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

Burial coordinates[edit]

Margaret of Hereford's infobox says:

          Margaret of Hereford
Born 1122/1123
          England
Died 6 April 1197
Burial Llanthony Secunda Priory,
place Gloucester, England
          {{{burial_coordinates}}}
Occupation Constable of England
...

Notice {{{burial_coordinates}}}, complete with computerese triple brackets and underscore, and presumably a software error. It goes away by removing the "burial place" parameter but not by changing it. Further experimenting is discouraged because I tried inserting "| burial_place = Marysville" into Aristotle (in preview mode) and it doesn't show at all.

If we don't fix it, I should put a warning in the document not to use "burial place" without coordinates, if that is the problem. Art LaPella (talk) 04:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

When that happens, it's usually a sign that the code is using {{{burial_coordinates}}} instead of {{{burial_coordinates|}}} (i.e. use the parameter if supplied, otherwise use blank). Now fixed, I hope - the article pages just need to be purged to get past the caching. Ping me if there are any outstanding problems. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 19:45, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Art LaPella (talk) 21:53, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
We don't need geo coordinates for burial places anyway; it's cruft. Please make this work without requiring that.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  11:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
You seem to be under a misapprehension about how the parameters work. The infobox works perfectly well if no burial coordinates are supplied. However, if burial coordinates are supplied, then they are used, despite you thinking they are "cruft". If you want to get rid of them, then start an RfC and see if you can convince anybody else to agree with you. The problem here was that the {{br separated entries}} template was expecting a coordinates parameter and needed it to be explicitly blank in order to ignore it when it wasn't supplied. --RexxS (talk) 13:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes[edit]

There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what What should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a new RfC on Talk:Bernie Sanders on this matter. Softlavender (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Specifically, at Talk:Bernie_Sanders#Request_for_comments_--_religion_in_infobox. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Errors reported[edit]

When editing Buckskin Frank Leslie, the following template errors are being displayed during preview:

Warning: Page using Template:Infobox person with unknown parameter "box_width" (this message is shown only in preview).
Warning: Page using Template:Infobox person with unknown parameter "baptism_date" (this message is shown only in preview).

These parameters do not exist in that specific article. I believe there is an issue with the template itself. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 18:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@Btphelps: I have edited {{Infobox criminal}}; your preview shouldn't show these error messages now. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Marriage[edit]

Didn't the Marriage parameter "Explanation" used to say to use the marriage template? (maybe not) Why doesn't it say that now? --Musdan77 (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, no answer to that question; how about this one?:

Any objections to adding it? --Musdan77 (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The change (if there was one) should be findable in edit history, and if there was discussion about it, it should be in the archives. Anyway, I don't see a reason to not recommend that template, but maybe there is a technical one I don't know about?  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  11:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Listing twins[edit]

In Dylan and Cole Sprouse, the infobox lists the twins by name alphabetically. Is it alphabetically done or done by who's older? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} 01:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

They appear in the order in which they were inserted; the template doesn't to any auto-sorting. Birth order is a matter of a few minutes, and irrelevant. I think they were put in that order because that's the order they appear in the photo, and native readers of English and other Western languages read (and view pictures in pages) left-to-right.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  11:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

parameter for preferred pronouns?[edit]

Some people have pronouns that they prefer. For more information, see this article and Gender-specific and gender-neutral pronouns.

I'd like to see this added to infoboxes for people. It could certainly be an optional parameter, and perhaps the parameter can still be filled, but optionally shown. - Paul2520 (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Net_worth[edit]

Is this parameter only used for alive persons, or may it be used for people regardless of their statuses? Gamingforfun365 (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

It can be used for both living and deceased people Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Website parameter and Twitter[edit]

Can/should verified Twitter accounts be listed in this infobox's website= parameter for BLP's?... TIA. --IJBall (contribstalk) 05:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Editors who work on this template....[edit]

...might be interested in this. BMK (talk) 06:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The template states, "Place of burial, ash-scattering, etc." Period. 🖖ATinySliver/ATalkPage 07:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should resting place include cremation[edit]

Should the "resting place" parameter be used for "Cremation" such as used here? Please feel free to put new headers for alternatives such as renaming the parameter or adding a new one or the like if that seems appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes[edit]

