Template talk:Infobox person

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This 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.
For pending merger proposals (2009 to date) see Template talk:Infobox person/Mergers

Where did religion go?[edit]

Where did the religion parameter go? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 19:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Please try "religion" in the Search archives box at the top first. Johnuniq (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
2016 happened. The case of one popular politician, and the irrelevance of his religion, got an elementary encyclopedic parameter wiped from all articles. -- Lestadii27 (talk) 04:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Like the problematic "Ethnicity" parameter, the Wikipedia community has long known the "Religion" parameter is anything but elementary; and is unsuitable to convey the often complicated and nuanced information about beliefs. The chronic problems with the field predate the edit wars over whether someone was religiously Jewish, or non-religious, or culturally Jewish, or atheist. They predate the edit wars over whether a politician is really a Sikh, or Christian, or both, or neither. The problems predate the revert wars over whether a presidential candidate's beliefs qualify as truly Christian or not. The problems predate the Infobox warring over whether a sitting president should be labeled a Christian, Muslim, Black Liberationist or the antichrist. Good riddance to the problematic field, although the field still exists in many templates for when religious beliefs are actually the reason an article subject is notable. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Xenophrenic—sources are the key here, not personal opinions. You say "The chronic problems with the field predate the edit wars over whether someone was religiously Jewish, or non-religious, or culturally Jewish, or atheist." Anyone editing Wikipedia is entitled to an opinion, but what matters here is what the sources say. Bus stop (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
And I never said or implied otherwise. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Xenophrenic—no source says Bernie Sanders (who you are linking to via a piped link) is not Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
And I never said or implied otherwise. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Xenophrenic—the man is Jewish—whether he is an atheist, religious, or non-religious. We are not a parochial rag. There is no harm done in identifying Bernie Sanders as Jewish, even in the Infobox. We are fundamentally not opposed to presenting information that receives adequate support in sources. Bus stop (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I recall a great many examples where people who were decidedly not self-proclaimed Jews were labeled "Jewish" and such labels were uniformly struck down upon discussion at WP:BLP/N. As we use WP:CONSENSUS here, the implicit claim that "of course XXX is JEWISH!" fails. Collect (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
You only need to self-proclaim your religion and not your ethnicity. Albert Einstein is Jewish ethnically but not a follower of Judaism. If this were not the case, we would remove every single category for African Americans unless we could provide a self-identification of someone as such (ditto for Latino-Americans...etc)[User:Patapsco913|Patapsco913]] (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Collect nailed it. A person's religious beliefs (and this goes for ethnicity too) is not a suitable subject for condensing down to a brief single word in a context-less Infobox field. We have a "great many examples" as to why. Such fields have also been weaponized to disparage article subjects, a problem not seen with acceptable fields like "date of birth". To paraphrase another editor above, there is no harm in properly covering, unambiguously and with context, such subjects in the body of the article, as we are fundamentally not opposed to presenting information that receives adequate support in sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Burial date?[edit]

Is there no burial date parameter, for cases where date of burial is known but date of death is not? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

It would seem sensible to add this, for the same reason that we have date of baptism. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Would there be any objection to adding a Time of Death field next to the Date of Death? It would also be useful, a no-brainer in fact, to have a place in the Infobox to indicate if the funeral was held with an open or closed casket. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


Any thought to adding in some way the obituaries of the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post, and other newspapers of record from around the world, as they are generally seen as helpful and definitive accounts of the person's life? --Flyguy33 (talk) 13:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Those should be used as sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Softlavender (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 March 2017[edit]

Hey. can you please add this code:

{{#if:{{{image|}}}|{{#if:{{#property:P18}}||[[[category:Pages to import images to wikidata]]}}}}

It will add all pages with an image in wikipedia but without one on wikidata to a category so we can import them all to wikidata. Mikey641 (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: Please create the category (probably capitalized as Category:Pages to import images to Wikidata) and then reactivate this request. --Ahecht (TALK
) 19:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
@Ahecht: created.--Mikey641 (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Done Ahecht (TALK
) 21:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

honorific_suffix vs. education[edit]

