Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

Bill Gates example - residence field

I propose changing his residence from Medina, WA to Medina, Washington. The vast majority of our readers are not from the US and are not familiar with this short-form and so usage of it should be discouraged. doomgaze (talk) 22:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I have made the change as per apparent 'consensus' per WP:SILENCE. doomgaze (talk) 11:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Spouse

I disagree with spouse date ranges in the case of the death of the infobox subject, where the spouse is alive, and there has been no divorce. For example, in an infobox about Person1, who has died in 2011,

Spouse: Person2 (2006-2011)

implies either that Person2 has died, or that they were divorced. This ambiguity is unnecessary, and is easily avoided by not using a date range. For example:

Spouse: Person2 (married 2006)

The text urging the completion of Spouse date ranges cites no discussion or precedent in other encyclopedias. This smacks of doing it this way because we can, and because we say so, not because of any cultural or historical reasoning. --Lexein (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this usage is confusing. It raises the question of whether the marriage ended because spouse died or because of a divorce. I propose using a format like :Spouse Person 1 (2006-2011, his death) or :Spouse Person 1 (2006-2011, divorce). This is much clearer. --Crunch (talk) 01:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Signature centering

Can someone make the signature not centered for this infobox? They aren't centered for infobox writer, officeholder or royalty. See examples below.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Infobox Person
Signature
Infobox Writer
Signature
Infobox Officeholder
Signature


Infobox Royalty
SignatureInfobox Royalty's signature

I agree. I 'll look at it in a few hours. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I tried but I can't get it right unless we reduce the signature size to coincide the size of Infobox writer. I support this idea. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, do that. There is no need to have such a large signature image and it look's ugly compare to the other infoboxes. It can even be a bit smaller, if you like, like the infobox officeholder or royalty.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Done. Please check. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I was actually more of a fan of the centered signature...--IIVeaa (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I think both have pros and cons. I think we should treat all infoboxes uniformly and seems that most editors like the current style, otherwise they wouldn't have chosen it for all the other infoboxes. One interesting fact: Only 476 pages in Category:Biography with signature. -- Magioladitis (talk)

Children parm has a bug

Resolved

The 'children =' parm generates a label looking like this: Children 8

Clearly this is a bug, can someone authorized fix it plz?

I found this in the src code:

| label57 = Children 8| data57 =

Thx. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Thx! (Eight was just too many mouths to feed.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Lol. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Usernames On Infoboxes

What are your opinions on adding a "Wikipedia Username" attribute to People Infoboxes? I'm sure there a fair number of Wikipedians who have Wikipedia articles about themselves, particularly programmers & those prominent in Wiki development. Adding it would require consent of the user, and some sort of confirmation process to ensure the Wikipedian and the subject of the article are the same person. Primary advantage would be being able to link biographies of prominent Wikipedians (especially in Wiki-software development and Wiki-policy, people like Ward Cunningham) to their contributions and where they've weighed in on Wikipedia debates. Thoughts? Rishi.bedi (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it would a) be redundant and b) only apply in a few, rare, cases and therefore shouldn't be added to the infobox. We already have {{connected contributor}} for talk pages, which is sufficient. Also, consider that relatively few of our "notable Wikipedians" have taken action such that their Wikipedia article is even worth mentioning in their article (much less their infobox) in the first place. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Relations field

Is a brother- or sister-in-law - even one notable in their own right - suitable for inclusion in the "relations" fiel?. It seems a little tangential to me. - Sitush (talk) 20:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I agree, if that relationship is worth talking about, it can probably best be discussed in the article itself. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

Kwamikagami (talk · contribs) just added a field for "pronunciation". Should that have been done? (A) It was undiscussed. (B) Isn't pronunciation supposed to go in the lead sentence? I'm not aware of such a field being used in other infoboxes. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This unilateral move does not seem to be rooted in some precedent. - Darwinek (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
There is a precedent in other infoboxes, such as {{Infobox planet}} and {{Infobox language}}. There is general unease about having too much trivia in the lede, esp. in the first line. — kwami (talk)
I have no opinion, but since it appears this is controversial, I have reverted it. It can, of course, be added again if there is some consensus to do so. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I've put it back in since articles depend on it, and you did not edit the articles to compensate. The two would need to be done together. — kwami (talk) 00:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
See Category:Biography template using pronunciation. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
The tracking category is now empty (except for userspace). I have reverted the additions to infoboxes that are related to this one. Discussion about this should probably take place at one location, and be advertised at the appropriate places, as this is quite a major change to current practice. Prolog (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I have opened a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Pronunciation. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the field. Making a bold addition to a fully protected and highly used template is not the best idea. Prolog (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately this discussion is occuring on several pages simultaneously (as per Wikipedia tradition). —Designate (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Origin

Would it be possible to add an "origin" section to the infobox? Often, the birth place doesn't hold as much signifance as where someone is actually from.

