Template talk:Infobox criminal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Criminal Biography (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis template is part of WikiProject Criminal Biography, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed library of criminal-related biographical articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Biography (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Partners[edit]

I have a question about the 'partners' parameter. It is said that this parameter should list only 'other prominent criminal partners of this criminal'. If the partner is themselves a prominent criminal, but they didn't engage in criminal activity together, should they be listed? I'm referring to a situation where two prominent criminals meet in prison and have a prison "gay for the stay" relationship, but were never partners in crime together on the outside. Should such a partner be listed under this parameter? Dash77 (talk) 07:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The partners parameter is, as of 2016, a downstream conflict from Template:Infobox person. In 'person', the partners parameter is used to indicate domestic partnership or other non married-by-term relationships a person has. This parameter's name needs to be changed for at LEAST this reason anyway. I'm thinking something similar to (but perhaps not exactly) 'accomplices' or 'associates_in_crime' or something. Skybunny (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Sentence field[edit]

I see this in the source code but not an out-in-the-open instruction. Shouldn't this be listed as a synonym for conviction_penalty or something? Ranze (talk) 08:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

"Killings"?[edit]

Seriously? Are we an encyclopedia, or a scoreboard? Face-confused.svg 🖖ATS / Talk 02:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you want to propose an alternative? Maybe casualties?- MrX 02:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
"Casualties" is not bad; if it's as general as it appears, maybe "Crime(s)", "Incident(s)" or "Aftermath". It depends on what's the specific trigger for the section to show. 🖖ATS / Talk 03:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't see how "killings" is a problematic word to use. It is a descriptive word that is to the point when describing what a criminal has done, and providing information on exactly what was done by the criminal is essential information to provide when covering violent incidents. If you are opposed to the word based on the connotation it gives, may I remind you of the euphemism treadmill and how avoiding words that evoke emotional response only leads to more words being avoided in the future. Wikipedia even has this problem, where people write "passed away" instead of "died" due to the thought that it would be less direct, which is something an encyclopedia should avoid. --benlisquareTCE 03:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting euphemism—can't stand 'em, for the most part—I'm suggesting that an equally descriptive word would make its Wikipedia presence look less like a scoreboard ("How many killings did he get? 50? Awesome, brother!") and more like an encyclopedia. 🖖ATS / Talk 03:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Template cleanup performed[edit]

This infobox needed some serious cleanup help, and I hope I've provided that. Six infoboxes over the years have been merged into this one, many of whose aliases fell by the wayside, and in the meantime, Infobox person has had parameters added, aliased, or changed that weren't reflected here. Here's what I've done, as reflected in this changeset: [1]:

  • Any declared parameter has its braces declaration made, which is what allows it to properly display at all in Infobox criminal.
  • Where aliases exist for parameters declared in Infobox person, they have been added to this template, and 'person' is considered to be the overriding template that 'wins', since this one is derived from it. This means that 'Status', as it does for Person, means 'disappeared_status', NOT 'criminal_status'. There's no perfect way to resolve this conflict (since the parent uses 'status' for purpose A, and child templates of this one used it for purpose B). IMHO it's better to slowly have edits align themselves with the parent template (person). It does, in any case, basically display correctly for people who have used it in this way. You see: 'Status: incarcerated', etc. until these are fixed over time.
  • Where aliases DID exist for merged templates, I have added them wherever it was possible to do so and not conflict with Infobox person. Thus, for example, parameters such as 'image_alt' aliases to 'alt', and 'penalty' and 'sentence' alias to 'criminal_penalty'. This should have been done with the child templates were merged to this one but it appears it never happened.
  • I aligned all of the above to known parameters to the category Category:Pages using infobox criminal with unknown parameters, and there are only about 150 of these that need manual intervention as of this note. There's probably not much choice but to go in and deal with them case by case. (There were as many as 350 when I started this exercise).
  • Barebones TemplateData was added to the docs page. There aren't descriptions, but they do at least have the correct top level parameters and their matched up aliases.

TO DO:

Skybunny (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

How to wikilink a trial article from template[edit]

I do not see a spot for linking the trial article from the template. Am I missing something? Certain criminals have both bio articles and an article on the trial they were known for. What is the best way to handle this? Any help would be appreciated. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

New field, "former residence" (for incarcerated persons)[edit]

