.g. Lisa del Giocondo, and it even notes If the artist or photographer is independently notable, though, then a wikilink to the artist's biography may be appropriate. I think we're largely on the same page, in that infoboxes have to follow WP:LEAD and summarize only the most important aspects of the subject from the body, but my point is just that there will sometimes be exceptions, and we shouldn't make our documentation more rigid than the guideline it's citing. Regarding photography vs. painter, all of my photographer friends would murder me for saying this, but I think a painter has a greater degree of artistic control over how a subject is depicted, and that makes it more relevant to mention them (that's also why we tend to prefer photographs when available). An FA example where it makes sense to mention the artist is D. B. Cooper (where the artist is the FBI). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The current documentation [2] says "Image credit should not be included per MOS:CREDITS." I'm OK with changing that to "Image credit should rarely be included per MOS:CREDITS." I don't think we need to go into details here when we link the general guideline. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

You quoted one part of MOS:CREDITS, but not the rest that went on to say but image credits in the infobox image are discouraged, even if the artist is notable, since the infobox should only contain key facts of the article's subject. There are always exceptions, and I would agree with the two you have suggested. I don't think the possibility of exceptions has been "erased" from the documentation because it links to MOS:CREDITS, which allows exceptions. The documentation here could say image credit "should usually not be included", or "should rarely be included", instead of "should not be included". Many/most infobox paintings do mention the artist, I believe because editors heed MOS:ART#Image captions which has no exceptions for lead images. MOS:ART should probably changed to acknowledge MOS:CREDITS too. MB 00:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Both, changing to "should generally not be included" would sound good to me; I'll do that, and we can defer to the MOS guideline for the rest. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Plurality improvements

In the sandbox, I've made some adjustments to have this template detect the plurality of the values for several parameters and display a singular or plural label accordingly.

This is part of the wider rollout of plurality improvements at a number of templates (list in this discussion), following the model introduced here at VPT. That discussion followed several rounds of previous discussion, and since then, further improvements have been made to Lua-ify {{detect singular}} and ensure it's up to the job.

The parameters affected will be employer(s), organization(s), agent(s), notable credit(s) (to an extent), opponent(s), criminal charge(s), spouse(s), partner(s), and parent(s) (to an extent). In the event of a false plural error, {{force singular}} can be used to override the result, and for a false singular error, {{force plural}} can be used or the parameter can just be set to the plural variant (e.g. |spouses= will always show a plural label). Based on testing in previews, these should be rare.

Please let me and Hike395 know if there are any comments or concerns. I hope to implement in a week or so, and can update the documentation at that time. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I have a suggestion: let's first add tracking categories for the proposed singular/plurals. Then I can go through and hand-check ~100 of them to make sure they're okay. Then we can roll out your change, and remove the tracking categories. — hike395 (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hike395, that sounds good to me. I don't know how to create tracking categories without rolling out a change, but if you do, feel free to go for it and let me know if you find anything that needs fixing. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sdkb: I'm (slowly) going through the tracking categories, and I'm finding that commas, semicolons, and breaks are not being used consistently: sometime they're used to mark list elements, other times they're just internal to the structure of a single entity. See, e.g., Aaliyah, Simon Cowell, Vanessa Feltz, Rick Atkinson, Jack Clark (television personality), Clint Ford, and Winnemucca (Paiute leader) for examples where such items are not used to denote list elements. This were found by examining ~100 cases overall, so we're probably at around an 8% error rate.

I'm afraid we're going to have to go through the tracking categories sort them into singular and plural. This can be done via AWB and {{force singular}}. It'll be a fair amount of work, because there are 22,000 articles to check. We could reduce the amount of work by changing Module:Detect singular to produce three results: "known singular", "known plural", "uncertain". Only articles with "uncertain" could be put into a tracking category: that might be fewer than 22,000. I can investigate further, or we can just go ahead and start the AWB work by upgrading the template.

Would you like to help out in fixing the 22,000 (or maybe fewer) articles? — hike395 (talk) 06:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, that's unfortunate. In some of those instances, it's coming about because of parameter misuse (|partner(s)= should not be used to give number of children; that's for |children=), but even so, we wouldn't want to break something that was displaying properly previously.

22,000 is unfortunately way more than I'd have capacity to check. I'd be willing to help out some, though, if the infrastructure (e.g. instructions, tracking which pages have been checked) is set up. Since we're not under time pressure, let's maybe do that, and see how many folks join in and how fast it dwindles. Best, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Visual editor ("death cause" description)

When editing the infobox in the visual editor, some parameters that people might otherwise use are helpfully described with when they should not be used. "Baptised" says to only use when birth date is unknown, "height" should only be used when the person's height is particularly relevant, etc. "Death cause" has no real description – it just says "cause of death" – so you have to go to the template page to find out that it should only be used when it has significance to the subject's notability. For consistency's sake, can a similar description be added to the "death cause" parameter since we have it on several others? It would hopefully keep people from helpfully trying to add this information when it shouldn't be added (myself included, as I just learned). flod logic (talk) 08:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I've updated the TemplateData section on the documentation page, with this edit. -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Great, thanks! flod logic (talk) 11:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Perfered Pronouns

With recent social changes in how people prefer to be referred to, it can cause confusion when reading an article where a person has not gender traditional pronouns in English. Added a Perferred Pronoun section to the Info box would create a uniformed place to find the information at the start of an article which would give users consistency as well as aid research users. Navigator00 (talk) 03:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Navigator00, this has been discussed here several times in the past, most significantly here where the decision was made not to include it. Now, if you think things have changed since then you could start a new request for comment, but you may want to consider how you would respond to the counterarguments at that discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

RFC: “Agent” parameter in Musician articles?

I’ve recently noticed that the “Agent” parameter has been used mostly in articles about musicians, for example: Ariana Grande, The Weeknd and Justin Bieber. I don’t see how it’s relevant enough information to be in their infoboxes. I would like to know what other occupations is the “Agent” parameter used, to see if it is necessary to keep in the template. Thanks SINGmeAsadSONG (talk) 10:38, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Just a couple more thoughts I wanted to add.

I also want to clarify that I am not demanding that the parameter should be removed. I am a little confused on why it’s there in the first place and would just like an answer to why it is. Also the articles I mentioned use a combination of the “Infobox person” and “Infobox musical artist” templates, the “Agent” parameter is being listed in the basic information section. If the “Agent” parameter is relevant enough to be included in the infobox, wouldn’t it be more suitable in the “Musical career” section? I can’t see how someone’s agent is as important as someone’s birthdate or martial status. But I can see how it could be at the same importance as their record label. Thanks… again :) SINGmeAsadSONG (talk) 11:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

imcorrect categorization

Often, I see where editors have included an HTML line break inside the {{marriage}} template for aesthetic reasons (to prevent the line-breaking of parameters in this template, for one). For example, {{marriage|Teilani<br />|April 1999|October 2007}}. However, when this template sees that single HTML line break inside the marriage template, it automatically and erroneously categorizes the biography in Category:pages using infobox person with multiple spouses. When that line break is removed, the automatic categorization is removed as well (see this edit). — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Misaligned Infobox

Used this infobox as the parent box for subboxes racing driver and WRC driver on the page Sébastien Loeb but it is very misaligned for some reason. Please suggest a fix. Nicenicey18 (talk) 11:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

This has been fixed by a third party. MB 15:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Nicenicey18 16:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicenicey18 (talk • contribs)

Spouse and partner parameters of {{Infobox musical artist}}

There is an ongoing RfC concerning whether to add spouse and partner parameters to {{Infobox musical artist}}, mirroring {{Infobox person}}. If you are interested in participating in the discussion, please see Template talk:Infobox musical artist § RfC: 10 years later – can we add spouse/partner parameters yet? Graham (talk) 05:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Adding parameter "Languages speaks"

In my opinion, one of the most important properties of a person is the languages that he can speak fluently and semi-fluently. For example Albert Einstein was familiar with English, German, and French. I think this property of a normal person is so important that we can (or should) mention that in the Infobox for that person. Thanks, Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 08:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

As an Englishman, who utterly failed to learn French, German or Latin at school over 60 years ago, I agree completely! --Bduke (talk) 08:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Few people's core notability is derived from their language skills. For those where it's relevant, add it to the prose. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE advises limiting the box to "key facts":

When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance.