92.5.51.138 (talk) 11:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

We already have that - see the description for how to use |home_town= in the documentation. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Net worth parameter

Hi all. Anyone have an issue with me amending the documentation for this template requesting that the net_worth be supported with a reliable source, as per the religion field? E.g.,

  • <!-- Net worth should be supported with a citation from a reliable source -->

I can't imagine a situation where someone would add this information without having viewed a reliable source, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to me! Cheers, Nikthestoned 11:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Should also probably include a date with net worth since the value can change over time. -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps. Are you thinking of something like |net_worth=amount ({{As of|mm/yyyy}}) ? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 12:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree with that also! I've been bold and amended as per my original proposition anyway, given the lack of reasoning / argument against Nikthestoned 15:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to remove "religion" from template

Following an initial discussion at WP:BLPN, I propose that the "religion" parameter be removed from this infobox. Reasons:

  1. If a person's religion or religious beliefs are relevant, they will be discussed in the article itself. Appropriate categories can be added if the person has self-identified (per WP:BLPCAT) as being an adherent to a particular belief or religious view.
  2. A person's "religion" reflects their thoughts, actions, and beliefs, and it is misguided to equate it to simple facts such as place of birth.
  3. This parameter seems to be generally ignored, although there is an opportunity here for it to be misused to push a particular POV either in favour of or against particular religious groups by using it selectively.
  4. As the linked discussion has shown, even the simple case of using it to identify an atheist causes argument.

