Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 4

euphemism should be removed

This template contains the euphemism "resting place" which should be replaced with the more factual and neutral "burial place". Euphemisms have no place in an encyclopaedia and "Resting Place" is such a hackneyed phrase anyway.

Factually many of the dead are not resting, the atheists have simply ceased to exist, Hindus and Buddhists are busy elsewhere in another incarnation etc. etc.

JohnShep (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

How does "burial place" deal with cremation, resomation or other practices? --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 23:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Not well at all, but nevertheless a lot better than "resting place" JohnShep (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there a generic term for "how bodies are handled after death" that doesn't preclude any methods? None come to mind and a quick look at thesaurus.com didn't seem to yield anything. If there is none, perhaps this part of the template needs recoding with (say) "burial place" as the default but the possibility to subsitute "cremated"/"resomated"/etc... Sardanaphalus (talk) 01:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Language info

How about adding a field on the language(s) the person speaks, or accent? --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 08:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

i think recent changes have broken the birth/death place wikilinks in this template

see, for example, Samuel Longfellow Mangostar (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you are right. The Gates example is missing the birth place. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 12:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Occupation field

When filling in the occupation field, does one list all occupations, or just the most recent or most notable occupations? --Jwwalker (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that occupation should be the current occupation - the profession, if different, should be more of a "life-long" thing. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 00:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki

Can anybody add the interwiki from the wikipedia in spanish? I mean this one:

es:Plantilla:Infobox biografía

Thanks, 333 (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I found where to add it, thanks anyway. 333 (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Alma Mater

If a person has a degree from more than one institution, what is the alma mater? For example, suppose a person got a B.A. from The University of Iowa and a Ph.D. from Iowa State University. Which is the alma mater? Or is it both of them? Similar question for someone who has multiple degrees of the same "level". Thanks for your advice. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 01:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that in those cases the person pretty clearly has more than one alma mater. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

infobox icons

there's been a discussion opened up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Nobel prize image. although it may or may not be the correct forum, it is certainly of concern to all infobox tenders. all are invited to participate. cheers! --emerson7 02:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

as far as i can tell, there's no provision in any relevant mos i could find that permits the inclusion of the decorative images to infoboxes. barring any objections, i'll add explicit instructions to the documentation to match the other infoboxes. --emerson7 21:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Err yes, I object. You can't do this on the basis of no other input whatsoever William M. Connolley (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

err....do your homework. there's been much discussion on this topic already. however, if more discussion is required....well then that's why i stated 'barring any objections.' --emerson7 18:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This is currently being discussed at Template talk:Nobel icon. Zaian (talk) 07:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

damaged

One of the changes turned off the wraparound feature of the image caption. Ihave reverted all changes until the one can be isolated. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Birth name / full name

Use of the 'birth name' field in place of an alternative 'full name' field (as currently seems to occur commonly) gives the impression that a person has changed their name, when in fact they just happen not to be generally known by their full name. Most people with more than one forename are known by only one of these, so a 'full name' field is desperately needed. Grant (talk) 12:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Having now looked at the example, I presume that the name field is supposed to be the full name. I don't think I've ever seen this done in preference to the article name in an actual article – not till I checked Bill Gates, anyway. And the explanation certainly doesn't give this impression. Grant (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Religion entry in infobox:person

I noticed that the infobox for people contains religion = but this translates to "Religious beliefs" on the actual page. Wouldn't "religion" or "religious affiliation" be a better term? You might know what church a person attends or what religion they profess, but you don't know their actual beliefs. After all, churches are filled with hypocrites and cafeteria-style believers who pick and choose which elements of their professed religion to believe/observe/obey and which to ignore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilbert69 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

moved from ANI... — Scientizzle 20:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

image

Is there an agreement on the use of the silhouette image when no photo is available? I think it looks terrible. Would it be appropriate to take them off, especially some who it would be very difficult to get an image? Mike P (talk) 02:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Request