Can "former residence" be added, please? It would be good to use for incarcerated persons. This is because state governments often classify residences of prisoners from their last location as free men/women. @Greggens: WhisperToMe (talk) 22:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me @Greggens: WhisperToMe, posting 3-5 reasons for the the item "former residence" would help move this forward.Vwanweb (talk) 02:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
@Vwanweb: Some reasons why the item should be used, especially with people with natural life sentences and/or death sentences:
  • Using the wording clarifies that the person no longer lives in the place: for people with natural life sentences and/or death sentences, it's clear that he/she won't be getting out of prison
  • The criminal may identify with his/her hometown; while one who is in prison will remain there forever, he/she may identify with his or her former hometown. I've read that prisoners sometimes have cliques based on their places of origin.
  • For death row inmates, newspapers from their places of origin and/or counties of conviction have access to the executions. For example the State of Texas lists newspapers covering particular executions: http://tdcj.state.tx.us/death_row/dr_media_witness_list.html
WhisperToMe (talk) 06:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello WhisperToMe, your reasons for the addition make sense to me. Another benefit for this, is that it could summarize if a criminal was on the run prior to his/her incarceration.Vwanweb (talk) 07:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

New field, Rank[edit]

Proposing to add a parameter for the "Rank" as many criminals fall under "war criminals" or otherwise hold official ranks. Feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit request: "Killings" is an Heading title[edit]

When certain parameters are populated, a Heading15 entitled "killings" is created in the template, even though the subsection contains injuries, notes, killings, and much more. e.g. - Rancho Tehama Reserve shootings#Perpetrator. Please remove the "killings" heading, or make the heading more generic to cover any possible data within that subsection. The heading displays at the bottom of the template when certain parameters are populated. Having fun! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: @Checkingfax: This template has only been semi protected. Am I missing anything?  —&nbsp Ammarpad (talk) 03:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Ammarpad. No you are not. LOL. I guess I could say: what is a good name for the heading? Or, should we eliminate it? I also did assume at first that it was fully protected. LOL. LOL. Ping me back. Having fun! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 04:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
@Checkingfax: So I've thought of "Details" and just realized you've done the same. That's fine  — Ammarpad (talk) 05:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Is there a way to add Trial name to infobox?[edit]

For the life of me, I could not figure out how to add the link the the trian into the infobox. (Many criminals have notable trials, so I was looking for a way to include the trial link). Could anyone let me know? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

K.e.coffman, I suppose one could add it as part of |conviction=, but I would support having an additional field for the trial phase. Frietjes (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
@Frietjes: I'm not quite familiar with editing infobox templates. Is this something you may be able to do? If not, no worries, I'll try to figure it out. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 May 2018[edit]

Note: Please do a view-source to see that there is a non-breaking space needed between "Span" and "of". Thank you.

  • Change:
| label18    = {{longitem|Span of killings}}
  • To:
| label18    = {{longitem|Span of crimes}}

Reasoning for this edit: criminals do much more than kill during their crime span (robbery, rape, burglary, arson, etc.). Ping me back! Having fun! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 04:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done. There's already a non-breaking space between "Span" and "of". Cabayi (talk) 06:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC on "trial" parameter[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Based on the discussion, three new parameters |trial=, |trial_start=, and |trial_end= have been added to the template. The "trial" field should only be used if it is bluelinked - this is actually hardcoded into the template (if this bold decision was undesirable please let me know). Primefac (talk) 14:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


Please add "trial" parameter to the template as some criminals have notable trials associated with them. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Should the "trial" parameter be added to the template?

My rationale is based on the fact that some criminals have notable trials associated with them. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

  • Support This could apply to cases like the Mafia Commission Trial. While many famous trials don't apply to strict "criminals" per se, this addition would still be useful. --Elephanthunter (talk) 21:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per nom (Summoned by bot) Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Inquiry: What goes in this field, exactly? A Wikilink if there is a notable trial or trials associated with the individual in question? Snow let's rap 03:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, in that case, I can support the proposal in principle, but I'm not sure you're gonna get much use out of the parameter with regard to warcriminals; other than with regard to the Nuremberg trials and Nazis in general, perpetrators of mass atrocity crimes tend to be so polarizing that using Infobox criminal is going to be a no-go for them; no matter how vicious and horrific their acts, someone is always willing to go to the BLP mat to keep "prejudicial" content (that is, anything that labels them a criminal, even if they were convicted of atrocity crimes) out of the article, particularly if it would otherwise be prominently placed early in the article. I suspect that this parameter will instead be used mostly for more conventional criminals, where they have a notable trial associated with them which is the subject of it's own article (Trial of O.J. Simpson springs to mind). Which is fine; I don't see any harm in that. But I think in that case someone should come up with useful precatory hidden text that explains that this parameter is not to be used to introduce minutia for trials which are themselves not notable enough for their article, or else I'd guess we're gonna see a fair bit of people doing WP:OR about trials and dropping it into that field. Snow let's rap 18:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, it makes sense to add the language of <!-- Do not include unless notable (blue-linked). --> to the template's explanatory notes; compare to the parameter of "spouse". K.e.coffman (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Applodion (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support nom's proposal to have a parameter where we link to the trials. However, I also think we should have not only "trial" (Parameter for the article on the trial itself, if available, could also be named "trial_article" but that would not likely be necessary) but "trial_location" (Where did the trial happen?) and "trial_date" (or "trial_start_date" and "trial_end_date"?) With that being said, I don't want to deter the discussion if it would be difficult to get a consensus to add several trial-related parameters, so in any case consider this a support !vote for the nominator's original proposal. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 05:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Two requests[edit]

I'm requesting that the display order of parameter "| trial = " be changed to go directly after "| criminal_charge = ". Otherwise, the display order is currently "Conviction charge", then "Conviction Penalty", then "Trial", which is out of order: sample article.