I propose that this parameter is removed from this template. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose Infoboxes aren't for establishing notability. They are, as this template's documentation says, "used to summarize information about a particular person." If a person's religious beliefs are significant enough that credible third-party reference(s) can be found, then clearly that fact has met can be used in articles, including infoboxes. Religion is a notable fact to be summarized in an infobox. Senator2029 | talk | contribs 23:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Religion can be a usefull information to be available at glance. For example I look at the religion in a infobox of a Member of Parliament. If this information is irrelevant, the field can be left empty: it is to each editor to decide if this field is relevant. A ntv (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, per proposer. This parameter is rarely used, and when it is, if is often not done in accordance with WP:BLPCAT policy. If someone's religion is relevant to their notability, the article can demonstrate this properly, in context, and with sources properly cited where the reader can see them without having to look at the edit page. (and a note to A ntv - please read WP:BLPCAT: if this information is irrelevant, the field must be left empty). AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Because of WP:BLPCAT the editors have already decided if this field is relevant or not. We cannot simply remove this field assuming it is always irrelevant. We shall rely on editors. A removal of this field is a wholesale mass deletion of information. A ntv (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Presumably the information is important enough to also be in the article. Thus there is no removal of information simply a removal of duplication and undue prominence. John lilburne (talk) 18:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support and would support removing other factoids which are not of clear importance as well. Collect (talk) 18:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support for all the above reasons - plus the facts that it often changes over an individual's lifetime, may or may not be actively practised, and the parameter can act as a magnet for POV-pushing editors. It is, usually, irrelevant. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support for cogent reasons already given here, by nom and others. Moriori (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose After consideration, I vote to keep. It can be especially helpful when it comes to election candidates. A voter can see at a glance what the politician's belief is (and of course it needs to be referenced). And every editor should know that having certain information in the article body does not mean that it shouldn't also be in the infobox. In fact, the infobox should be a reflection of the article. Also, removing "Religion" could lead to someone thinking, "Well, religion was removed so the 'denomination' parameter should be as well." "Denomination" is essential when it comes to ministers (or former ministers like Mike Huckabee). Musdan77 (talk) 00:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
If the religion parameter is removed, the denomination parameter is no longer relevant and I would expect it to be removed as well. Not explicitly including it in the proposal was an oversight on my part. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
See what I mean? I rest my case. Even if Religion is removed, that does not mean that Denomination should too. Both should remain, but Denomination should definitely remain. The reasons given for removal of Religion are not good enough (and you did not address the reasons that I gave). Musdan77 (talk) 02:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
What business is it of ours to be helpful to voters, and particularly to voters who care about what denomination a candidate belongs to. Maybe you haven't heard about the No Religious Test Clause of the U.S. Constitution? Granted you have every right to cast your vote based on religious preferences, but I don't understand why an encyclopedia should be making it easier for you to do so.Griswaldo (talk) 03:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
First of all, don't confuse Religion with Denomination. Those are 2 separate issues (and maybe I shouldn't have brought up the latter in the first place). Anyway, that constitutional clause has nothing to do with individual voters. Obviously, a politician's views on many issues bears heavily on their religious beliefs. A voter should know all aspects of a candidate, and his/her faith is a major part of that. Musdan77 (talk) 04:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a good place for a voter to find an overview of a particular politician, but its purpose is not to provide everything that a voter might want to know. I'm sure it is not difficult for voters to find discussions about the religion of US politicians elsewhere. In the case of Huckabee, that seems like something that would be discussed in the body of the article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support In addition to the reasons given above, a person's religion is changable. We may be indicating one person is a ____ian (who has been so, devotedly, hir entire life). Meanwhile, another person may have changed to or from _____ianism but is also listed as a _____ian with the same weight. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose We shouldn't limit choices. I have yet to see an argument that convinces me having the possibility of listing someone's religion is harmful - it's no more POV to list the (self-identified, that's a must in my eyes) religious or non-religious belief than it is to list their spouse(s). Marital status is (usually) self-selected, changeable and often involves non-notable individuals, yet it is perfectly fine to list in a BLP infobox. That the parameter religion is in use (most often in politicians' biographies, but not only there) tells me it is useful; would saying a politician is known for being of religion XYZ be less POV than just saying religion=XYZ? Would it even be accurate? Known to be isn't the same as known for. --Six words (talk) 09:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Problem is the parameter religion is not just being used to denote religion, and if BLPs have no religion, the parameter should not appear in their article. Why do people insist on Religion: None (atheist) at James Randi but not put Religion : None (agnostic) at Robert G. Ingersoll? Why does Julia Scheeres have Religion : Humanist but former Humanist of the Year Mary Calderone not have a religion entry? Who on Wikipedia decided humanism is a religion? I suggest they read our Humanism article which states in the lead that humanism specifically rejects "supernatural and religious dogma". So what then justifies "humanist" being added to the religion parameter? Moriori (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Who says the lack of a religion shouldn't be allowed to appear in the infobox? It's part of Randi's public image, just like the religiousness of some politicians is part of their image. In Randi's case saying religion "none" is accurate, and that should be our only concern. As to your other point: why don't all known atheists/humanists/subgeniuses/... have a religion entry? I'm only guessing, but I'd say it's the same reason why not all known christians/jews/muslims/buddhists/hindus/... have an entry: because nobody made one. Or if they made one, they were reverted because they didn't provide a source. WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a good argument in an AfD discussion, and it isn't a good argument here. If you're concerned that readers get the impression humanism is a religion, you can follow the Randi example and change that to "none (humanist)". --Six words (talk) 09:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