—Bagumba (talk) 08:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Bagumba It is not very important for a scientist like Albert Einstein, and not for a footballer like Leo Messi, but is important for a person who shares his voice to people in everyday life. E.g. for a politician, or a singer or a voice actor, or a newsreader this parameter is very important. Note that some of these articles, use Template:Infobox person as the parent Infobox. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 08:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Hooman Mallahzadeh MOS:IBX says If the field is relevant to very few articles, it should probably not be included at all. In an ideal world, there is editorial oversight and it's only displayed where it's important. The problem is that Wikipedia is crowdsourced, and inevitably some editor(s) will blindly populate it everywhere. —Bagumba (talk) 09:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Very few (any?) people are known for the languages they spoke; and since infoboxes are supposed to be summaries of the most important information in the article, this would otherwise very much be useless clutter. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:38, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bagumba @RandomCanadian I would say that adding it would make sense if the criteria for inclusion is if their native language is not English or if their proficiency in a language is relevant to their notability.

Jmjosh90 (talk) 03:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

The concern remains that the few cases where it might rightfully be applicable is outweighed by the number of instances where it will be blindly added when it isnt notable. It's a matter-of-fact limitation of Wikipedia. —Bagumba (talk) 04:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Prev series and Medal record not visible

On Sébastien Loeb's article I added a module for his WTCC career and now the medal record and prev series is not visible. Please suggest a fix. Thank you. Nicenicey18 (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Deprecation of website parameter

The website parameter serves little encyclopedic purpose. It's mainly used for promotion. It's not Wikipedia's job to make it easier to get to your primary source website that only promotes yourself, like a campaign website. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

It's anyways allowed in the "External links" section per WP:ELOFFICIAL. It's worth discussing the merits of it being in the infobox as well (also currently allowed in the guideline).—Bagumba (talk) 02:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

That actually sounds on point, Iamreallygoodatcheckers. Being an infobox parameter by nature of course encourages its use in the box if applicable. Campaign sites are storefronts that are virtually useless for candidate political information for a number of reasons. Even many independent media/writers' sites like blogs advertise their Patreon pages on the front banner. Also, I started moving the websites on the BLPs I watch over to WikiData, but I'm thinking of moving them back just because domains change so often without warning – usually it's an IP editor who is the first to let us know when that happens, and they're a lot less likely to bother navigating over to WikiData to change the info (if they even know how that works or even that we even have it). It might be the highest-maintenance info on a BLP page other than marriage and death – I don't know what else we reasonably have to update as soon as it happens, seeing as we (are supposed to) deliberately avoid the news cycle. There's plenty of warning about elections. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposed new surname or index-name field

Per title, the citation templates have last name/surname fields and many major bibliography style guides call for a "last, first" display, along with most library referencing systems. Of course there are many types of names with nontrivial or inconsistent indexing, but for the most part on WP just deal with inconsistency. However, with many foreign names, such as multi-part Spanish names, it would be nice if those managing the individual biography articles could do the base work and have a machine-readable surname ready to go for quick reference and cleanup bots. If the surname indexing is controversial depending on bibliographic system, such as for "de la Croix", it can always be omitted, or have a father's-name or local-legal-surname alias, and/or have a hidden flag.

It wouldn't break anything, since "name" would still be a field, and hopefully it would be inherited by all subtemplates and many wrappers. "Pre-name" or "cognomen" aliases could of course also added if deemed worthwhile, though CS1|2 doesn't really seem too concerned with getting those down perfectly.

This I believe is quite different from the 2015 spouse surname RfC which closed without consensus, and I couldn't find any other similar proposal in the archives. Something to consider, then, I hope. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Isn't that what the magic word {{DEFAULTSORT:}} does, providing a proper sortkey? -- 03:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Bednarek (talk • contribs) 03:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Fair point, but that's kind of in a low-maintenance, no-visibility area of the page, and afaik it doesn't produce any COinS metadata (though I suppose it could be modified to do so). The lack of having a lot of good eyes on it bothers me more than anything. Take an article like Martín Alonso Fernández de Córdoba Montemayor y Velasco, conde de Alcaudete, which lists the surname at top beginning with "Fernández", but the sort begins with "Córdoba". Now take Diego Fernández de Córdoba y Arellano, 1st Marquis of Comares, whose surname is listed as "Fernández", but who is sorted starting with "De Córdoba". I don't know all the subtleties of Spanish names and the various sorting conventions offhand, but I think it would be beneficial if more people, potentially with working knowledge of that stuff, could be more directly involved with the process, rather than rely on them happening upon a rather esoteric corner of WP like category sorting.

Also, this seems like an issue that with more visibility, we can have better broader conversations about it. From the DEFAULTSORT talk page it doesn't seem like any major discussion was ever had about the various classification schemes for different foreign names, much less those of very uncommon languages that likely don't have published English-language style guides (or only do so for specialized subfields). An optional new field in an optional infobox is by no means some magic solution to all this, but it can generate interest and directly inform (without viewing the page source) in the short term. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The section WP:SUR provides language-specific guidance for surnames. If articles don't comply, they should be corrected. -- 02:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Bednarek (talk • contribs)

I'm glad you brought up WP:SUR because it reveals a number of shortcomings for expanded utility. Obiously it doesn't cover every language and culture – there's no reason it couldn't do so on a separate page, of course. The talk page also reveals continued ambiguity and lack of interest (see final comment). What's also likely not possible to cover in a separate page are all ambiguous and edge cases, and DEFAULTSORT is also inadequate as illustrated by the example of say Romans who are commonly known by their cognomen (similar to modern unofficial mononyms or nicknames). In official documents (including of their time) they would all be "sorted" by gens – so for example Caligula, Gaius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, I think has gens "Augustus" which is the Julio-Claudian dynasty, but I'm really not well-versed. The point is that even for a ridiculously famous guy like him it's not on his page anywhere. (Even if librarians today would sort him as Caligula, official gens is important in any historical research; plus this is just one example because everyone knows who he is – the point is to have this information for people we don't readily know). Maybe modern examples are more helpful: the list of exceptions includes football mononyms like Ronaldo, which WP again obviously sorts by article title alone but bibliographically or on legal documents gets sorted by full legal name. And of course, if you're in a situation like that, you have to check the article page, which tells you it's a Portuguese name with the paternal name follows the maternal, but then you have to go to WP:SUR to see from there whether you sort by the paternal or maternal first. If you are familiar with Spanish naming, then any assumption you make will be wrong. It just seems like the logical place to display this useful information quickly for reference is easy to find on the person's page itself, and of course I am suggesting it be in the infobox, hidden or not as editors prefer. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

See this related discussion that mentions the possibility of a surname infobox parameter. It notes that there are over 150 bio infoboxes, and not all bios have infoboxes. A more general solution my be preferable. Some ideas were mentioned there. MB 17:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

"Subbox" parameter as a module?