  • Yes; see below. SteveStrummer (talk) 10:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, but I could support other options: see below. BMK (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

No[edit]

  • No. See below. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • No; explanation below. 🖖ATinySliver/ATalkPage 08:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • No; cremation is manifestly not a "place", therefore this designation in the infobox is inaccurate. Just leave it blank if the ashes are not interred or entombed or enshrined anywhere. Or else change the label in the infobox to "Burial" (which it probably should be anyway, because "Resting place" is a confusing euphemism). Softlavender (talk) 10:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • No; per below comment SPACKlick (talk) 12:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • No, for reasons of consistency. This parameter has always displayed a place - both |resting_place= and |burial_place= are accepted and produce distinct labels, and in either case a set of coordinates may optionally be supplied. Re-users of the data in structures like infoboxes are much better served if the data is the same sort across articles. While "at sea" might be considered a useful exception to the expectation that a geographically defined place would be used, most of the others simply don't fit. If we allow "cremated", what other exceptions might be used as values for the parameter? "spontaneously combusted"? "vaporised"? "abducted by aliens"? "hung, drawn and quartered"? or even "drawn down to the pits of hell" in the case of Dr Faustus? --RexxS (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • No. - Sorry but "Resting place - Cremation" just sounds awful, But my main reason for opposing is as noted below being cremated isn't a place ... it's an action, The resting/burial place should be the actual place of burial ....., –Davey2010Talk 14:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • No as others have stated, cremation is an action and not a place Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • No Cremation is not a resting place. The fact is that the term is an odd euphemism since no one has died is doing any "resting." MarnetteD|Talk 21:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • No unless you are cremated and buried somewhere.--☾Loriendrew☽ (ring-ring) 00:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Potential alternative #1[edit]

While maintaining the resting_place = parameter, it could instead be rendered within infoboxes as, for example, "Burial/interment/cremation". 🖖ATinySliver/ATalkPage 08:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

  • I support this suggestion. (See my comment below). BMK (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Over my dead body. Not only is that sort of formulation stylistically inappropriate (along the lines of "and/or"), it is far too long to sensibly render as a label in any infobox. --RexxS (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Not planning to be cremated, are you? Face-grin.svg The general suggestion does stand, with the actual wording to be determined if it's agreeable (other suggestions have included "Disposition of body"). 🖖ATinySliver/ATalkPage 00:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Both Resting place and Burial place have a similar coordinates parameter which I assume is meant for the actual final place of rest. It would be weird to call the funeral home that did it (or wherever) their final "resting place" since the cremation isn't the actual resting place of the person (or their ashes) but it depends on where the ashes went. It could possibly be accurate if say the ashes were saved and put in a museum or something like that but generally I wouldn't support cremation being the final resting place in and of itself. This may sound like a maybe but I'm going with a flat no for now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The template instructions correctly read, "Place of burial, ash-scattering, etc." (Emphasis mine.) Cremation is an action, it is not a place. That said, I have attempted to maintain—while re-wording to restore the focus onto the place—those instances in which cremation is part of the explanation as to why a person's cremains are in those places. 🖖ATinySliver/ATalkPage 08:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

  • * Valid answers that could be placed in the field "Resting place" include "At sea" and "Unknown", which give no more geographical certainty than "Cremated". What's problematic is that the field title itself is strangely worded, using a euphemism (uncharacteristic for the 'pedia) instead of unambiguous terminology like, say, "Disposition of remains". Like most matters concerning infoboxes, this issue calls for deliberation and consensus. SteveStrummer (talk) 10:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
"At sea" constitutes a place, if ambiguous; "unknown" is the same as "leave blank" per numerous template instructions. "Cremated" is not a place under any possible definition. As for the field title, I don't disagree with you; as for deliberation and consensus, I fully agree in terms of what should remain within articles, but not in terms of what should be removed. 🖖ATinySliver/ATalkPage 10:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I see no helpful reason to insist that the field show an actual "place". I also don't think the field title needs to be changed: despite the "problem" raised here, it's a commonly used expression and well understood. I think 99% of readers feel no pangs at all from the apparent lexical error, and are better served by simply having the desired information be present where they expect it to be. SteveStrummer (talk).