Hello. I would like to propose addition of "Citizenship" and "Ethnicity" parameters, same as in the {{Infobox Writer}}. Infobox Person template is systematically biased against Central and Eastern Europe for example. I will give you an example, there is a Lithuanian artist/musician from contemporary Poland. His citizenship is Polish, his ethnicity Lithuanian. He graduated only from Lithuanian minority schools in Poland and focuses on a work about life of his Lithuanian community. Therefore current parameter "Nationality" is insufficient. Same applies for dozens of ethnic minorities throughout Southern, Central and Eastern Europe. Same applies also for Jewish persons whose citizenship was German, Polish etc. The ethnicity is a very important factor in life of people from this part of the world and most often influences their work and professional career. Nationality in Western understanding is completely different than the Eastern one and can't be used for this large part of Europe. I would like also add that both parameters should be used only when person's ethnicity is clear and there is no doubt about it. Another option is to have blank fields same as {{Infobox Politician}} has and users can decide which additional information use. - Darwinek (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I just came back to Wikipedia recently, and I am surprised both that no one has responded to this proposal and that the subsequent edit to put it into effect has not been challenged. I made a similar request here last Fall and, after it met some resistance, I followed up with a full proposal that includes guidelines for use. I initially focused on the distinction between citizenship and nationality, but agreed that ethnicity should also be available as a parameter when the point was raised by another editor. As you can see, however, the proposal failed, and I have to wonder where the person responsible for that failure is now. Perhaps it was myself, instead of my proposal, that was the 'problem'.

In any case, I am glad that you made this request and followed through with the edit. It seems, though, that we still need to provide editors with guidelines on how to differentiate between and use these three parameters. Would you be willing to collaborate with me on a revised proposal to do this? – SJL 05:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

We need "Ethnicity" and "Citizenship" as parameters, because "Nationality" (and its sloppy use) leads to misunderstanding and edit wars. Just look at anybody born in Danzig between 1454 and 1793 in Category:People from Gdańsk, like Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit. These are indisputably ethnic German persons in a city with a disputed status of autonomy and "hardly a Pole within its walls". Some claim they were subject to the King of Poland, and try to call them Polish by citizenship. On the other hand, according to that very same logic, as there was no more Polish state in the 19th century, not a single Polish person would have existed then, as all were citizens of Russia, Austria, Prussia, etc. See also Albert Einstein, where ethnicity and three citizenships are stated, properly. -- Matthead  Discuß   07:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. When I made the proposal to change this template back in December, I pointed out that {{Infobox Scientist}} had already set the precedent, but to no avail.

As a side note, it may be worth considering a parameter like 'subject to' instead of 'citizenship' in cases where persons were or are members but not citizens of a political community, as in most kingdoms prior to the French Revolution in Europe, for example. – SJL 14:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The change of WP view towards nationality issue is desperately needed. WP adopted rough American view on this issue. In US arguably every citizen is American but in European, especially Eastern European countries it is not the case. Inclusion of these two additional parameters is very healthy as experiences with Infobox Scientist tell us. Who will benefit from the change? Mostly ethnic minorities in Europe and enslaved nations living under large empires of 19th century. Danzig is not a problem as German user above thinks, there a "nationality" parameter is sufficient in most cases, only not in those when the city was under Poland. From my experience opposers of this change show shocking lack of knowledge in this area or they fear some nationalistic edit wars. Well, to tell that all people from Poland are Poles and all from Germany are Germans by leaving only "nationality" parameter is far more nationalistic and dangerous than to acknowledge the plurality of the countries by approving ethnicity and citizenship parameters. This change is far more needed and desirable than endless chat about colour of the infobox header etc. - Darwinek (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I really want to see the general policy towards this changed but I fear it would unleash a backlash and disapproval. - Darwinek (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering the complexity for instance in the example above and to avoid lame edit wars (I can really see that happening) I actually think this info does not belong in the infobox at all but in article text. With text you can much better explain (and source) that he is an ethnic Lithuanian but has a Polish nationality. Garion96 (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

In this way of thinking the whole infobox is redundant as all info can be included in the text. You also seem to confuse the terms. Nationality can mean both ethnicity and citizenship, that's why it is highly confusing to use it for ethnic minority persons in the infobox. Fear of lame edit wars cannot stop us from improving this encyclopedia. Edit wars and vandalism are a living danger but they will be so anyways. As I said before, the experiences with Infobox Scientist are great and the fears have not fulfilled. - Darwinek (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