Both "infobox YouTube personality" and "infobox Twitch streamer" have a "subbox" parameter when they're a module, so I suggest a "subbox" parameter when "infobox person" is a module. I'm suggesting this because, on the article for Mel and Dorothy Tanner, Dorothy's infobox, which is contained inside of Mel's infobox, is poorly sized. If anyone has any other ideas, please let me know, thank you. L33tm4n (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't really follow what you are saying. But since these are two different people, just using two infoboxes is the normal way we do this. MB 23:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Deprecating net worth parameter

Just an FYI, I have been doing some cleanup on this template's maintenance categories and was looking to remove the nearly 2500 pages with the deprecated net worth parameter. It's been a year, so hopefully the information has been ported to the article text by now. But I will save a copy of the changes I've made to User:Vanisaac/AWB log if anyone wants to check my changes and add the deleted data to any articles. VanIsaac, MPLL ^cont_WpWS 20:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• Please note that this maintenance seems to be removing all members of the Category:Infobox person using certain parameters when dead tracking category as well. VanIsaac, MPLL ^cont_WpWS 00:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, it's been a year since consensus was reached. —Bagumba (talk) 06:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

•  Done. See User:Vanisaac/AWB log for (reverse) alphabetical list of all the edits. VanIsaac, MPLL ^cont_WpWS 04:12, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Signature alt

How to add signature alt to Template:Infobox person? "signature_alt" seem to be wrong parameter. Eurohunter (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Probably makes sense to just automatically supply an alt of 'signature'. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: It was used in Lewis Hamilton and Sebastian Vettel articles so it was added mistakenly or this parameter was somehow withdrawn. What we can do to make it work? Eurohunter (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@Vanisaac: Do you have idea how top add it? Eurohunter (talk) 13:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@Eurohunter: So I looked in the talk page of {{#invoke:InfoboxImage|function}} and found a discussion where they delinked the "alt" parameter as fallback for the "title" parameter back in January, and they specifically mentioned about the original programming "It was just done that way so that the hover over tooltip showed some information". Given that the hover over behavior is how the vast majority of people interact with alt text, and how we would be able to check for it, it sounds like we just need to add |title={{{signature alt|{{{signature_alt|}}}}}} into data72 to reinstate that behavior. And actually, I just tried it out in the sandbox and it worked. VanIsaac, MPLL ^cont_WpWS 18:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Strange bug with Infobox martial artist module

As seen in this revision of the Andrew Tate article, when changing {{Infobox martial artist}} to {{Infobox person}} and adding a module (no other changes), the infobox inexplicably displays a second image and caption below the primary image. The second image was previously used in place of the current one, but neither the file nor the caption are found in markup of that revision. The previous revision doesn't display the second image. What am I missing? Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 19:30, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

The template (martial artist) pulls images from Wikidata if there is one there and a local image is not specified. The template should be updated to not do that when embedded. A work-around is to include |image= with no value to suppress the WD image. MB 20:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

• So it looks like {{Infobox martial artist}} has a line in it:

| image       = {{#invoke:InfoboxImage|InfoboxImage|image={{{image|{{#invoke:Wikidata|claim|P18}}}}}|size={{{image_size|{{{imagesize|}}}}}}|sizedefault=frameless|upright=1|alt={{{alt|}}}|suppressplaceholder=yes}}

and you might notice that it automatically pulls a default image from wikidata if an image parameter isn't specified. That code should definitely be suppressed when embedding, although I don't know exactly how that works. VanIsaac, MPLL ^cont_WpWS 20:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! So I take it this is an issue a template editor would have to take up at {{Infobox martial artist}}. I'll open a thread there. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 20:42, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Shamsheer Vayalil's Wikipedia page

Hi, I want to discuss about one of the missing parameter i.e. parent(s) in Shamsheer Vayalil's wikipedia infobox. I don't have enough knowledge about editing infobox of wikipedia page that's why I'm here with my issue and I think that parameter should be added in infobox because it's a basic information and should be reflected in the infobox.Hope you'll look into this and make diserable changes. Thanks&regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4064:E84:570E:0:0:F24A:ED09 (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4064:E84:570E:0:0:F24A:ED09 (talk)

Hi, the best place to bring this up is Talk:Shamsheer Vayalil. However, the guidance for the infobox states Names of parents; include only if they are independently notable or particularly relevant. BTW, I moved your topic to the bottom, new topics are added at the end of talk pages. Schazjmd (talk) 00:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: did you take a look at the talk page? This IP is almost certainly a sock of a banned user. I'll document this request at that talk page. VanIsaac, MPLL ^cont_WpWS 00:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Spouse(s)

Per Hike395’s recent change to the Spouse(s) label, would it be reasonable to add a check for the list templates ({{unbulleted list}} and {{plainlist}}) and display Spouses/Spouse based on the existence (or non) of those? I’ve always disliked the parenthesis S in places it could be solved for. — HTGS (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

That's what {{Pluralize from text}} and Module:Detect singular are designed for. We discussed this back in January. My main issue back then was that the code cannot reliable detect plurals: it is only reliable for detecting singular. Strings are detected plural with a 92% precision.

By coincidence, I have code in the sandbox ready to go that uses Module:Detect singular to decide "Spouse" vs "Spouse(s)" (and similar) for labels. Should I make the code go live?

Pinging Sdkb who was quite involved in the development of Module:Detect singular. — hike395 (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping! Looking back at the January discussion, I think we should be good to deploy the singular detection, and that we can create a tracking category for uncertain plurals that folks could then go through with AWB to resolve. Once that's done, we'll be able to move to full deployment. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The tracking categories are already in place, see Template:Infobox_person#Tracking_categories. The only problem is that {{force plural}} won't actually force "Spouses" because right now Module:Detect singular only produces two output states, and it really needs three ("singular", "uncertain", "plural"). We could delay making the sandbox going live and I could work on that. Not sure how long it would take me. Or we could go live anyway? — hike395 (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Another piece of data: if we go live now, 75% of the articles (about 50K articles) with "Spouses(s)" will go to saying "Spouse". That seems good. — hike395 (talk) 01:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Later --- it was surprisingly easy to modify Module:Detect singular to emit a ternary decision of "singular", "likely plural", and "plural". I've modified {{Pluralize from text}} to add |likely=, to handle the "likely plural" case. What I've done is change the tracking in {{Infobox person}} to only track "likely plural". The cases that HTGS listed above would be considered definite plurals.

Using the new code, we can now automatically emit "Spouse", "Spouse(s)", and "Spouses". I'd like to wait a bit and see how many definite plurals there are. That might takes days (or weeks) for the WP server to refresh the category :(. — hike395 (talk) 02:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Amazing. I’m glad I didn’t write a full change request and let wiser heads prevail. — HTGS (talk) 03:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

No problem! Sdkb and I have been thinking about this on-and-off for years now. I'm glad that we're close to implementing this for {{Infobox person}}.

Sadly, the ternary decision-making code only reduces the number of "Thing(s)" labels by 10-20% (depending on the label). It helps some, but not a lot. There are still big AWB cleanup jobs that need to be done. I'll test the ternary "Thing"/"Thing(s)"/"Things" label logic next. — hike395 (talk) 04:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Everything tests fine -- I'm going to make the change go live now. If anyone sees any problems, please ping me here. — hike395 (talk) 05:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Short lists for "notable_works"

The documentation for "notable_works" and related parameters says that they "are intended to be (at most) short inline lists". Do any guidelines exist for a maximum number of items in such a list? As I write this message, I am looking at Kimberly Brooks, which has 10 items in "notable works". That list seems more than "short" to me, but I have not seen any documentation about a limit for the parameter. Eddie Blick (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

To me a maximum of five seems reasonable in order to avoid bloating the infobox, but I'm willing to defer to other editors on that. DonIago (talk) 13:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

See MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Personally, I would trim all ten, as none of it is really notable. Some of them are even direct-to-video. Edwardx (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

"_____ career" when embedding infobox

When embedding secondary infoboxes withing "infobox_person", it always add "_____ career" subheading, which is ok, but should have an option to be disabled. First because not everyone which uses fields from, let's say philosopher or scientist infoboxes, have traditional careers on those areas. Second because it creates a misleading separation in the infobox. To understand what I'm saying: Sir Fred Hoyle have three notable labels (Alma mater, Known for and Awards) that came before the automatic subheading "Scientific career", but those three labels are integral parts of his scientific career. Comrade Mmirg (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Death cause usage

I know most of the usage requirements have been long standing requirements and it is clear when to use it on this page, but it seems there's inconsistencies on enforcement of this rule. Can we look at someone as successful as let's say Whitney Houston and say her cause of death played a significant role in her notability? With musical legends like Michael Jackson or Elvis Presley an argument could be made that the death itself was notable but the cause didn't necessarily contribute to their notability. Not to mention as I've discovered in a couple of discussions over inclusion of the death cause parameter it is incredibly difficult to prove if the cause itself contributed to their notability, especially for lesser known people, like one of the ones I've had discussions about Luke Bell (musician). There are good examples of when it should be included like John Lennon, Tupac Shakur, Heath Ledger, but those were either homicides or drug overdoses and in the case of Lennon and 2Pac they have become top earning dead celebrities.