Are post-nominal letters (e.g. Ph.D., M.A.) honorific suffixes? The previously-linked articles seem to indicate that they are, so my follow-up question is: do I essentially repeat the information in both the |honorific_suffix & |education fields? — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

No, PhD, MA, etc are earned degrees, not honors. The two articles linked talk about suffixes in general for "position, academic degree, accreditation, office, military decoration, or honour". Honorary degrees can be put in honorifics. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Ah, okay. So you're saying to stick them in the |education field only? Follow-up question, for those in possession of a doctorate, should "Dr." go into |honorific_prefix? — fourthords | =Λ= | 20:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
No. And if the person has a doctorate often {{Infobox academic}}, {{Infobox scientist}}, etc. should be used. Listing honorifics seems to be a British thing. See Stephen Hawking vs Kip Thorne who is a fellow in all sorts of things, but Americans don't usually list those after their names when publishing.
You have an article about an academic in your sandbox. I have an essay on how to write one at User:StarryGrandma/Writing an article about a professor or researcher. He meets Wikipedia standards as a notable academic. As an external link use his faculty web page, not a profile from PhD tree. His curriculum vitae (CV, academic resume) is linked there. It will provide you with needed information and can be used as a reference. Add information about his work and how it developed over time. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Tracking category[edit]

I propose to get a tracking category created for pages using infobox person having no image of the person. Requesting for comments from others. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 16:37, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Disagree, for two reasons. First, in a technical sense, this would likely miss instances of missing images - for example, some articles use images of a person's gravestone because the editor's couldn't find an image of the person. Second, {{reqphoto}} can be used much more broadly. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I have two practical concerns with the utility of such a category:
  1. There would be thousands of Wikipedia biographies about people who died before photography was widely available, and who never had portrait paintings or drawings done.
  2. A tracking category cannot determine what the subject of the image is - is it the person, their headstone, an invention, the logo of a company they founded etc.
--Scott Davis Talk 10:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Notice of parameter deprecation?[edit]

Is there any value to adding at the top of the template some sort of obvious note that explains that |religion= and |ethnicity= were removed, along with links to the relevant RfCs? Might help with questions in general here, but it might also be helpful in the field for editors to be able to point this info out to well-meaning editors unfamiliar with the changes. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cyphoidbomb. I think the "information box" just above the TOC here Template talk:Infobox film with the link to the "sequels" discussion might be worth looking at. Even if it isn't exactly what you want it could be a place to start. Other editors will have ideas as well. MarnetteD|Talk 01:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Marnette. Yeah, I don't mean anything fancy, just something to slap on the top of the template to the effect of:
(Interested parties should double-check that I have the correct RfCs listed.) Looks like RexxS had a similar idea in March. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
For lack of objection, I'm going to add it. If it gets reverted, so be it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Religion in other infoboxes[edit]