True, I prefer much of the information put in this infobox should only be included in the text. To me information in an infobox should consist of simple uncontroversial material. The fact that nationality can both mean ethnicity and citizenship is to me already a good indication that it doesn't belong in an infobox. See also the original discussion above and the related failed guideline Wikipedia:Citizenship and nationality. Garion96 (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, that's why ethnicity and citizenship parameters ease much the orientation of the reader. Look at Oskar Zawisza article for example. Can you imagine the infobox there only with "nationality" parameter? - Darwinek (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I can even imagine it without the nationality AND the ethnicity parameter. :) Just like Template:Infobox Actor does it. Just state where the person was born and explain the nationality and ethnicity in the text. Garion96 (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If you read through my contributions on the talk page of the original proposal, you will see that my intention is to help depoliticize the issue. Using 'citizenship' (an objectively identifiable legal status) as the default parameter, and only using 'nationality' or 'ethnicity' in addition to citizenship when they verifiably differ from it, is more likely to help avoid controversy than to create it. My proposal did not fail because there was consensus that it was a bad idea; it failed because it contradicted the political commitments of one particularly vocal person. I don't agree with Garion's position that none of this information should be displayed in the infobox in the first place, but I would rather adopt that policy than continue to perpetuate the nationalist premise that citizenship and nationality are synonyms. – SJL 04:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Parents

Why list a person's parent's names only if "notable"? Shouldn't they always be listed? I propose to remove the "notable" restriction. The restriction should stay for relatives, and only those that are notable enough to have Wikipedia entries. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I am going to remove the notability requirement for "parents" and "hometown". Does anyone know how I access the parameter notes? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I would actually prefer the removal of the parents parameter. That information does not belong in the infobox, but only in the article text. Garion96 (talk) 01:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

'Employer' parameter displays as plural

I've noticed that the 'employer' parameter displays as 'employers'. Could we change this to just 'employer' or, at least, 'employer(s)'? I would change it to the latter myself, but the template seems to be in lockdown. – SJL 05:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved. - Darwinek (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a small aesthetic problem with pluralizing in this manner that can be resolved with a simple switch. See #Title -> Title(s). --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I see, it seems however your "title" request wasn't apllied. - Darwinek (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It did take me a couple of months to stumble back across it and answer the question. Not a big deal, just a minor cosmetic bump. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 17:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, so both title and employer parameters should be updated? - Darwinek (talk) 18:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If you want. There may be others that could be pluralized. This is a minor quibble, so it could certainly hold off for the next major update since this is a highly used template. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! – SJL 04:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

New Field

{{editprotected}} I think there should be a new field added it would not be frequently used and would cover a small loophole when dealing with notable murder victims e.g. famous people who are abducted. this would be used when the death place cannot be ascertained. The field is where the body was discovered and would go under the title of body discovered. I have already added it to the doc page to show what it looks like. Please can an admin add the necessary code to help clear up this small loophole. Many thanks--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is this notable enough to warrant inclusion in the infobox? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

This is notable enough in a small number of cases to clear up a small loophole and for completeness of information. In high profile cases, for example where a person dies by falling out to sea, the place of death would be by falling in to the sea but would be different to where the body was found which would be a beach. This would only be used in a handful of instances but the same can be said for weight and citizenship, they are hardly ever used but in some instances will be notable for the subject in question. This is only a minor edit to add great clarity to some articles when using this template.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

In that case, wouldn't place of death simply be "unknown"? Then the relevant details about the death (location body was found, etc.) would be explained in the article body. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree as the place where the body was found could be significant information early on and may be why the death was notable in the first place. For example news reports where they start with "a body was found on a beach." This body discovery is what has made it notable although the place of death is unknown. This would only be used in a small number of articles but would help great deal in the articles it would be used in. An example article is Murder of Sarah Payne.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