I guess the question I'm asking is should we loosen the requirements? WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE seems to support the inclusion of death cause if it's not just old age or a "routine illness". A cause of death for any reason other than old age (Elizabeth II) or a routine illness (Betty White) seems to be key information about a person, especially if the person died unusually young (like the previously mentioned, Luke Bell). I know me personally when I see someone died unusually young, I'm curious to want to know why. I'll quit rambling lol. Nothing will probably change but I feel like we should discuss this.--Rockchalk717 20:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Stepchildren

Should the count in the children parameter include stepchildren? I'd guess yes, but it very explicitly does not on Rand Miller (the text mentions the existence of 3 children and 2 step-children, but the infobox says 3). I suggest we mention this explicitly in the documentation table for parameters. Robryk (talk) 01:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Infobox

I added a jpg image to an info box I created but the image does not appear. Can someone supply a reason what I am doing wrong please. ```` Katie Millman (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

@Katie Millman. This page is for discussing changes to the template. You should ask this at the WP:TEAHOUSE, but no one will be able to help you unless you provide more infomation. What is the article? What is the image you are trying to add? MB 16:00, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you MB. nI have resolved my issue. Thank you.```` Katie Millman (talk) 16:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Parameters listed as having invalid names

In the Template Parameters:Infobox person report, the following parameters, among others, are identified as not having valid names:

• |label_name=
• |organisation=
• |office=

However, the infobox person template documentation says they are valid. I think the reason they are listed as not having valid names is because they are not included in the TemplateData section of Infobox person/doc.

Is there any reason we should not add those parameters to the template parameters table in that section? If not, I'd like to go ahead and add them to the corresponding entries for |works=, |organization=, and |title=, respectively. Note that the entry for |organization= already includes the plural form |organizations=, so in addition to adding |organisation=, I would also add its plural form, |organisations=. But if I'm thinking or looking at this incorrectly, let me know. Is there any reason I should not proceed with these changes? Thanks. – Archer1234 (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

When to use office-holder titles in the info box?

In a person's info box, I have seen office-holder titles for the following:

-Leader, minister, senior advisor, or governor within a government

-Spouse of a country leader or monarch

-Leader of a political party

-Leader of a military

-Chancellor, rector, or president of a university

-Head of a religious movement or organization

-Leaders of political unions between states

-Commissioner of a major sports league or organization

Is there anything else I missed or are these the only ones? Also, why do commissioners of sports leagues get office-holder titles when these leagues are private entities, but not leaders of nonprofits or businesses? Arlinosam (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Marriage template "ideal" for spouse parameter?

This change to the TemplateData section of {{Infobox person}} documentation for the |spouse= parameter changes the guidance that "{{Marriage}} may be used." to "ideally using {{Marriage}}". I do not recall seeing any discussion that the {{Marriage}} template is preferred for use in the |spouse= parameter; as an option, yes, but not characterizing it as "ideal". I seem to recall that there were some reservations about promoting the use here at {{Infobox person}} of the {{Marriage}} template, but I was not able to find any relevant discussion in the archives. One concern I have with characterizing it that way is that it might unleash editors to run around to pages to force its use since it is "ideal". Also, the guidance in the Parameters section of the documentation makes no mention of the use of {{Marriage}}, so the |spouse= write-up between the two sections appears not to be entirely consistent. — Archer1234 (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The template ensures consistent formatting (abbreviations, spacing, etc.) so I think it is preferred on that basis. Editors adding it is a good thing. MB 03:13, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that use of {{marriage}} is ideal. What are your reasons to avoid it? — HTGS (talk) 04:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Template bloat, inflexibility, errors (example), user confusion... Nikkimaria (talk) 04:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

You’re going to have to explain, because those sound like insufficient reasons to me. — HTGS (talk) 09:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Increasing the complexity of coding through nesting templates makes it more difficult, in some cases prohibitively, for less techy editors to use. {{marriage}} can be used correctly in only certain cases, producing errors in others (or encouraging workarounds that don't use the template as intended). As a result users experience problems expressing information. That's not to say the use should be prohibited - experienced users, in some defined cases, can make it work. But as the OP noted, characterizing it as "ideal" would encourage misguided mass application.

You have not provided any specific reason why this change would be beneficial, but I'll assume you agree with the only reason so far proposed: "the template ensures consistent formatting". This argument is (a) untrue - for example users chronically add breaks to the template, or do other things to work around its inflexibility which impact displayed format; (b) unconvincing, since most of the parameters are expressed in free-text and using a template for one will have limited impact on consistent presentation of the template as a whole, and (c) insufficient to overcome the problems noted. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Maintenance backlog of empty, unknown parameters processed

I decided to tackle a huge maintenance backlog, clearing out over 30k pages from Category:Pages using infobox person with unknown empty parameters. The vast majority of the bad parameters seemed to come about from merges into {{Infobox person}} with previous infobox parameters staying around, while another chunk were for deprecated parameters like weight =, religion =, ethnicity = etc. and were only detrimental to editors being confronted with blank parameters in the source code, which didn't display when given a value. A part of upkeep on that maintenance category that improved article quality for readers, however, is that several hundred pages hidden among the tens of thousands I processed had bad parameters like | alma mater Harvard = where it is obvious the value got placed on the wrong side of the equals sign. Continued oversight and cleanup of this maintenance category should now be a fairly simple task with a much greater impact on the end user of Wikipedia. VanIsaac, LLE ^cont_WpWS 20:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks for all that work. That will definitely make it simpler to address problems as they come up. – Archer1234 (talk) 20:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Since this category is empty, the is no need for it anymore. The maintenance tracking categories can be simplified now by tracking all errors in Category:Pages using infobox person with unknown parameters. Frietjes? MB 23:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with this suggestion, precisely because of the alma mater Harvard issue that empty parameter categories collect so efficiently. The distinction between an empty invalid parameter and a defined invalid parameter is useful. These kinds of maintenance categories are designed to be empty most of the time, and if you take a look at some of the container categories, you'll see that most of them are empty or have very few pages populating them. The entire point of their existence is so you can empty them out. VanIsaac, GHTV ^cont_WpWS 01:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. Now that it is empty, it can be combined with the other usually empty maintenance category and either kind of error fixed promptly. This is how we have handled similar situations in the past. MB 01:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, I am frankly concerned to hear that the other one is empty. I know that I came across many unsupported parameters that had an assigned value, so I didn't touch it. That indicates module:Check for unknown parameters may not be working correctly for this infobox. VanIsaac, GHTV ^cont_WpWS 02:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