The April 2016 RfC resolved to remove the |religion= parameter from {{Infobox person}}. I cannot see significant discussion about related infoboxes and am concerned about Mamata Banerjee which I monitor in order to revert BLP violations. This diff changed "religion = Hinduism" to "religion = Secularism" in {{Infobox officeholder}} in that article. That edit may or may not be appropriate (although I cannot see a source), but why is the religion field present? I mentioned this question at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#Religion RfC but I am asking here due to the more general nature of my query. Johnuniq (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, "religion" regarding any person's personal beliefs, is generally disallowed in infoboxes at this point unless their primary notability is specifically due to and related to that particular religion. I suggest that Elizabeth II who appears to be involved in the Church of England does not have that fact in her infobox, and that it is reasonable to follow that lead. Collect (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Na, Liz is a special case. Infobox Royalty doesnt include religion because 99% of the time its largely irrelevant to their notability. Royalty is more than enough. QE2 due to a quirk of British history is the head of the Church of England, the highest representative of God on Earth for many Anglicans, akin to the Pope. Its one of the few royals around the world who would justify including religion in their infobox. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
As the closer of that RFC, I can confirm that my close was explicitly only applicable to {{infobox person}}, as the RFC was framed only in terms of that one box. While there was a clear and overwhelming consensus to deprecate the parameter from the main {{infobox person}}, I don't see any consensus there for deprecating the parameter across the board, and IMO such a decision would require a fresh RFC, since had it been an RFC about removing the religion= parameter from all biographical infoboxes, including such cases as {{infobox clergy}}, the result would likely have been different. ‑ Iridescent 14:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Interestingly Infobox royalty specifically states the religion parameter was depreciated as a result of that RFC. I am going to track down where it was implemented, but I dont think the royalty infobox ever had a discussion on it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Nope it didnt. Template docs were changed after the RFC at village pump for infobox person, but the parameter was still there and in use as Religion was included and visible on a number of monarchs (but not QE2). So back it goes. Also sorry Collect. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Apparantly DrKay thinks the RFC applied to every infobox with a religion parameter. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I think those should be rolled back. And by the way, I have no idea where this "relevant to their notability" argument comes from. It's neither part of the RfC closing comment nor does it make sense: Most infobox parameters have nothing to do with why the person is notable. No one is notable for being born on a certain date, being of a given nationality, their alma mater, etc. Indeed, the word "notability" should hardly be thrown around when discussing content at all (WP:NNC). – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 16:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
The "relevant to their notability" would at least come into play when the decision is made to use {{infobox clergy}}, either instead of or as a child template to {{infobox person}}, for example. --Ahecht (TALK
) 17:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Finnusertop is correct that "most" infobox parameters have nothing to do with why the person is notable. However, Wikipedia has long made a special exception for these five highly sensitive parameters, which includes religion, and special handling is required for their use. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I've always thought about it more in WP:BLP terms. It seems overly courteous to remove religions from infoboxes of Antiquity figures. Anyhow, WP:CATGRS, and a handful of other guidelines I know, directly contradict WP:NNC, which is obviously not a good thing. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 17:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Finnusertop. I think we should be allowed to represent religion in Infoboxes in the cases in which adequate support is found in sources. I think sourcing is the key here. This would not apply in cases in which sourcing was weak or ambiguous. Bus stop (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
All information in Wikipedia needs to be properly sourced; that's a given, and really isn't a factor in this discussion. The focus here is whether Wikipedia should be trying to shoehorn something as complicated, nuanced (and often personal and/or controversial) into the tiny little restricted space like an Infobox field or Category box. These little fields are only for factoids which are self-explanatory, non-ambiguous and non-controversial -- and fields like Ethnicity and Religion have consistently shown that they are anything but. Wikipedia isn't censored, so this information can certainly be covered in the body of the article where there is ample room to convey that kind of information with context and detail. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
The fields have not "shown that they are anything but." Edit disputes are anything but new. The fields are valid. The inclusion or omission of such fields should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Just as sources vary so too should the outcomes of such edit disputes vary. Bus stop (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
