Template talk:Infobox person

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

Use of "Alma mater"[edit]

This has probably been discussed before, but the word "alma mater" is very rarely used by English speakers outside North America. Most other Anglophone countries would use the terms "education" or "university" when referring to the post-secondary institution that they attended. Because of this, I think the term alma mater is very Americentric and is quite jarring to other English speakers - see this discussion on the Alma mater talk page. It is especially unusual when used on the pages of British or Australian people, who would never use the term to describe their education. Furthermore, while alma mater is a term mostly confined to the Americas, the word education is universally understood by English speakers, and so seems like the obvious choice in this instance.

As a result, I would propose the changing of the "Alma mater" parameter on the infoboxes to read "Education" in all instances. DathusTalk Contribs 17:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Support. A secondary and tertiary reason to do it are that alma mater really only pertains to an institution one graduated from, and only an institution of higher (post-secondary) education; but it's frequently misapplied here for any institution one simply attended. This is all better covered by "education", which can be as specific as is necessary on a case-by-case basis. Fourth and fifth reasons are WP:USEENGLISH and WP:JARGON; we shouldn't be using a Latinism, of limited reader comprehensibility, when plain English will suffice. — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼 18:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC); revised: 00:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - see Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 30 #Education and Alma_Mater for a previous discussion that made a distinction between the Education field and the Alma mater field, in particular the points made by Xenophrenic about what was allowed by convention in each field. Also in Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 7 #Proposed Deprecation of alma mater there was a previous proposal, which mentions a Village Pump discussion. If there were a broad consensus at VP about the use of "alma mater", then a local consensus here wouldn't be enough to overturn it. --RexxS (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I've read over the links you provided (thank you, by the way). The first link does give a distinction between the two fields, but my argument is that they shouldn't be separate parameters, as the term "alma mater" isn't in common usage in the rest of the world, so the word that would be used would be "education". As a result, it doesn't make much sense that the two terms be separate when they mean the same thing to everybody other than Americans. It seems the second one is about a different topic. While it is about the deprecation of "alma mater," its reasoning is for different reasons - namely that the proposer finds the term ambiguous on Wikipedia, so I don't think the VP consensus applies in this case, but please do correct me on this. Edit: That being said, it might be worth going to the VP to gauge a consensus on this specific issue. DathusTalk Contribs 21:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I simply only use |education=, thinking that is better understood by a general readership. As I write mostly biographies of Europeans, alma mater would rarely be appropriate anyway. No change is needed to do the same. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I agree with your practice, and I think this is the best route for European biographies especially. But I would argue that it's not only Americans that are reading biographies of Americans, and since "alma mater" isn't in common usage in Europe - or anywhere else - the term "education" should be used instead, because that is a term that Americans can also understand, and is therefore more universal and inclusive. DathusTalk Contribs 21:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: "Alma mater" and "Education" are quite distinctly different terms, and I assume that is why both parameters often appear in the same infobox templates. From my limited perspective as an English-language speaker, having received 100% of my formal education in the United States, "alma mater" is always (and only) an institution of learning, and should never be confused with "education". "Education", on the other hand, is the field of study + extent of that study, usually expressed in number of years completed or degrees earned, and the institution(s) is mostly irrelevant. For example, "I have a Masters degree in Information Technology." One might add to that, "... from M.I.T.", because of the common presumption that this otherwise unrelated factoid reflects on the 'quality' of that education. More commonly, however, institutions aren't salient when describing one's "education".
I was surprised to hear from the original poster that "alma mater" "is very rarely used by English speakers outside North America", so I looked at the linked Talk page discussion to learn more. I found several people claiming they have never heard of the term, and several claiming they have, but only one source (Oxford English Dictionary) was produced, and it doesn't indicate where the phrase is most common. The original poster also says, "It is especially unusual when used on the pages of British or Australian people, who would never use the term to describe their education." That also applies to Americans, who would never use "alma mater" to describe their education, because it only describes an institution. Looking further at the alma mater article and the examples within, it appears to me that the term is anything but "Americentric". When the original poster claims, "it doesn't make much sense that the two terms be separate when they mean the same thing to everybody other than Americans", I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the assertion that only Americans know the difference between "education" and "alma mater". If we're just working from personal perception and experience here, I guess mine is different.
