Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 17:26, 9 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Infobox person template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39Auto-archiving period: 4 months

Template:Infobox person is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories. Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

This template was nominated for deletion or considered for merging. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Deletion discussions: Merge with Template:Infobox Native American leader: Keep, 2020 March 19, see discussion. Merge with Template:Infobox adult biography: Redirect, 13 September 2017, see discussion. Merge with Template:Infobox fashion designer: Merge, 31 August 2017, see discussion. Merge with Template:Infobox artist: Speedy keep, 14 June 2014, see discussion. Merge with Template:Infobox journalist: Redirect, 22 February 2012, see discussion. Merge with Template:Infobox actor: Merge, 20 August 2010, see discussion.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This template does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Infoboxes This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Infoboxes on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes Biography This template is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages'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.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Archives

Template:Infobox actor was merged here following a discussion at Templates for discussion. The talk archives for that template are listed here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Archives

Template:Infobox journalist was merged here following a discussion at Templates for discussion. The talk archives for that template are listed here: 1

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

Parent(s)

Currently, the label for a person’s parents displays as “Parent” or “Parents”, depending on how many notable parents the person has. Does anyone else feel like “Parent”—for those very common cases where only one of the parents is notable—carries too much implication that the person only had one parent? The label obviously carries the implication of “ parent” to us editors, but the general readership is unlikely to get that.

Potential solution: Where the bio has only one notable parent, and that parent is in the |mother= or |father= field, we could display “Father” or “Mother” instead of parent. Obviously where the situation is less standard (non-binary parent, same sex parents) |parents= and “Parent” or “Parents” would still be used, but for the common singularly notable parent, we would encourage |mother= or |father=. — HTGS (talk) 06:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Is there any opposition to this idea? I’d like to sandbox it up, but would hate to spend time to do so if there are good reasons to think it’s a bad idea.

TLDR: Bios with a single notable father or mother will display the parameter label as ‘Father’ or ‘Mother’; bios with two notable parents will display ‘Parents’; bios which want to display ‘Parent’ for any other reason can still do so. — HTGS (talk) 03:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it is a very good idea. Khiikiat (talk) 11:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. No, I find it intuitive that since the parent or parents are almost always blue wikilinks, only one parent present in the infobox means they only have one famous parent, not that they were raised by a single parent.

Similarly, the lack of siblings, granparents, cousins, etc does not imply that the subject doesn't have any of those, but merely that their every relative doesn't have their own Misplaced Pages article. Risedemise (talk) 04:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit request 19 July 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please make following changes to the display of Parents label, as described above:

Diff:

The relevant testcases can be seen at Template:Infobox person/testcases#Child Ofparents, in particular the last three.

Apologies for all the nested ifs.

Thank you! — HTGS (talk) 00:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I also think that the test {{Count|{{{father|}}}|{{{mother|}}}}} > 1 would be better replaced by {{Both|{{{father|}}}|{{{mother|}}}}}, but I am not 100% confident, and I figure it is easier for y’all to consider the request when that is how it is already written in the current version. Please anyone correct me if {{Count}} is better than {{Both}} here. — HTGS (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Are there any test cases available yet? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

For count vs both? No. I believe they return identically, but I am far from an expert scripter, and I’m unsure what would be needed to thoroughly test the two. And at this point I would prefer to just address the primary edit request, when the count method clearly works fine, it’s just not as short. (I’m also unsure which should be more demanding for the servers, but I expect that should be negligible.) — HTGS (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Pppery and HTGS: Can the same change be made to Template:Infobox officeholder? Khiikiat (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't see how this is an improvement. Having Parent as the label, with father or mother included in parentheses following the name, rather than Father or Mother makes far more sense. This edit should be reverted. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  @HTGS: how is this change helpful? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  @HTGS explained why they thought it was helpful in #Parent(s) above — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks Martin. Honestly @Neveselbert, your own comment almost makes my point for me. The options are: 1) label parent + parenthetical mother/father; or 2) solely label mother/father. I just don’t see that a doubling up of descriptors (with one in parentheses) is preferable. — HTGS (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  @HTGS: but parents are mutually inclusive, though. You can't have one without the other, which is why I think it makes the most sense to have them both under one label. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  Ohhh I see, this is just a misunderstanding! (I hope.) For clarity: If a bio has both the mother and father fields filled, the infobox displays as you are describing, parents label and mother and father parenthetical, as it always has. — HTGS (talk) 23:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  @HTGS: There's that concern, which I'm glad isn't an issue, but I still don't see how deprecating the Parent label when only one field is filled is an improvement. You can't be a father without being a parent, just as you can't be a son without being a child. So why should this be any different? We don't have a Son label, so why a Father label? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Nazi Germany in infobox

What should we include "Nazi Germany" in |birth_place= and |death_place= parameter, for example Adolf Hitler, Joseph Goebbels and Martin Bormann uses "Nazi Germany". 193.203.70.30 (talk) 00:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I usually find it more appropriate to use merely the country name as opposed to the historiographical label for the period, unless there is an important reason to emphasize the period. Remsense ‥ 论 01:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Not only do we not need to stess the political regime, it's simply wrong too - there were no Nazis when these three individuals were born. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

(I assumed in the examples it was only being applied to |death_place=. For what it's worth, I would consider these likely cases where the historiographical label would be warranted, but I would hesitate on the biography of a figure not directly related to German politics.) Remsense ‥ 论 09:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