How did you come across unsupported parameters with values? You mean you saw an error message during a "show preview"? Any idea what parameter? I did notice that you created some errors by changing |burial_place= to |resting place= which caused a conflict when the template already had |resting_place= (with the underscore) (eg. here and here). That happened maybe a half-dozen times a week or so while you were working. There were so few I just fixed them as they popped up. Is that perhaps what you saw? MB 04:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I specifically remember term_start= and term_end= because I accidentally copied a zealous match regex instead of a simple match - zealous match was for parameters that often had comment code - so I remember from just this weekend excluding a couple of those parameters that had values before I fixed my regex pattern. But it was quite common to see unknown parameters with data values when I was reviewing new saves. BTW, where did you find a report on duplicate parameters? Do you know if it catches redundant ones as well? And thank you so much for cleaning up any mess I might have accidentally left. VanIsaac, GHTV ^cont_WpWS 04:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I just added |term_start=9999 to an article and it was detected and listed in the unknown parameter cat. It was also listed in unknown empty parameters for some reason. The redundant parameters are listed in Category:Pages using infobox person with conflicting parameters. To see what it catches, you have to look at the template source for "clobbered parameters". I check and fix those usually daily. Plain old duplicates across all templates are caught elsewhere and there are other editors who fix those promptly. MB 05:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Wow, amazing work, everyone! I have consolidated the tracking categories and will speedy-deletion tag those that are no longer needed. I modified the primary unknown parameter check to continue to notice blank unsupported parameters, and I added a hidden comment to explain why that is being done. I have also removed now-redundant tracking related to |net worth=, which has been completely removed, and |1= and similar, which are covered by the primary unknown parameter check. Again, excellent work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Edit request 15 December 2022

Description of suggested change: Adding an optional parameter that shows the individual's pronoun(s).

There is some information in MOS:NEOPRONOUN that discusses how to use pronouns/neopronouns in the page about an individual but suggests putting those pronouns as a footnote in the article, which would be easily missed.

For example, maia arson crimew, it's pronouns are it/its and she/her, but you would only be aware of those pronouns by seeing a small blurb at the end of the post. So instead I'm suggesting we add a parameter that would make that information more readily available.

Therealteal (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@Therealteal. See the following previous discussions:

1. Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 36#RfC: Adding a "pronouns" parameter
2. Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 37#Request to add Pronoun parameters under Personal Information section
3. Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 37#Perfered Pronouns

— Archer1234 (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Closing edit request as  Not done pending consensus. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:18, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

New parameter vote

How do I cast a community vote on new parameters? I want the "occupation(s)” parameter renamed to "Main occupation(s)" and also want to add the "Other occupation(s)" parameter? I believe these parameters will be important as it’s important to know the main occupation/profession of a person throughout their career, having it easily readable in the Infobox will be extremely helpful to readers and quick glancers. Gujesta (commons) (talk) 05:12, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

• How do you establish which occupation is the "main" one? If an occupation is not significant, then it doesn't belong at all in the article. So this seems like it is trying to at best invite irrelevant information, and at worst unverifiable editorializing. All around seems like just a bad idea. VanIsaac, GHTV ^cont_WpWS 05:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
• I don't like the sound of this boss. ~ HAL333 06:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
• See this contributions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ChicagoWikiEditor. Many of this user's edits contain the edit summary "WP:ROLEBIO". Gujesta (commons) (talk) 07:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
• @VanIsaac. See the following previous discussions and the one I added above:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alec_Baldwin#Alec_Baldwin_comedian_and_political_activist_(removal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:R-Truth#Rapper/Actor_not_defining_of_his_career https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Damian_Lillard#Rapper — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gujesta (commons) (talk • contribs) 07:31, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

works

I read: | notable_works = produces label "Notable work"; may be overridden by |credits=, which produces label "Notable credit(s)"; or by |works=, which produces label "Works"; or by |label_name=, which produces label "Label(s)"

I understand if I use "works" for a parameter, I'll get label "Works", but instead, I get nothing. I'd like to use works for a parameter and get label Works. That would be Christmas. It's because of Beethoven. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:59, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Is this edit on September 8, 2022 by @Hike395: the one that removed the documented behavior that using |works= produces the label Works? — Archer1234 (talk) 15:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt
Works	Precious

That edit should not have changed the behavior: it was to make the labels correctly plural.

@Gerda Arendt: I can't seem to reproduce the bug (see right). What were you attempting to do? Do you have a sandbox example? — hike395 (talk) 16:01, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I see the problem. It isn't here or with my edits, but in {{Infobox classical composer}}, which does not pass |works= along to {{Infobox person}}.

One possibility is to simply patch {{Infobox classical composer}} by passing |works= through. That is easy to do. A better thing is to perhaps use Module:Template wrapper. I'll implement the simple fix first, and then can get feedback on the template wrapping. — hike395 (talk) 16:19, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Looks like the documentation for {{Infobox classical composer}} wants all parameters to be passed through, so I'll work on the template wrapping right now. — hike395 (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done @Gerda Arendt: |works= should be functional in Beethoven for you now. — hike395 (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@Hike395, Category:Pages using infobox person with unknown parameters now has instances with |genre= from composer IBs. Related? MB 17:35, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

More than |genre=, those are incorrect/unsupported parameters to {{Infobox classical composer}} that were never tracked. I'll go through and fix them. Glad we are catching them now. — hike395 (talk) 17:49, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed (and MB did some cleanup also) — hike395 (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Why are some articles magically given more rights to features?

Article in Question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Stone
This article also uses the infobox person template, so how is it able to list the individuals military career? For example, the infobox_person isn't meant to have this line that is present in the article's source to work:
| years_active = 1971–present
When I attempt to do the same thing for another article with the same infobox person template it tells me an error. PreserveOurHistory (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

That article uses {{Infobox person}} with {{Infobox military person}} as a module. Modules allow one to embed another type of infobox within the primary infobox. — Archer1234 (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Death place detail

Hello, I have a dispute on Talk:Dumitru Petrescu about how detailed the death_place parameter should be. I try to prove that Czechoslovakia is standard and consistent approach, instead of "Czech Socialist Republic, Socialist Czechoslovakia" in this specific page. Can you please contribute an opinion? FromCzech (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Do secondary schools belong in "education"?

I interpret the documentation for this template to mean that an article's infobox can contain either "education" or "alma mater" but not both and that both parameters should exclude secondary schools. In some articles, such as Justine Bateman, "education" is used to list secondary schools, which the template's documentation specifies are not to be included in "alma mater". Is that a valid use of "education"? Eddie Blick (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

No it is not. I remove secondary schools when I find them. That would generally not be a "key fact" belonging in the infobox. MB 02:54, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• As a general rule, I would say that is not appropriate. However, where a person attended a specialty secondary school that would be notable for their notability - my mind falls to Eton as an example of a possible exception, but things like well-known arts schools could break it as well. But if it's just a high school they happened to attend, and they didn't go on to university, the high school wouldn't be some sort of default fallback. VanIsaac, GHTV ^cont_WpWS 03:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

  I would also say that for sportspersons of certain codes their high school may be a pertinent detail when it was a significant part of their career. But yes, in general it should be rare. — HTGS (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

  Those generally do not use this template, but a specific one for their sport. Some of those have a |High school=. MB 00:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

  Even in the case of a school like Eton, I think there's very, very few cases where it would meet WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Graham (talk) 06:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks to everyone who replied. I appreciate your feedback. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Parents parameter

There seems to be a glitch I recently noticed. The “parents” parameter produces the word “parent” in the box. This needs to be corrected to parents or parent(s). Tinton5 (talk) 07:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Postnominal parameter doesn't link

I would expect behavior for the Post-nominals parameter similar to that of Template:post-nominals. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 22:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that there are all kinds of issues requiring a specialized country parameter to properly format the post-nominals and otherwise just defaulting to Canadian awards for an infobox in use on pages for people from anywhere. On the other hand, having the post-nominals parameter display the text as entered by the editor means that a user can format and link the text however they want, for example using a formatting template like {{post-nominals}} to automatically link, or allowing an editor to custom link to post-nominals for situations like when their post-nominal is not supported by the template, e.g. like my GHTV Wikipedia service award. VanIsaac, GHTV ^cont_WpWS 22:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Request to introduce the signature_type parameter