You ask "Who says the lack of a religion shouldn't be allowed to appear in the infobox?". Your question should have been "Who says that a person without a religion should have religion in their infobox?" What rational reason is there for that? Moriori (talk) 10:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Nope, my question is exactly what it should have been. Sorry I didn't ask the question you wanted to answer, but then again, you didn't really answer at all. I don't see a problem with saying somebody doesn't follow a religion, so I don't think it's wrong for them to "have religion in their infobox" as long as it's made clear that they don't follow one. --Six words (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Contentious, often not important. This infobox is usually way too long, shortening it to really get an at-a-glance overview is better, and religion is one of those things that can easily go. For those people where it is important, it will be extensively discussed in the article, and often mentioned in the first sentence of the lead anyway. Fram (talk) 09:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't think "contentious" is a good reason to remove the religion parameter. I think contentious equates with difficult in this instance, and that accomplishing the difficult in this instance is a worthwhile goal and potential accomplishment. Bus stop (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Who's to say what's "too long" when it comes to infoboxes? If it goes past the article body, then that would be too long. The thing to keep in mind is whether the info is relevant for that person or not. Sometimes religion is. Musdan77 (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I've talk about this before but a friend of mine was born and baptized a Roman Catholic, was married in a Catholic church, his kids were all christened, and confirmed in a catholic church, he was buried in a catholic church. He moved from Scotland to the West Midlands because of signs on the factory gates saying "Catholics need not apply", he recalled private accommodation with signs saying "Vacancies. No Catholics, No Blacks, No Dogs", he was instrumental in the development of the 1970s Equal Rights Acts. If there was an article about him here someone wouold be bound to label h9im a catholic. Past his teenage years, he had nothing to do with Catholicism and was a major critic, it was his wife that was an adherent to Catholicism. John lilburne (talk) 12:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I am generally against labels that are common foundations for stereotyping. Religion is one of the three most abused, along with race/ethnicity and sex/sexual orientation. For those who want their politicians so labelled, there are official websites. I agree that where the individual has made religion (his or others') a point of significance, that belongs in the article, properly qualified but not in an "info box". Info boxes about people are, by definition, simplistic, and not susceptible to nuance, and thus largely fail in dealing with human beliefs and allegiances. Bielle (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Person's religious beliefs are often important aspects of their work (politicians, writers, artists). There is no reason to remove this parameter just because atheists do not fit there. - Darwinek (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment Also "often important aspects of (the) work" of politicians, writers, artists, etc. are political party, sexual orientation, dietary concerns (vegetarians, etc.) and numerous other descriptors. Additionally, leaving it in the info box includes it in cases where it is not an important aspect. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It can be used for articles on religous figures and missionary and such people relate to religion.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment It is also used for articles on people where religion is not a meaningful aspect of who they are or why they are notable. In many more specific cases, we have a specific infobox that includes this information. This is the general infobox, used for cases where other infoboxes do not apply. So, specific infoboxes for politicians include political party while this info is typically of trivial importance for a marathon runner. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
If people don't like other people listing the nonrelevant religions of athletes then they should edit those pages to leave them blank. Allow the section to exist for people where religion does matter. Editors like myself never fill all the parts on this infobox anyway. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Sourcing nightmare and much better explained (if necessary in the first place) in the actual prose. Garion96 (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, It should be kept, all the issues regarding sourcing and POV should be addressed at the article level this is a kin to taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Mtking (edits) 04:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - frequently very important to full understanding of the suject, particularly in the case of public figures such as politicans. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose A person's religious beliefs (or lack of) are often an important part of a person's identity. This is not a mandatory field - if the person has no religious beliefs, then the field can be left blank. warrior4321 20:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose—reliable sources indicate religion. I don't think this is any different than sourcing any other piece of information. The reader is not so gullible as to believe that every person who has a religious identity is extremely pious. Religion is just one of many attributes that readers like to be apprised of. Bus stop (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
    • No one is suggesting that religion should not be discussed in the body of the article, simply that it is not included in the infobox, for the reasons already given. I don't believe anyone has suggested that readers are gullible, although it is probably best to assume that some are and some are not. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Religion is a useful thing to be able to grab at-a-glance. In situations where a person's religious affiliation is debated or not clearly public knowledge, I agree, it makes no sense to reduce it to one or two words in an infobox. But for a lot of biographies, especially those of religious figures, it's convenient to see it quickly. Rishi.bedi (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - for all the very good reasons listed above and the previous times this was discussed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose – A person's religious beliefs were obviously important to them, or else they wouldn't have held them. We should not be skittish at including this biographical information, when properly documented. Also Warrior4321, Bus stop, and Darwinek, make points in which I am in agreement. Senator2029 | talk | contribs 22:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a no-brainer. This is an important field for obtaining a quick, if very basic, idea of who someone is. A person's religion says significant things about the person, and is far more significant than some of the other things in the infobox, such as town of birth (especially since many people are born in a different town than they grow up in!) or alma mater. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose No more or less important than where someone is born. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Per nom, Andy, and others. I understand the point that the field may sometimes be relevant and that if it is misused, it can be removed. However, in practice it is very rarely relevant to a person's notability and generates endless debates and poor use of editor resources. If it is sufficiently relevant to the subject, it can and should be in the body of the article. It doesn't have the same "factual" quality as a DOB or birthplace, etc., and therefore shouldn't be in the infobox.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_person/Archive_11&oldid=1091989823"