As it has been a week and no more discussion has taken place can the requested field please be added to the template.--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody else seems to be convinced that it's a good idea, yet... Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has said anything opposed to this field since I last commented. If we had to wait for a large volume of support we could be here years. Nobody has commented since I last posted except me, if you have an objection to this field please say something. I though have to assume that the replies I have given to the other users have satisfied any doubts they had. This is because they havn't commented again questioning my response or the need for the field, also there is a sufficient volume of debate going on as shown by the discussions below, if any of them opposed they would have said something.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Are there any further objections to the addition of this new field? 1 further days notice is being given.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Please add new between the existing third and fourth labels.

| data4      = {{{Body_discovered|}}}
| label4     = Body discovered

--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

:oppose - sorry, but "body location" could be thought to be where someone is buried. Something more descriptive, like "Body_recovered_from" or "Body_discovered", would be better. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 19:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ammendment Body discovered is what it was meant to say not body location apologies for this error.

Thank you. Happy to support, now. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 20:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

From what I can tell, a {{{data4}}} parameter already exists. Adding this code would break things. Feel free to re-enable the editprotected request if appropriate. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It is proposed for addition as a new field 4 between the current field 3 and field 4 as this is where the other related topics such place or death and date of death etc are located so adding to the bottom would be out of place.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It has been added and still does not appear in the standard info box can somebody experienced fix this so it does appear. The inserted text has not caused a break of any sort to the rest of the parameters.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Amateur radio call sign

Hi! Can we have a call sign (amateur radio operator call sign) field in the infobox? =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is it necessary in a general person info-box and not on a celebrity or t.v./radio personality info-box?--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ummmn, call signs have nothing to do with television or radio (commercial radio broadcasting). A call sign is unique to the person for purposes of amateur radio, a hobby, and only a government can licence him or her. I seek to add it to all bio infoboxes. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added it. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Still why is it a necessity in this infobox or any info box?--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

We use an infobox to summarise key details about an individual. Now the following three: Ships, Aircraft, and Radio stations are all given a unique call sign by the government licensing authority of a country. (See ITU prefix for the call sign blocks). What should be discerned by "Radio stations" is that it is just not the commercial AM and FM radio stations, but is also inclusive amateur radio operators. See some examples of the call sign being used for:

• Aircraft: Air India Flight 182 -- see the Tail number field
• Ships: Queen Elizabeth 2 -- the callsign is mentioned as a field in the infobox
• Commercial radio stations: see List of AM radio stations in the United States by call sign (initial letter W). You can also check any of the articles.
• See also: Hussein of Jordan, where his unique call sign is mentioned in the article. (callsign JY1)

So therefore I see no reason why infobox person should lack the callsign field for licenced operators. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

How many biographical articles on Wikipedia feature the subject's call sign? Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 21:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Quite a number, but that would vary from country to country. For India, these are the number of notable people covered by Category:Indian amateur radio operators. Countries such as the Japan, the United States and Australia where licensing is more lenient, would have a higher biographical articles of licensed operators. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't we have a policy on personal contact information such as address and phone number? wouldn't this be similar? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

No, call signs are public information. A person coming on air must identify himself by his call sign. This is a legal requirement. An analogy would be the physical address of Wikipedia (which is private), and the Post Office Box, which is public. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

We don't publish addresses, phone numbers, email or screen names for the subject of a biography. Identification by call sign does not reveal your identity to anyone but the government agency who might be monitoring and those the originator might trust. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of personal information. If the person in question has a personal and public web page where they publish that information, then that is an acceptable link. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The call sign parameter would be used in articles where the person is also noted for amateur radio activities. Examples of biographies would be Rajiv Gandhi, Steven L. Herman, Marlon Brando, and Hussein of Jordan. Such details would be easily available through reliable sources. Now, if reliable sources are available online that a notable person XYZ is an amateur radio operator, the only way to corroborate this information is by mentioning his or her call sign, which is public enough. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