An infobox is for verifiable facts—someone either is 1.8 m high or they're not. Classifying someone's religion is not like that. It is not even clear what, for example, "Religion: Catholic" means. Is being raised in a Catholic family sufficient? Attending a Catholic school? Attending Catholic churches with family? Or, would labeling someone as a Catholic require that they currently share most of the views of Catholicism and currently attend church? The religion field invites nonsense like this which set the religion for Richard Dawkins to "Anglican (pre-1956) No religion/Atheist (post-1956)". All of that is verifiable, golden truth, yet it is plainly unsuitable for an infobox. Dawkins is an extreme case, but many people have a similarly complex history regarding their religion. Johnuniq (talk) 04:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Johnuniq. The infobox should be limited to binary items that are not open to interpretation and argument, as that opens the door to never-ending edit wars and drive-by additions/removals by editors who don't know any better because they didn't know they had to read through ten talk page archives to know why we did or didn't list Bernie Sanders' religion in his infobox. Infoboxes are also frequented by casual readers looking for basic facts and anything requiring a more nuanced understanding should be limited to the article text. --Laser brain (talk) 12:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Bustop. If someone who is living says that they are Catholic or practice Judaism, then that should be enough. If they are dead and had a Jewish or Muslim or Protestant burial service, then that should be enough as well. This is relevant information to a person's biography and i do not see it as contentious. Ethnicity is quite important around the world so that should remain as an option as well; we need to be aware that not everywhere is a melting pot like the USA where religion and ethnicity are less important. It is up to us to monitor biographies to make sure that improperly supported materials are not included; we should not exclude information because it is too much of a hassle.Patapsco913 (talk) 14:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Patapsco913 that if information about a person's religious beliefs (or ethnicity), when properly sourced, can be "relevant information to a person's biography" -- and I don't see anyone disagreeing with that. The issue under discussion here, however, is whether we should also try to shoehorn that same information, which is often complex, subjective or even controversial, into a little field designed for just a word or two. On that issue, I must agree with the Wikipedia community when they concluded "oh hell no". As Patapsco913 has said, "we should not exclude information because it is too much of a hassle", and that is absolutely correct: the information should definitely appear in the article, and not be excluded. But trying to redundantly squeeze such information to an infobox parameter, which is supposed to display values consistently across all articles, is not just a "hassle", it is impossible. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Look at Roger I of Sicily, the infobox cannot support that he is a Catholic despite him going to war against the Muslims to reconquer southern Italy. Somewhat crazy, nay?Patapsco913 (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Nay. Why would you want that information in the Infobox - what purpose do you see that serving? Such information might form an encyclopedic addition to the body of the article (which is presently lacking). Also, why would you put Catholic in the Infobox rather than Christian? I presume you directed my attention to the Roger I of Sicily article in support of some point, but I'm not seeing it. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I sympathize with Johnuniq and Laser brain's view too (despite opposing categorical ban for religion parameters in all infoboxes). I think they key to any infobox parameter is clear and precise documentation backed by consensus in use. Something like |height= appears as straightforward enough at first sight, but 1.8 m isn't the only option that can be inserted there. Why not "pretty tall", "taller than his sister", or "1.57 ell"? Because the template documentation tells you not to do that and editors never do it. In a perfect world where template documentations are well-worded and templates include perhaps coding that prevents editors from entering anything silly, a responsible religion parameter is possible.
To answer Johnuniq's question – what does it even mean that someone is "Catholic" – it's not a problem for us. If a source says that a person is Catholic, then this piece of information is precisely as verifiable as his height. The real problem is when editors engage in original research (I've seen someone's Catholicism being cited to a source that simply said that the person carried a rosary in her bag). – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 14:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
No, the real problem is trying to condense a person's religious beliefs down to a one or two word non-subjective value that can be squeezed into an Infobox parameter. The Wikipedia community has not witnessed the same endless, disruptive edit wars and argumentative discussions over a person's height. When Johnuniq observed that "It is not even clear what, for example, "Religion: Catholic" means", you waved that concern away as "not a problem for us". That is incorrect; Wikipedia requires that values displayed in the same field of the same template have consistent meaning across articles. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Xenophrenic—does it not occur to you that the "endless, disruptive edit wars and argumentative discussions", to which you refer, are not primarily caused by those following reliable sources and adhering to Wikipedia policy, such as WP:BLP, but rather by those with an ax to grind and a disregard for sources or policy? Bus stop (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