I added the |signature_type= parameter to this template, it could be able to add alternative text in place of Signature (for example: Seal). This parameter is borrowed from {{Infobox royalty}}. -- Great Brightstar (talk) 14:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I think you left out that you added this to the sandbox. It would be helpful if you add to the testcases an example using that parameter.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 14:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I added it. Please take a look. --

Great Brightstar (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

 Completed. Noted that Liam Kelley's test case uses Infobox scientist and therefore didn't change. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 11:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Add Victim to the infobox

This template comes handy when handling people wit very wide activties. I wonder if you can "victims" to the infobox options to make it easier to embed with other infoboxes. I have this problem now when I want to add number of victims of King Von with 1 to 3 murders FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

There is already an {{infobox criminal}} which includes this parameter. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

image change

how can i change the image of profile Yesi.mrigid (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Changing the displayed infobox image is done by editing the "image" field in the copy of the template included in the subject's article, not here. Meters (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

H.A. Willis

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Editors' comments are sought at Talk:H._A._Willis#Children, one deceased regarding whether the infobox should note that one child has died. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Place of birth

A fellow editor insists (through multiple reverts, and one discussion) that it is unacceptable to indicate in the infobox that a person's place of birth is "Brooklyn, New York."

And that per the instructions of this template it is mandatory that the person be listed in the infobox as only as having been born in the (more general) "New York City, New York."

Thoughts? 2603:7000:2101:AA00:A97C:8EE:3B5A:B66E (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

There's an RfC on this very topic right above your post. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@2603:7000:2101:AA00:A97C:8EE:3B5A:B66E: See above RfC, sparked by the linked discussion at User talk:Nikkimaria#David Bowie. Note at the latter that 16 biographical articles were linked as having infoboxes using "Born... [borough], New York City, US", and another 4 using "Born... Brixton, London, England". – .Raven  ^.talk 01:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah -- great. Thanks. Timely. --2603:7000:2101:AA00:F006:978E:29A3:A4B4 (talk) 04:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Question of birth/death locations in infobox

Please see discussion at Talk:Barry Humphries#Infobox locations of birth and death have been changed to very small communities. Thank you. It is somewhat similar to the RFC above, except for the fact these are tiny communities of 10,000 in globally well-known cities. Softlavender (talk) 07:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Except one of those tiny communities was the City of Kew at the time of the subject's birth. – .Raven  .talk 23:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

It should be termed as it was at the time it happened, not as it is today. The current situation can be put in parentheses. See [3]. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Should in-laws be listed as relatives?

Per this edit, does the Relatives field encompass in-laws? The documentation doesn't clearly indicate one way or another, that I saw. Pinging Turo24 (talk · contribs) as the editor who made the addition. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 03:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I would say they should not be included. A) It contributes infobox bloat B) There are maintenance problems. When a couple divorces the in-laws are no longer relatives so who is going to come back and remove the names. If consensus is to allow it I would say that it only applies to legally married couples. The are numerous other kinds relationships that expand a family but do not create in-laws. MarnetteD|Talk 04:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Marnette. I've removed it for now. I admit that may be preemptive, but I'm about to go out of town for a few days. If a consensus emerges in favor of including in-laws, any editor is welcome to revert me. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your post, Doniago. I have wondered that same thing when I have seen in-laws listed as relatives in an infobox. I think they should not be included for the same reasons that MarnetteD expressed in her reply. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

The term you're looking for is "related by marriage". (That's a Google search link, for usage examples.) – .Raven  ^.talk 23:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

relative: 1. Someone in the same family; someone connected by blood, marriage, or adoption. [underline added]

Does that suffice? – .Raven  ^.talk 23:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I would say it's a big it depends. If their in-law is someone quite notable (maybe even the person's notability stems from being associated with that person), then sure - e.g. Edward F. Cox. If they have their parents, grandparents, children and uncles already in the infobox, then probably not. ITBF (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

It can still be covered in prose, whether or not it's in the infobox. I'd be hesitant to open the way for arguments as to whether someone is "notable enough". DonIago (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

If Jared Kushner is not a relative of his father-in-law Donald Trump, then it wasn't, strictly speaking, nepotism for the latter to employ the former at the White House, was it? – .Raven  ^.talk 23:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd say no, even if the in-law is a royal or president. It's generally just a piece of trivia. This can be noted in prose, including the lead if the in-law is of high importance or significant to the subject's life or career. Lapadite (talk) 07:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

How narrowly to read "city" of birth/death?

How narrowly to read 'city' of birth/death?

The infoboxes of Pearl Mackie, Peter Hawkins, Danny Kirwan, and Tony Sewell, Baron Sewell of Sanderstead read "Born... Brixton, London, England". For a short while, so did the infobox for David Bowie; then "Brixton" was removed from that last infobox, on the grounds that only a "city" should be named, and Brixton is not a city (though it has a larger population than 17 of the USA's state capitals, and in-real-life form fields marked "city" are routinely filled in with names of other place-types – town, village, etc. – where appropriate). How narrowly should that word "city" be read? This has been discussed by @Bretonbanquet and Nikkimaria: and me, at User talk:Nikkimaria#David Bowie. Should template documentation be changed? Or some other clarification be sought? How say you all? – .Raven  ^.talk 01:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Point of clarification: the "until recently" above was for less than twelve hours, two months ago; "London" is the stable version. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for that detail. It hadn't been mentioned at your talkpage. – .Raven  ^.talk 01:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

No problem, but also: if you want this to be an actual RfC, you will need to reword your statement. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

And now? – .Raven  ^.talk 03:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

You really want it to be like a sentence. How about just "How narrowly should "city" be read in the documentation for birthplace/deathplace"? Or propose a specific change if you have one. And then the rest of your explanation can go below your signature in a new comment. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

> "How about just 'How narrowly should "city" be read in the documentation for birthplace/deathplace'?" – That's the section title!
> "And then the rest of your explanation can go below..." – That's the paragraph I put below the title! – .Raven  ^.talk 03:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

What gets listed is everything from the RfC tag up to and including your first timestamp, as per the explanation at WP:RFCBRIEF. So if the section title is what you want to use, that needs to be repeated in that span. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

So I've moved the section title below the RFC tag. – .Raven  ^.talk 04:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

... And then had to recreate the RFC tag because that got bot-deleted. So this time I'm following Nikkimaria's advice exactly. – .Raven  ^.talk 23:26, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

The template documentation should be changed, it's a comparatively recently phenomenon for most people to born in cities at all. Also, it should be made clearer that administrative region is optional, as many smaller countries don't have functional lower-level subdivisions. Maybe: "settlement, administrative region (where applicable), country? ITBF (talk) 03:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure! Or "city/town/village/etc.", since "settlement" can also mean a much larger area. Something that indicates smallest applicable jurisdictional placename; e.g. in the US that might be county/parish, for someone outside a municipality. John McCain's birthplace, Coco Solo, was a US Navy submarine base and naval air station, not a civil jurisdiction at all. – .Raven  ^.talk 03:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree this should be broader, since lots of people are not born/die in cities, and in some cases a "city" in one sense (e.g. Greater London) is too wide an area to be as meaningful as we'd like.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Compared to the U.S. the UK has a somewhat different definition of "city". Several counties are highly populous, yet completely devoid of cities, such as Berkshire and Surrey; other counties are mainly rural yet have a fair sprinkling of cities - Cambridgeshire has a population density one-third of either Berkshire or Surrey, but has three cities: Cambridge, Ely and Peterborough. For Greater London, the relevant London borough may be given, and some of those are also cities like the City of London and City of Westminster. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