There are 18 on that page about India. That's not many, in the grand scheme of things. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 16:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said, it varies from country to country. India's licensing system is bureaucratic and slow, and as of date there are only 17,000 operators (many of them inactive, 7,000 added in the last eight years alone). Amateur radio in India has the details. These lists: [1], [2], [3] and [4] have a more comprehensive listing that can be matched with Wikipedia bio articles. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Though you haven't said as much, it seems to me that you're not sure that there's a quantifiable need for this property, on Wikipedia. I invite you to persuade me (and everyone else) that there is. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 19:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I gave you the impression 'that I'm not sure if there is a quantifiable need for this property', but that's not the case. I've given the comparison between ships, planes and radio station infoboxes that have the same call sign fields. Could you elaborate why you feel that there is no quantifiable need? =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Because you haven't been able to give a relevant and verifiable number. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 08:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The call-signs can be verified through reliable sources. I've also provided links above of internationally-renowned notable people with call signs. Using that information, it can be independently cross-verified. As I said, the call signs are not published by a central international organization, but by individual countries. So, if XYZ is notable in Poland, with reliable sources available in Polish, there is very little I can do to estimate the number of international notables on wikipedia. The links above should serve a rough guide as to the number of call sign holders to begin with. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

[Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of personal information: Radio call signs]. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 21:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

And, as I contributed at BLP Talk, Ham calls differ from phone numbers and addresses in this one aspect: They are (at least in the U.S.) public records that are more than readily searchable online. You can choose to have a public or private phone number, you can choose whether or not to make your address known to the general public. An amateur call sign, however, is not a matter of choice: It is public record, and agreeing to that is part of whether or not your license is granted. ( http://www.arrl.org/fcc/fcclook.php3 is one front end GUI that uses the publicly available FCC database.) Automatically being public record is, to me, the difference between a Ham call and an address or a phone number. LaughingVulcan 01:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that call signs are not private data the same way an address or phone number is. However, they are generally not encyclopedic data, unless the persons notability is for their ham radio activities. Thus this should not appear in the general infobox, it should only be used where it fits into the prose of the article and is supported by surrounding text. GRBerry 01:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

add hCard "role" property

{{editprotected}}

Please add | class12 = role. Thank you.Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 19:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 06:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I suggest adding "Honors" or "Civilian Honors" where someone can optionally add such things as a President's Award, Presidential Medal for Merit & others, OBE, Legion of Honor etc. Unless there are objections to this, then I will change it. - Handicapper (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You can use {{Infobox Awards}} as a supplementary infobox. See Arthur Rudolph for an example. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

'Resting place' not 'buried'

{{editprotected}}

Please will someone reverse this edit, which was made without consensus on the talk page, and which is inappropriate, since many people are not "buried", but cremated or otherwise disposed of. Note also that "resting place" is not a euphemism; since "to rest" means "to stay in one place" (as in "the car came to rest at the bottom of the hill") as well as "to relax". Andy Mabbett (aka Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy Mabbett; Andy Mabbett's contributions 08:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. --- RockMFR 15:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, but sadly undone, albeit apparently inadvertently, in the following edit. Andy Mabbett (aka Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy Mabbett; Andy Mabbett's contributions 19:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Grrr... There's a sandbox. Use it and then I'll sync it with the live template. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The straight-forward edit was already completed. You broke it; please don't expect me to do extra, unnecessary, work before you fix it. And please don't growl at me. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy Mabbett; Andy Mabbett's contributions 11:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha. If you won't make my job easier, the template can stay broken until another admin has time to deal with this request. Though at the moment, I seem to be the only one watching these. Update the sandbox or don't, but you're the one who wants an edit done and you can't do it yourself. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

...and you're the one who broke it. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy Mabbett; Andy Mabbett's contributions 18:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Umm, I don't think it was undone at all. Am I missing something? --- RockMFR 03:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes; with an edit summary of "(burial -> resting per talk - former label was inaccurate - this parameter is not just used for burials (hence why it is RESTING_place))". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Stifle (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Please reverse this edit. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see there is no reference to "burial place" in the current version of the template, only "resting place". I've copied the current template as it stands into the sandbox. If there are changes, please make them there, then re-add the {{editprotected}} and someone will copy the sandbox into the template page itself. Stifle (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

So it seems. I don't know how that happened. Apologies, all. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect label

{{editprotected}} There are two "label 18"'s in this table and no label 19. Could the following change be made please.

| label18    = Height

to

| label19    = Height

Thanks - X201 (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 01:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Parameters for hair and eyes

How about adding paramenters for the color of a person's hair and eyes? Many people are noted for this. Since almost all of the parameters are optional, the would only be used if needed. Jimknut (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)