If the ultimate intent is to remove the |alma_mater= parameter from infoboxes (-boxen?), I think a much better argument would be that it isn't really a "key" factoid deserving of infobox real estate. It's a rarely used term in American English, too, after all. And SMcCandlish raises some good points about the field being prone to misuse and misapplication. I have no particular attachment to the parameter, but I can't bring myself to vote for removal if the reasoning is the anecdotal and unsupported "alma mater is very Americentric" assertion. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
A better argument is that |education= is already a free-form field for education-related information, which can be used in multiple ways, one of which is the subject's alma mater (if that applies to that subject); so the parameter is simply redundant. We have a |children= parameter and do not need separate |sons= |daughters= |adult_children= |children_who_died_before_adulthood= |children_who_moved_to_Botswana= ... — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼 03:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
We need |children_who_moved_to_Botswana=. I'm always looking for the parameters and can never find it. Face-smile.svg LivinRealGüd (talk) 01:58, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Always use Alma Mater: If most people can scramble their brains around alumni and alumna, they can do so with alma mater. My main problem with education is that no one knows what that means. I've seen articles that have colleges, high schools, kindergarten, and study abroad institutions listed. Alma mater is simple. Its the graduate (and upward) school one attended and graduated from. If they attended but did not graduate, just leave it out of the infobox and explain it in the lead. You all too often see things like this:
When you could have simply
If readers want more information, it is but a short scroll away in the main article. The infobox should be a snapshot of the article, not a complete rendition. Education is too broad and unhelpful to readers. We don't put long. and latitude for subject's births, lets not add unnecessary information when not needed. LivinRealGüd (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)strike sock Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
The fix for a parameter that isn't being used consistently is to fix the documentation to prescribe specific uses. This is true of all templates. Nothing magically special is happening here. — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼 03:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - there does not seem to be any significant benefit to using alma mater over education in US articles, and the phrase is unheard of outside North America. WP:COMMONALITY states that universally accepted forms should be preferred to national variants. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
    Comment: Well, there is the argument that the "alma mater" field is going to specifically contain an institute of higher education, while "education" may contain any sort of educational institution, and even co-exist with "alma mater" to show a department (e.g. a law school) within a university (which then goes in the alma mater field). It's also worth noting that I live in Europe and am clearly aware of the phrase, and that "alma mater" is recorded in English in the mid 17th century, so probably shouldn't be treated as a phrase peculiar to North America. --RexxS (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
    Except it is already not limited to such use, and we have no reason to think that it would be going forward. Even if that weren't true, it's still a redundant subset of |education=. We just don't need it. — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼 00:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
    The usage of alma mater is preferred. Whenever education is used, editors seem to clutter the infobox with useless information that just defeats the whole purpose of the template in the first place. When ever I see education used, it usually has a million things in it and lists things like primary school, secondary school, college, graduation, training programs, and everything in between. It has dates, majors, favorite professors, etc., and a bunch of other useless information. If readers want more information they are free to scroll down to the approbate section of the article. It should only be reserved for notable attendance of an institution, e.g. the name of their higher education schools. Not to mention it becomes a shit show when you factor things like transferring to multiple schools and studying abroad. LivinRealGüd (talk) 14:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
    Anyone can put clutter in alma_mater as well. If the name is a problem, then the parameter can be renamed to educational_institution. Usage of alma mater is uncommon outside North America but education is commonly used both in North America and elsewhere, so that is what we should prefer. --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
    There are a lot of North American terms that non-American Wikipedians are familiar with. I know what alma mater is because I have been adding this parameter to several articles. But while alma mater exists in British dictionaries, for example, it rarely appears in biographical reference works or the like, and would not be understood by a non-American in the way that it would be understood by an American. --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
    Hardly, alma mater is a Latin phrase. Any language that is based in Latin incorporates the word. Not to mention if the readers of wikipedia can understand alumni, alumna, and alumnus, they should be fine with alma mater. My point is that when education is used editors do clutter it, not the case with alma mater. But Joshua Issac, you knew what alma mater was before you started editing Wikipedia. Most people understand the phrase, we shouldn't assume that they wont understand it. LivinRealGüd (talk) 23:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