The second request is to drop "Conviction" from "Conviction penalty", to simply read "Penalty". The qualifier does not appear to necessary, and it also takes two lines in the infobox. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

K.e.coffman, honestly, I could get behind moving all of the "trial" or "justice" related fields into their own subsection, so that we wouldn't have them mixed in with biographical details. Thoughts? Enterprisey (talk!) 23:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
@Enterprisey: Re: "own subsection", do you mean in the layout of the template (code), or in the way the template is displayed? If the latter, I'm not sure it's necessary, as the current presentation seems to work. Such as here sample article: first "Known for" (his crime); then "Criminal charge" etc. Could you clarify? --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
K.e.coffman, sure - while I was looking at the full preview of the template, with all parameters, it looked like the biographical ones were mixed in with the crime-related ones. If this isn't the case in practice (and I'm not sure, as I don't edit in this subject area often), I think it would be fine if we didn't move crime-related lines to their own subsection. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm with Enterprisey on this one; some params like "reward amount" come after the convictions! It would make more sense to have separate sections for biography, criminal history, and (apparently) occupational history. I've disabled the TPER for now until a consensus can be reached about what should go where and what makes the most sense. Primefac (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

Revisiting[edit]

It does not appear that much discussion has occurred on the larger issues of the template organisation. That's why I'd like to revisit the requests, to see if they can be implemented.

  • I'm requesting that the display order of parameter "| trial = " be changed to go directly after "| criminal_charge = ". Otherwise, the display order is currently "Conviction charge", then "Conviction Penalty", then "Trial", which is out of order: sample article. See also, for example, Rudolf Hoess, where "spouse & children" come in between "Criminal penalty" and "Trial".
  • The second request is to drop "Conviction" from "Conviction penalty", to simply read "Penalty". The qualifier does not appear to necessary, and it also takes two lines in the infobox.

--K.e.coffman (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

K.e.coffman, the charge and penalty parameters and labels are being passed through to {{infobox person}}, which is why they are above the rest. I made some changes in the sandbox. it would be helpful if you could check the testcases and see if the order and labels are acceptable. Frietjes (talk) 17:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
@Frietjes: thank you. Blobel looks file, but Hoess still has his family mixed up with his criminal activity / punishment, such as:
Known for | Commandant of Auschwitz concentration camp
Spouse(s) | Hedwig Hensel (m. 1929) [1]
Children | 5
Criminal charge | Nazi crimes against the Polish nation
I would just put all relatives-related entries at the bottom, as the criminals' family tend to be the least important aspect of their biographies. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
K.e.coffman, the problem is that "known for" could be something non-criminal. it would be good to see all the places where "known for" is used, to make sure that it won't be a problem to move it to the criminal-specific section. Frietjes (talk) 18:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
As I read the request, they are not asking for "known for" to be moved downwards, they are asking for family/relatives to be moved down. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
@Frietjes: MSGJ is correct; my request was to move family / relatives entries to the bottom, not move "Known for" down. However, if this is for some reason not feasible, then the changes as shown on Paul Blobel & Hoess templates in the "testcase" area would be acceptable. This would resolve the issue of the "trial" parameter appearing out of order. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Revisiting (2)[edit]

  1. I'm requesting that the display order of parameter "| trial = " be changed to go directly after "| criminal_charge = ". Otherwise, the display order is currently "Conviction charge", then "Conviction Penalty", then "Trial", which is out of order: sample article. See also, for example, Rudolf Hoess, where "spouse & children" come in between "Criminal penalty" and "Trial". Please see testcases (Paul Blobel & Hoess) where the change has been implemented.
  2. A separate, add-on request is to have family / relatives entries ("spouse"; "childred") display at the bottom of template, when appearing in live articles. Compare with:
Known for | Commandant of Auschwitz concentration camp
Spouse(s) | Hedwig Hensel (m. 1929)
Children | 5
Criminal charge | Nazi crimes against the Polish nation
... where spouce and childred appear before the criminal charge. However, if this is for some reason not feasible / desirable, then please ignore this part (#2).
--K.e.coffman (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
The second request is not presently feasible with the current design of this template, which is to act as a passthrough for Template:Infobox person. The likelihood of modification at that template is near-0. Looking into the first one. --Izno (talk) 13:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 Partly done: Did the first request per sandbox. Not done on the second. I also did not pull a category change that was in the sandbox. Izno (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)