RE historical subjects, I think the template instructions already capture that: For historical subjects, use the place name most appropriate for the context and our readership. What the place may correspond to on a modern map is a matter for an article's main text. voorts (talk/contributions) 11:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• (A bot commanded me to come here) Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the less information, the better (see also WP:DETAIL). Thus, keep City as City and do not expand the template instructions to include subdivisions of cities. As an example of how this would lead to TMI, Brixton had a population of ~79k per the 2011 census. Similarly, the Lower East Side of Manhattan had a pouplation of ~73k in the 2010 census. I don't think most non-UK readers would really need to know that someone was specifically born in Brixton as opposed to London, just as most non-NYC readers would not need to know someone was born in the LES as opposed to NYC. The infobox should remain broad, and more details can be in the body of the article if they're relevant and supported by reliable sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 11:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  > "... most non-NYC readers would not need to know someone was born in the L[ower]E[ast]S[ide] as opposed to NYC." – In fact, Donald Trump's infobox, by telling us he was born in Queens, NYC, gives us very helpful information. Clicking on that borough link and reading through Queens#Ethnic groups – keeping in mind the ethnic hatreds Trump has expressed and acted upon throughout his career – shows conditions that must have infuriated him (and his KKK-member father before him) every day: a shrinking white share (now a minority) of the population, while other ethnic groups grow and prosper ("In Queens, the Black and African American population earns more than non-Hispanic whites on average"). Despite his family's wealth, he's acted like a man with feelings of inferiority (envy of those still richer, prioritizing resentment and revenge, boasting and displaying glitz like gold-plated accessories, even while systematically stiffing contractors) – and the other boroughs' stereotype of Queens as "lower-class" must surely have been a factor in developing those feelings. Had he been born and grown up in the Upper West Side of Manhattan (where I spent some childhood years), he might have developed differently, even with the same paternal influence. But of course we can never know that. – .Raven  ^.talk 16:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  Using your example of Trump, if an RS establishes that being more specific than NYC is important, then I think that IAR would allow someone to list Queens instead of NYC. Thus, I don't see a compelling reason to change the template documentation. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  Likewise see the above UK-related comments from SMcCandlish ("in some cases a 'city' in one sense (e.g. Greater London) is too wide an area to be as meaningful as we'd like") and Redrose64 ("For Greater London, the relevant London borough may be given, and some of those are also cities like the City of London and City of Westminster."). – .Raven  ^.talk 01:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  For a variety of reasons (including the fact that some boroughs are recent inventions), people - including sources - don't necessarily refer to boroughs when talking about London areas. People are much more likely to refer to someone as living in/ coming from Harlesden, Willesden, Cricklewood or Wembley (all of which were historic towns, now swallowed by Greater London) than to 'Brent' - which is the borough in which they all sit, but which is largely unknown outside NW London itself. Pincrete (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  That can be achieved with a link to Queens in the article text. No need to be that detailed in the infobox. Marbe166 (talk) 07:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

• (A bot commanded me to come here) I think that for the infobox, city is fine. The article can then expand on a more specific location. Infobox is more at a glance summary than the end-all be-all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SomeoneDreaming (talk • contribs) 23:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• Broaden. As the discussion I am part of at the Pitt talkpage here shows, without broadening it from "city" to encompass for example Brooklyn, editors will absolutely insist that "Brooklyn" not be reflected as a place of birth in the infobox. We have to consider the purpose here. Helping the reader. If Brooklyn were an independent city, it would be the third most-populous in the U.S. after the rest of New York City and Los Angeles, and ahead of Chicago. (Meanwhile, Jemez Springs, New Mexico, population 250 would be reflected in an infobox (rather than the county it sits in), but not Brooklyn, population 2.7 million.)2603:7000:2101:AA00:F006:978E:29A3:A4B4 (talk) 04:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
• Keep definition. Just because a bourough is big doesn't entail it to be equated to other cities/towns/villages, from an administrative point of view. Some cities are big, some are small. If you want to be detailed on where in the city a person is born, that can be done in the article text, but the infoboxes should be consistent. --Marbe166 (talk) 07:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  The problem with "keep definition" (of the word "city") is that the word appears without definition in the template documentation, leaving us to either discuss its meaning – and perhaps reach consensus – or each apply our own, broad or narrow, reading of it... and end up with inconsistent or conflicting edits. As mentioned up top, in real life form fields marked "city" are routinely filled in with names of other place-types – town, village, etc. – where appropriate.

  Also, cities are typically within counties. New York City boroughs fill separate counties: Staten Island = Richmond County, Manhattan = New York County, the Bronx = Bronx County, Brooklyn = Kings County, Queens = Queens County. If we refer to them all by the single city name (NYC), that won't indicate the county (next administrative level up), so we must per documentation specify that separately: New York City, Kings County, NY; or New York City, Bronx County, NY; etc. Saying Brooklyn, NY, or the Bronx, NY, is more concise, while giving the same "full identification". – .Raven  ^.talk 10:24, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

• Broaden It makes no sense that enormous boroughs are considered less important than tiny villages. We have a situation where a village like Brixton Deverill (pop.83) is vital enough to be named in the infobox, yet Brixton (pop. 78,000) is not. How can that be justified in any logical way? Two towns so close together that they are practically joined, like Tonbridge and Royal Tunbridge Wells, are considered separate; while Chipping Barnet and Sanderstead, 57 miles apart with millions of people living between them, are to be called "London". London also contains other cities, such as the City of Westminster and the City of London, yet they are not allowed to be mentioned. It defies logic in every sense. I understand that infoboxes are intended to be general, but why is it so selective? If the name of a borough consists of one or two words, I hardly think it's going to defile the infobox with unnecessary clutter, yet would cast a hell of a lot of light on just where we're talking about. Saying "London" is so vague as to almost be not worth mentioning. Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd also remind people that, as far as I can see, it doesn't actually say "no boroughs" in the template advice. This does lead to arguments. If boroughs are to be disallowed then at least add wording to explain why a village of a dozen people gets named, while massive boroughs do not. Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

• Broaden. There is no sufficient reason to be pedantic about only including the city. Some people aren't born in cities, and those that do sometimes are born in extremely large cities, where smaller subdivisions are necessary to distinguish. SWinxy (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
• Broaden. There is absolutely no problem with including a specific place of birth/death. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• Broaden.There is no sufficient reason to be pedantic about only including the city. Some people aren't born in cities, and those that do sometimes are born in extremely large cities per SWinxy and others. Also, sorry to complicate matters further, but two UK matters, firstly, Greater London, which most people mean when they refer to 'London', isn't (legally) a city although anomalously it contains two cities, one of which has a tiny resident population (The City - the financial district). Secondly UK 'boroughs' are not how London areas are commonly referred to, for various reasons. Brixton isn't a borough, nor are Notting Hill or Notting Hill Gate. Some London boroughs are recent inventions, that are little used outside local govt (eg Brent). The commonly used name for the district is much more useful than the borough or county in a UK context. Boroughs may be helpful in a NY context, I don't know. Pincrete (talk) 11:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• Proposal: Keep the main text as is, but add a note that says something like this: If reliable sources describe a person's place of birth as a borough or neighborhood of a larger city or municipal area, then the place of birth may reflect that. (I'm open to workshopping this language). Many editors have suggested that sometimes boroughs / neighborhoods are necessary for larger cities. But, we should go by what RSes say. I'm concerned about people including neighborhoods / areas of cities that wouldn't be relevant to a broad audience. For example, suppose we know that person A was born at X hospital, which is in Y neighborhood of Z city. RSes only describe person A as being born in Z, But not in Y. The "place of birth" in that case should be Z, not Y. I think this compromise balances the need to follow V while allowing for specificity in necessary cases. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)—see modified proposal below. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  In some cases RSs won't mention neighborhood because it really doesn't matter so much; in that case neither should we. On the other hand, for instance, Harlem is a neighborhood within the borough of Manhattan, and that might very well both matter and (therefore) be mentioned by many RSs; in that case so should we, rather than either borough or city. Being socially, culturally, or politically involved with that area's affairs as an adult – or reflecting it in their art e.g. performances – would certainly be good reason to name it as birthplace. So... Support as far as you've gone, but I think strong ties between exact birthplace and career would add WP:RELEVANCE. – .Raven  .talk 02:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I broadly agree with the proposal. If the neighbourhood in question and its relevance to the subject cannot be proven or verified by reliable sources, then it doesn't belong. If someone is born at a particular hospital and then moved away, and reliable sources barely mention that area, then it's hard to justify its inclusion in the infobox. But taking the example of David Bowie, he was born in Brixton, lived there during his early years and went to school there, and there's now a memorial to him there. That constitutes sufficient ties to a neighbourhood in London which has a unique identity anyway. It's all verifiable by reliable sources so should belong in the infobox. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:44, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