    I had never come across the term before I started editing Wikipedia, and the only times I have seen it outside Wikipedia are when I specifically looked up the term on dictionaries and websites. In my experience, the term has not appeared in the biographies and lecturers' university home pages I have read, nor in talks given by academics. They all say, "I went to so and so", or "I studied/read X at Y". Searching for the term specifically on university websites returns a few pages where it is used, and that is about the extent of it. Alumni, on the other hand, is frequently used by universities themselves when talking about former students, and the term appears in emails from universities to current students, advertising their alumni networks. So the exposure to the term is different to that of alma mater. People who speak a language derived from Latin, or studied classics, would be able to figure what alma mater means, and anyone can look it up in a dictionary otherwise, but we should pick an English-language term that everyone can understand without having to take extra steps.--Joshua Issac (talk) 09:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - unnecessary and not internationally understood. We can use guidance on the template page if 'Education' is being misused - but equally I'm not sure that there is any unique notability in the (first?) HE institution one graduated from; what aspects of education are notable will depend on the individual. As a British English speaker I'm aware of - though would never use - the term; but it doesn't have the very specific meaning for me that it appears to have for Americans (and from the discussion above I'm not sure I even understand exactly what that is - in User:LivinRealGüd's example above it seems to me that both Harvard and Cambridge are almae matres, but they say that example should be simplified only to Harvard?) TSP (talk) 11:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
    I actually regularly see |alma mater= misused for high schools, and for "some college/university that was attended but not graduated from". There is nothing magically special about it; it's just a redundant parameter. It's like having a separate parameter for |occupation_that_resulted_in_an_award=, or |relatives_who_are_dead=, or |office_appointed_not_elected_to=; we don't need hair-splitting subset parameters. — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼 12:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
    My example was just illustrating how crazy things get with the education template. If a subject graduates both Harvard and Cambridge, both should be listed as almae matres. The problem is that a subject studies at Harvard, studies abroad at University of Paris, then takes a training program at the University of London over the summer, and then reads a book before graduating from Cambridge. The alma mater section would just neatly list Harvard and Cambridge while the education template would look something like this:
    Education = Harvard University (BA, 2001, sociology with a concentration in informatics; thesis: study of people in Uganda) University of Paris (study abroad, European history, 4.3 GPA) University of London (training program in sociology) Oh The Places You'll Go (book, read summer 2004) University of Cambridge (M.A. social informatics with a concentration in blah blah, 2005, honors)
    compared to:
    Alma mater = Harvard University University of Cambridge
    My point is that Wikipedia is not a resume depository and the education template is centered around resume formatting. LivinRealGüd (talk) 14:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
    Except it should not look something like that mess, per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. Nothing ties your hands and prevents you cleaning up the |education= parameter's value. And nothing ties all our hands and prevents us writing better documentation for this parameter to discourage dumping trivia into it. — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼 23:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose In the discussion mentioned in the OP the editor says I have never once heard this phrase being used in the UK. I'm a British editor and can tell you it is well known in the UK. If it is swapped for "Education" it will open the door to all sorts of Dumb-Dumb College etc. to be added. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
    I can't make any sense at all of this !vote. If someone's only degree comes from some community college then that is in fact their alma mater. It is what would go in that parameter. If they also graduated from a major university, that would also be an alma mater. Whether to include the community college one is a WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE discussion to have at the particular article. And that's the same discussion whether the |alma_mater= or |education= parameter were used. (It might actually be appropriate to include the community college, for example, if something about the subject's notability dates back that far, e.g. that's where they started their first band, or committed their first murder, or whatever). — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼 02:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
    I've only ever been aware of the European use of the word Alma mater#Special usage which is for Universities. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
    More and more it sounds like no one's going to agree of what this parameter is really for. — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼 16:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support , this would make it feel more appropriate and broader use for people that may never have gone to college, when to a community or trade school, or similar type of thing that we would never associate "alma mater" with. --Masem (t) 14:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. A more general and more widely used term. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC).