@Bus stop: "Following reliable sources" isn't nearly as black-and-white as you make it out to be. What if different sources say different things? If someone flippantly says to a journalist "I was raised Catholic" and that journalist decides to write that the subject "is Catholic" (which is not a simple or straightforward statement, as many have pointed out) then suddenly we have people adding it to the infobox as if it was straightforward or even relevant to the subject. Who cares if a trombone player or a visual artist is Catholic unless it has some bearing on their work? It's a magnet for disruption and arguments, yes, but you've yet to illustrate why it even needs to be there. If there was a Wikipedia article about me, it would be absurd to put in there that I was raised Catholic, about as absurd as including what kind of car I drive. In fact people probably take more identity from their cars than they do from their religions these days. --Laser brain (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
"raised Catholic" has never meant "being Catholic" and if it is added, we as monitors, remove it and tell the person that added that they need to provide a source that the subject has expressly affirmed their faith. Under you perspective, Ted Kennedy would not be listed as Catholic unless there is an express statement that he said near the time of his death that he is Catholic (because , of course, he could have changed his mind). Never mind that he had a Catholic funeral.21:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Laser brain—if sources contradict one another, that seriously strengthens the argument to omit the parameter from the Infobox. We actually do go by sources, with a pinch of common sense. If we know an answer is facetious, or an off-the-cuff remark, not intended to be taken seriously, that seriously weakens whatever assertion was contained in that flippant remark. You say "Who cares if a trombone player or a visual artist is Catholic unless it has some bearing on their work?" I don't mean to offend, but that question very much bothers me. Here is why: we are not all-knowing. Contrary to what is commonly argued, our role is not to feed useful information to people. I don't think we are simply writing Encyclopedia Britannica-type articles. I think Wikipedia represents a slightly different paradigm. A person can use Wikipedia any way they wish, even if that entails associating Catholicism with trombone playing or visual art. We are much more concerned with providing raw material than the traditional book-form encyclopedia. We are here to facilitate research of a much more flexible nature. The printed paper book provides education of the traditional sort and consequently it is of much more limited usefulness. It limits research. But research can take on unpredictable forms. You say "you've yet to illustrate why it even needs to be there." I couldn't possibly do that. I do not know what the needs will be of future researchers. You say "If there was a Wikipedia article about me, it would be absurd to put in there that I was raised Catholic, about as absurd as including what kind of car I drive." I don't think car drivership has the biographic status of religious orientation. You are reflecting a cliche when you say "In fact people probably take more identity from their cars than they do from their religions these days." Automobiles are plainly seen. In an egalitarian society automobiles can seem to eclipse religion in importance. But under more stressed conditions—say in Syria when sarin gas is in the air—religious affinities can assume a status of greater-than-normal importance. Ditto for its related attribute of identity: ethnicity. Bus stop (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
No one has addressed the definitional issue of what "Religion: Catholic" means. It is not satisfactory to say that we have no idea what it means because we merely regurgitate what is said by a possibly reliable source. We rely on sources for potentially controversial claims such as a person's political affiliation, and that's fine because while "right wing" is a vague term, at least it has a "know-it-if-I-see-it" meaning. But one reliable source may say that Smith is Catholic (because Smith was raised and confirmed as a Catholic, and that's all), while another reliable source may say that Jones is Catholic (because Jones wrote a book about his religious faith). Putting "Catholic" in the infobox for both Smith and Jones would be absurd because using a word with that much elasticity suggests that when an infobox uses a word, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less". Johnuniq (talk) 02:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
You are placing a high value on the preconceptions of Wikipedia editors concerning the significance of religious identities. I am less concerned than you are with the distinction between a casual relation to religion and a more serious dedication to religion. Yes, the language is elastic. We should not exploit this "elasticity" to foist upon the reader a religious identity that largely does not exist, but we also should not shy away from conveying information to the readers if sources support it. Bus stop (talk) 11:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