• Broadly agree w/the proposal. As to the Harlem example above, I think it's fine to also mention Manhattan or New York City, as not everyone would have that knowledge. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:FC4A:5AA2:216:CB58 (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  Would wikilinking Harlem (or whatever) not address that concern? – .Raven  .talk 23:15, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

• I think one's perspective depends on if you're local to the area or not. For example, there's a lot of neighborhoods in List of districts and neighborhoods in Los Angeles, that locals would call a city, as it's what's listed on the postal address. But then Wikipedia gets quirky by calling everything on the Las Vegas Strip, which most everyone in everyday life refer to as part of "Las Vegas", as instead being in the unincorporated town of Paradise, Nevada. I'm not sure what standard we use on WP for locations, other than non-locals relying on whether the WP page calls that place a "city" or not.—Bagumba (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  Ironically, Las Vegas Strip mentions: "the Supreme Court of Nevada struck down a 1975 Nevada state law that would have folded the Strip and the rest of the urban areas of Clark County into the City of Las Vegas." – But it seems Wikipedia trumps SCOTUS. – .Raven  .talk 23:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

• Modified Proposal to avoid ambiguity and provide examples: If reliable sources describe a person's place of birth as a borough or neighborhood of a larger city or municipal area, then the place of birth may reflect thattake the form [[Neighborhood]], [[City]], [[Country]] (e.g. Harlem, New York City, United States or Brixton, London, United Kingdom). voorts (talk/contributions) 23:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support, per above discussion. – .Raven  .talk 23:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per MOS:GEOLINK and consecutive links. —Bagumba (talk) 03:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

    Ah, I see. @Voorts: in your modified proposal, could you remove the wikilinks from all but the first locations named (Harlem and Brixton), leaving the larger areas unlinked? Thanks! – .Raven  .talk 04:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• Modified Proposal No. 2 to address MOS:GEOLINK issue: If reliable sources describe a person's place of birth as a borough or neighborhood of a larger city or municipal area, then the place of birth may take the form [[Neighborhood]], City, Country (e.g. Harlem, New York City, United States or Brixton, London, United Kingdom). voorts (talk/contributions) 23:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  Courtesy pings to @.Raven and @Bagumba. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  • Support, per above discussion. – .Raven  .talk 22:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment Resolves my previous MOS:GEOLINK concern. I've got no current opinion otherwise.—Bagumba (talk) 10:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support, per above discussion. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:612E:2FC6:2E46:C46A (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support, per the above discussion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reason raised by Voorts above: this wording doesn't account for where a location "matters" to the person, but does open up the possibility of naming a tiny neighbourhood based on where a hospital is. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

    We already could be naming a major city based on where the birth hospital (or birth back seat of a car or bus, e.g. "going down Highway 41") is, when that person's family home (and the entire rest of their life) may be rural – or even in another state or nation. There's never been any guarantee that birthplace will  matter to the individual. But sometimes it does, so we still report it if we can. – .Raven  .talk 01:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

    We should not be doing something just because we can. While I agree we already could be including things that don't matter, that isn't a good reason to do that more. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

    So should we not report birthplace at all, unless we can reliably source that this detail "matters" to the person ? – .Raven  .talk 04:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

    Agree w/Raven's general stance here.2603:7000:2101:AA00:9C80:DDC1:DD09:88A0 (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

    What is often forgotten is that these templates are meant to be limited to key facts; if in a particular case something doesn't meet that bar, it should be left out not included just because it is known. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

    That was not my argument. My argument was that we should go by what reliable sources say. The example I gave was somebody finds out a person was born in X hospital, say by primary source research (e.g., a birth certificate). It's highly unlikely that for a notable person, RSes would list an insignificant neighborhood, and if they did, then we should go by the RSes. The rule has never been "what matters" to a person; otherwise, Wikipedia wouldn't have strict COI rules RE BLPs. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

    Once this discussion ends, we will be left with the wording of the documentation, regardless of what the intention behind it might have been. And the wording proposed would certainly allow the example mentioned, even if that's not what you meant to do. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

    What example are you referring to? voorts (talk/contributions) 00:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

    "suppose we know that person A was born at X hospital". Nikkimaria (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

    Here's the full context: For example, suppose we know that person A was born at X hospital, which is in Y neighborhood of Z city. RSes only describe person A as being born in Z, But not in Y. The "place of birth" in that case should be Z, not Y (emphasis added). As I noted, even if we know person A was born in Y (e.g., from original research or person A saying that off-handed in a podcast interview), if that is not reflected in RSes, we should not say that person A was born in Y neighborhood. If RSes discuss the neighborhood, then it is worthy of inclusion in the infobox per the proposal, and I'm not sure why there would be a problem. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

    Well, to start with, consider the context you've just provided: the person has stated in a reliable source that they were born in Y. That meets the wording of the proposal, but not your intended exclusion of "wouldn't be relevant to a broad audience". Nothing in the proposal requires that sources discuss the significance/relevance of a location. It also doesn't address issues of weighting: again, in your example there is a source mentioning Y, even if every other source says Z. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

    Nothing in the proposal says that policies like WP:DUE wouldn't apply. It also uses reliable sources, plural, not "a reliable source". voorts (talk/contributions) 01:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

    In the majority of cases using neighbourhood wouldn't meet policies like DUE, but the wording of the proposal doesn't reflect that reality. (And changing the ratio from one:hundreds to two:hundreds doesn't fix it). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

    Do we make that decision ourselves, or follow the RSs' majority usage? – .Raven  .talk 03:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

    As always, follow the RSs. Avoiding individual editor leanings. BTW - time to close this and codify it and move in yet? Or wait a couple of days more? --2603:7000:2101:AA00:513A:C5BB:EADC:C6DD (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

    Generally RfCs should run for 30 days and comments are still trickling in. Additionally, many editors who commented above haven't commented on my proposal. I'd give it some more time. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

    I'm agreeing with the borough, not the neighborhood. Queens and Brooklyn have many neighborhoods ... I think the borough covers it. I actually know someone (non-member) who changed a Wikipedia player page, not quite knowing if it was Bed-Stuy or Canarsie. Too much to reference a neighborhood. No finger pointing here, I just know that NYC is a handful. Bringingthewood (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

    I just ran across Mike Siani (American football) and after I removed NYC from the infobox, I put it back. No need to ruffle feathers. Many NFL players had it right to the point: Brooklyn, New York, U.S. -- Queens, New York, U.S. etc. When you look at the first line under Siani's career the only thing missing from his high school location is planet Earth. Actors and politicians who have only New York City, NY never made sense to me either. NYC covers all five boroughs, maybe someone really wants to know where he or she was born. Bringingthewood (talk) 04:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

    This current difference of opinion is what happens in the absence of us further clarifying the language. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:A491:803D:ABC:2E20 (talk) 19:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)