  • Support I don't see any use cases where alma mater is anything other than a subset of education, and no examples where there is any benefit that could not be obtained by simply cleaning up. Before cleaning up, I'd also note that listing secondary schools attended can be very useful for people, for example, researching privilege and wanting to know how many British cabinet ministers (or MPs, or judges) went to the same rather expensive secondary school in east Berkshire, compared to the number attending comprehensive schools. I'm sure this isn't the only case where having such information readily to hand is useful, and it's inclusion in education but not alma mater is another reason for preferring education as the parameter. Robminchin (talk) 02:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It isn't true that this is confined to American English; as The Vintage Feminist says, this is well-known in the UK too. It's a useful field to have when all we know (or want to add) is where someone studied but not what. SarahSV (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as not a widely used term, the article Alma matter itselfs states it's rarely used - When including education on any bio I've always used the Education parameter, With "Alumni" the term is used throughout the world I believe and is certainly in common use among UK universities and I'd assume US universities (or the equivalent) too, Anyway Alma matter is outdated, is rarely used and has never catched on like Alumni and other latin words. –Davey2010Talk 15:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Davey2010 In the lead section it says that the plural of the term almae matres is rarely used, and in the Etymology section that alma ... was not frequently used in conjunction with mater in classical Latin but I can't find where the article Alma mater only one 't' by the way states that alma mater is rarely used. Can you provide the quote? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Yeah for whatever reason I thought Alma mater was "Alma matter", Anyway as for the lede I thought "[rarely used]" was referring to Alma mater but just realised it was actually referring to "almae matres", Okie dokie we can ignore that part, Thanks for the correction tho :). –Davey2010Talk 15:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. In general I approve of using colloquial English instead of more-technical Latin phrases. But in this case, it is important to restrict the infobox field only to institutions that the person received a degree from rather than making long indiscriminate lists of every institution of higher learning that the person was at any time associated with. The proposed new wording doesn't do that. I would view more favorably a change from "alma mater" to "academic degrees" or some such, but "education" is far too broad. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
    The proposed new wording does discourage long lists of every institution that the subject has been associated with; it suggests listing only the institution that granted the highest qualification, except where there is local consensus to add more. If someone adding the template will ignore that wording and add such lists anyway, there is nothing stopping them from adding the same list to the alma_mater parameter, either. --Joshua Issac (talk) 09:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A.M. is clear and narrow meaning. Even I know it. Whoever is puzzled by the word, RTFW :-). Whereas "education" is vague; someone wrote it may be guidelined, but nobody reads the template guidelines. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If it isn't used outside America, then simply don't use it in non-american articles. No need to strip it from American articles. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."--Auric talk 10:52, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment It's claimed above that "Alma Mater" requires graduation, my recollection is Wikipedia use to have advice (maybe still does somewhere) that Alma Mater does not require graduation, and MW-Dictionary in fact says it is either, attendance or graduation.[1]. So, it looks like we have to take that 'requires graduation' as a personal gloss and not actual meaning. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose subject to no better term. As a card carrying high school dropout, I favor the term alma mater. If you look at many of the ridiculously successful entrepreneurs and innovators, and examine the gestations of the concepts that have resulted in their notability; the formation often began in academe. The environment (not necessarily the classes) was often the kick start that produced enormous value from latent genius. OTOH, you could argue that they didn’t remain long enough to understand the pitfalls of their inventions. But then, how many students take ethics nowadays? In any case, I think the term is fair shorthand for an infobox; and the body can explain. O3000 (talk)
  • Strongly oppose As per Xenophrenics explanation, I see no reason to remove Alma Ater, since the term has a different meaning and definition than education. I also think that this subject should be discussed further, before any kind of implementation. Presently, a consensus is not all that clear. I would like to see more users opnion on this matter. Dan Koehl (talk) 10:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose: In British English, an Alma Mater is any university you have attended regardless of graduation, education is related to school (which ends at either 16,17, or 18 depending on a number of factors). I have always used |education= to list the schools a person attended or details or tutoring/homeschool as applicable, and |alma mater= to list universities (universities are not schools). In the UK and Europe there is a clear difference between universities and childhood schooling. There is zero need to remove either or these parameters: if the local/personal need requires only one, leave the other blank. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 14:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support change away from "Alma mater". As shown in the above discussion there is a lack of clarity as to what it means. In my usage of British English, "Education" is clear and universal, including whatever needs to be mentioned of school (US: High school), university, other college or institution. PamD 17:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support alma mater is indeed a foreign language to most English speakers, those of us that do use it in the UK would probably be using it ironically. Even in American English it can refer to the school song, rather than the school itself. And indeed in British English it is by no means limited to institutes of further and higher education when it is used. (When children leave school, they return again and again to their alma mater and do tremendous damage. Hansard) It would be better to come up with a concise formulation for |education= and remove this field. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC).