It may be worth tagging some locations as cremated such as if it's ashes in a museum rather than a body but no way should creamted be listed as a location. SPACKlick (talk) 12:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment - Just add another parameter. We already have:

    | death_place = | death_cause = | body_discovered = | resting_place = | resting_place_coordinates = | burial_place = | burial_coordinates = | monuments =

    With instructions for burial place including to show where ashes were scattered, etc. We definitely should not take out the Cremation information from the articles. When people are searching for people, historical people, one of the things they want to know is where they are buried, or what happened after death. Stating they were cremated helps provide that information. So either add a body_disposal = parameter, or leave it as is, with the Cremation info. Dave Dial (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Are people actively looking for that in the infobox? It seems like a complete out there thing to particularly care about to me. I'd get if you said we should include that in the text if it's reliably sourced but the infobox seems odd. I'm not even certain about the burial/resting place there but at least I can get that in the infobox. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, yes. I know for a fact when researchers are researching the deceased for historical/genealogy purposes they first look to the infobox. I'm not saying that it stops there, but that is the first place they look for burial information, as well as children and spouses. It helps to have the basics listed there. Of course they continue to the article, but if a researcher is going through many historical figures that are deceased, having the info in the infobox helps quite a bit. Dave Dial (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I believe there are actually several parts to this "problem" (which is not actually much of a problem at all):
  • First -- and I know this has been discussed before, but it's worthwhile bringing it up again -- "Resting place" is a god-awful euphemism that is demeaning for us, as an encyclopedia, to use. No one is "resting", they're dead -- period. "Burial place" or some other equivalent would be a vast improvement. As a fact-based encyclopedia we should avoid euphemisms whenever and wherever possible.
  • Second, as Steve Strummer says above, the "lexical error" of having "cremation" appear in the "Resting place" parameter is really not much of an error at all. What "Resting place" means is actually something like "What happened to the body?". Since the majority of deaths are dealt with by burial in a cemetery, the majority of times this parameter will show the name of a cemetery. For those occasions where the body was cremated, having "Cremated" or "None: cremated" or "Cremated: ashes spread on Mount Olympus" provides the answer to the implied question. It is only an over-strict and rather pedantic interpretation of the actual words appearing in the infobox that prompts the removal of pertinent information that is of interest to the reader.
  • However, having said that, I do know there are some people who are unable not to make overly strict and pedantic interpretations of words. If these folk, and those that agree with them, carry the day here, then I support the suggestion made above by ATinySliver that a second parameter might be necessary to deal with cremations. However, my first inclination is that the rendered wording of the current parameter could be altered in such a way as to allow the information to appear in one field instead of in two, as they are -- for the most part, but not always -- mutually exclusive. (The "not always" comes when ashes are interred in in a vault in a cemetery.)
Those are my thoughts. BMK (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Where's the demand to add another parameter? Don't we have enough already? Isn't there a point where adding more and more parameters just makes the template so unwieldy that most of its parameters never get used because nobody knows about them? It seems many folks commenting here don't even know that |burial_place= can be used instead of the euphemism |resting_place=, as long as the body was buried, of course. You can't use both parameters, as one overrides the other. What "Resting place" actually means is precisely "Where is the body now?", not what happened to it. When the ashes are scattered in orbit around the Earth, there is no good answer to the real implied question. It's a pity that some people can't grasp the concept of data consistency across articles. This leads them to confuse pedantry - which is defined as "excessive concern with minor details and rules" - with the desire to ensure that information can be handled in a consistent manner. Anybody who has spent time programming will appreciate the value of making sure that when you're processing something that represents a place (possibly with geo-coordinates), you don't have to keep coding exceptions because somebody is inserting values that have no place associated with them. I can accept ignorance, but I'm not prepared to accept being labelled a pedant through it. --RexxS (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
You are exactly correct; another parameter won't even deal with the instant issue. It's how the existing parameter is rendered on the page to the reader that will determine whether "cremated/cremation" should be in the infobox. 🖖ATinySliver/ATalkPage 21:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)