we also should not shy away from conveying information to the readers if sources support it. --Bus stop
No one has seriously suggested that we not convey such information. The objection was against also trying to squeeze that information into a problematic Infobox field. The body of the article has plenty of room for the encyclopedic prose necessary to properly convey the character and nature of Smith and Jones religious beliefs. I must run now, as someone just changed the Infobox field at the Jones article from Catholic to Christian based on a source that was dug up... Xenophrenic (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
The more expansive indication of religious orientation found in the body of the article does not invalidate the less expansive indication of religious orientation found in the Infobox. These can be thought of as different levels of granularity. Neither is right or wrong. Bus stop (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Regardless of what you may consider neither "right or wrong", the fact remains that one is allowed and one is disallowed for the very good reasons described above, upon which the Wikipedia community based their decision. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Xenophrenic—regardless of how expansive the explanation of religious orientation found in the body of the article may be, the terse indication of religious orientation found in the Infobox remains equally valid. One does not invalidate the other. Infoboxes are always the less thorough counterpart of material found in the body of the article. Bus stop (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I can't (and have no need to) speak to those occasions when, in your opinion, "the terse indication of religious orientation found in the Infobox remains equally valid". My remarks were only about the numerous and extensive problems with having a "religion=" parameter, which resulted in its removal. (A discussion you and I have revisited numerous times already, with the same arguments and conclusions.) This was fun as usual, Bus stop. Ooops, you've resorted to fabrication (see comment below), so I'll disengage. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Your notion of a blanket prohibition of the use of the "Religion" parameter in Infoboxes is counterproductive. Wikipedia functions just fine when healthy debate surrounds the construction of content. Bus stop (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia often includes Infoboxes in biographies and good quality reliable sources often attribute religious identities to subjects of biographies. Hence the possibility should exist in all instances of completing the parameter for "Religion" in the Infobox provided certain conditions are met. Foremost among these conditions is solid support in sources, along with compliance with our additional safeguards concerning biographies of living people. Bus stop (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Wouldn't that look nice. However, it would be meaningless for the many reasons explained above. If a commercial publisher commissioned a dozen writers to compile biographies of 100 people, it would be fine for them to include a summary identifying, say, Smith as Catholic. The 100 biographies would consistently apply whatever criteria was adopted to choose the word used as a summary of the subject's religion. At Wikipedia the situation is very different. It would be absurd to label both Smith and Jones as Catholics when one of them only attended a Catholic school and is not religious, while the other wrote a book about their faith. The article has plenty of room to explain what is known about the subject's religion. Johnuniq (talk) 01:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hi Johnuniq—I'm not going to argue whether the casually Catholic and the devotedly Catholic are alike. I'm simply not knowledgeable enough to know whether the distinction is significant or not. But if an abundance of good quality sources say that someone is Catholic, and if a person enunciates that they are Catholic, and if no source contradicts that they are Catholic—I think we would be justified in saying in an Infobox that they are Catholic—regardless of whether they are devotedly Catholic or merely casually Catholic. I think that an important point is that we don't have to include religion in the Infobox. We are not required to do so. But we should have the option of doing so. Bus stop (talk) 03:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

RFC: Religion as a nationality in Template:Infobox person[edit]

An RFC has been started as to whether to include religions such as "Jewish" in the Nationality field of Template:Infobox person. Please take part in the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RFC:_Religion_as_a_nationality_in_Template:Infobox_Person. --Ahecht (TALK
) 18:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Note discussion of new "religious character" infobox[edit]

See Template_talk:Infobox_religious_biography#Character Jytdog (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Cat cleanup[edit]

Category:Pages using infobox person with unknown parameters has become really huge. Would anyone like to give some suggestions to clean it up? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 17:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I fixed one! Just 25,587 to go... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 11:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 April 2017[edit]

Please change {{{spouse|}}} to {{#invoke:Wikidata|getValue|P26|{{{spouse|FETCH_WIKIDATA}}}}} on data56. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 11:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Please gain consensus for this change first. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)