Implementing the change[edit]

As it seems most of the comments here are in favour of getting rid of the alma mater field, I suggest the following approach:

  1. Amend the infobox definition so that alma_mater becomes a recessive alias for education, like this: | data24 = {{{education|{{{alma mater|{{{alma_mater|}}}}}}}}} and remove the code at position 25. That means that where |alma mater= is used in articles, it will disappear, unless there is no value for |education= when the value for |alma mater= will be displayed as Education.
  2. Add a tracking category for articles using "alma mater".
  3. Use AWB (or a bot run for the simple cases) to merge the values currently in the Alma mater field into the Education field.
  4. Tidy up when it's all done.

The first step could be omitted if everyone is patient enough for the fixing to take place. I've done the second step now (Category:Infobox person using alma mater), so that we can have a look at the size of the job. --RexxS (talk) 14:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest adding an additional point: figuring out what the usage guidance in the documentation should be, as at the moment the two are not the same. IMO that should be done before any actual merging happens. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
The current guideline for education reads, "Education, e.g., degree, institution and graduation year, if relevant." We should restrict this to the highest qualification, because of the concerns about cluttering that editors brought up in the above discussion. --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Works for me, mostly, but there will be cases where a lower institution is relevant, e.g. because someone has multiple degrees or something about their notability is tied to the lower one. So it shouldn't be stated as an absolute rule. Also I'm not sure what you mean by "the current guideline". Template documentation isn't a guideline. MOS:BIO doesn't mention this stuff, nor does MOS:INFOBOX. — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼 04:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I would oppose that suggestion, if you are going to convert the category field alma mater to education, you can't pick and choose which form of education simply based on the reasoning that additions to the template cause clutter. That additional change is not even in the discussion above. For that matter as SMcCAnd1ish put it how do editors know whether a person's education is significant or not? For many bio articles relating to academics in the U.S. there are numerous alumni lists including both undergraduate and graduate degree holders and of which are sometimes also on lists in different institutional articles. How do you propose to sort out the existing discussion located here about what qualifies as alumni? I seem to remember a fairly contentious debate about this in the past. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I think SMcCandish's proposal for when more than one institution is relevant addressses this issue. The template documentation for alma_mater already states that article talk page consensus overrides documentation for the tag, and if there is a dispute about whether someone's notibility is tied to an institution, for example, then consensus can emerge on the talk page as people provide reliable sources to show things to be one way or another. My suggestion is not to have a hard-and-fast rule about what is allowed, but a statement about how the parameter is expected to be generally used, along similar lines to what already exists for the alma_mater tag, but accounting for the increase in scope (degree and year). --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Yep. We should be discouraging inclusion of trivia, without trying to make up an exact rule that's going to conflict with case-by-case article needs. — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼 02:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
So where do we move from here? Do we need to get a consensus from VP before we make then changes to the template, or is a local consensus sufficient? DathusTalk Contribs 05:05, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Please see RexxS’s comment above. DathusTalk Contribs 17:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
There is quite possibly consensus in the above discussion but that isn't entirely very clear; since this change would be reasonably significant, and involve subsequently thousands of edits replacing/fixing alma mater, you'd want a formal closure of the above. You can post at WP:ANRFC to request a closure. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I see that user:Rich Farmbrough is already running AWB to replace "alma mater" with "education". I think this needs a broader discussion & stronger consensus for such a widely spread change. [Purely counting !votes you have 7 supports vs. 6 opposes -- plus the discussion was not even a RfC]. Rich, please hold your horses. I suggest running a proper RfC. Also, has anyone considered naming the field 'Educated at'? To me 'education' is very vague and not intuitive - are we talking degrees? science fields? institutions? Renata (talk) 01:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Education is too broad a term. It starts at birth and, one would hope, ends at death. I think we need something along the lines of academic exposure, only shorter. Of course, that’s kinda what alma mater means. Face-smile.svg O3000 (talk) 01:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Category:Infobox person using certain parameters when dead[edit]

I was going to clean up some of the pages in this category but wanted to make sure I understand correctly that once a person is deceased the {{{salary}}} and {{{net_worth}}} params should be removed from their page? --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Add ZooBank LSID?[edit]

How about adding Zoobank ZooBank LSID (identification number) to the template? Or maybe just a field for "Identification"? Dan Koehl (talk) 10:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I made a sandbox test version with Linnean naturalist Carl Peter Thunberg. Dan Koehl (talk) 11:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Why not use {{authority control}} for the various potential identifiers? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


Is the salary parameter intended to include all compensation a corporate executive receives, or just the portion of their compensation that is considered their salary? Please consider an extreme case, where Facebook executive Sheryl Sandberg earned in FY2017:[1]

$795,769 Base Pay
$640,378 Bonus + Non-Equity
$21,072,431 Stock Award Value
$2,687,643 Total Other

$25,196,221 Total Compensation

At our article, we are currently reporting her salary as $25,196,221, the sum of all forms of compensation, including her equity in the company (which is not salary). Do we need an other_compensation parameter? General Ization Talk 01:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)