The general country name can be pipe linked to the "historiographical label for the period"? But there are several varieties of name for Nazi Germany. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I generally don't recommend piping as such per WP:EGG. As per name variants, I almost always recommend sticking to the article title, which is typically the WP:COMMONNAME appropriate for use in prose and list contexts as well. Also also, the country typically shouldn't be linked in these parameters per WP:SOB.Remsense ‥ 论 09:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't see that as an Easter egg, more just lightly scrambled. But yes, Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Linking is an s.o.b. isn't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

So much so that I compulsively felt the need to correct that to S. O. B. Remsense ‥ 论 10:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Marriage templates in infobox

For some years I've maintained the spouse field in the infobox for the Orson Welles article according to the template documentation. I've reverted many edits that added marriage templates, and I've recommended that consensus be reached here. There is a hidden note in the spouse field that requests consensus before marriage templates are substituted for the present content. On April 24, 2018, I left a section on the Talk page, which is part of the first archive of the Orson Welles article:

Template:Infobox person/doc does not call for the use of Template:Marriage or suggest it as an alternative, per consensus. Please follows these guidelines and do not make changes unless consensus to use the marriage template is reached on the talk page of Template:Infobox person. See Talk:Orson Welles/Archive 1#Marriage templates in infobox.

Yet another modification that employs marriage templates has been made, reverting my own edits to restore it to match the Infobox:person template documentation.

I am posting this in case anyone cares to reach consensus on revising the documentation to include marriage templates, or affirm that the documentation is correct as it is. — WFinch (talk) 02:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Arguments for personality characteristics and IQ

Hi, I propose to place arguments for Big Five personality traits:

• openness to experience (inventive/curious vs. consistent/cautious)
• conscientiousness (efficient/organized vs. extravagant/careless)
• extraversion (outgoing/energetic vs. solitary/reserved)
• agreeableness (friendly/compassionate vs. critical/judgmental)
• neuroticism (sensitive/nervous vs. resilient/confident)

If each of them can be proved by some techniques, placing them is beneficial.

In addition, a parameter for score of Intelligence quotient is beneficial for that person provided that his IQ is proven. Like Albert Einstein. Cheers. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 12:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Seriously? Today is not 1 April. None of these things can be proved. One might adduce evidence, and even then they might at best merit inclusion in the article. There cannot be a case for including any of this in the infobox. Edwardx (talk) 13:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Edwardx Psychological tests provide scores that are very near to the truth. If any of these tests is applied to the intended person, for example Albert Einstein, then we can include that in the Infobox with referencing to that psychological test. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 13:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by "scores that are very near to the truth"? What sort of p value? And are you referring to reliability or validity? Edwardx (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Edwardx Yes I mean "validity". These tests are almost valid. But with applying other types of psychological test, we can make the previous test "reliable". So placing two tests can make the psychological value valid and reliable.

Please see https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/parenting/moments/5-genius-kids-who-have-an-iq-score-higher-than-albert-einstein/photostory/99929937.cms Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Edwardx For some of the parameters like Extraversion and introversion, the exact value is not important. We can mention that according to research, this person is introversion. Enough! Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

No. This is rife with WP:OR issues. An infobox should contain things that are patently objective, that no person with knowledge of the subject would ever disagree on. If you an article where the subject has actually undergone that type of assessment and made the results public, it can certainly be put in prose. But it absolutely does not belong in the infobox, especially because armchair psychologists will try to insert that information to the infobox where the subject has not been professionally assessed as such. If you are looking at compiling data or categorizing, you can create a template for containerizing and presenting that information for prose presentation. VanIsaac, GHTV_WpWS 15:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

The infobox is for facts, not pseudoscience. I'm half surprised a request for an astrological sign or Chinese zodiac animal parameter hasn't also been made. RachelTensions (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

No, per original research concerns. This also does not sound like international measures. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 12:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

…I didn’t think a sarcasm tag was needed there. RachelTensions (talk) 12:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

While there are probably people who merit their IQ score being brought up in-article—maybe a person noted for having an extremely high IQ—I can’t imagine any that would make sense to have their score listed without discussion, as is expected in the infobox. @Hooman Mallahzadeh: Can you actually name any notable persons whose infoboxes could make use of any of these additional parameters? — HTGS (talk) 03:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hooman Mallahzadeh, if I'm allowed to extrapolate across numerous interactions we've had: I recommend you take an introductory philosophy course or get some exposure equivalent to that. Your enthusiasm is commendable, but your proposals often come off as having the blind spots of someone who's overindexing on STEM education to the exclusion of other modalities.

The above is my attempt to be as constructive as possible—as this is a profoundly bad suggestion, but one clearly articulated in good faith. Remsense ‥ 论 03:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense@HTGS I am a graduate in "General Psychology" in M.S. form Payam Noor University. So my proposal might be from someone who is literate in this field. As I know, personality of an adult person hardly changes, and we can specify that by these five big personality traits in a great extent, these traits specify that person's lifestyle.

Specifying a person as "Introvert", we may determine the sorts of his interest he has worked on till now, and may determine what sort of works he would engage in the future.

In general context, we know a person by his "personality", not by how tall or how fat is he. So specifying personality of a person in his infobox, helps to know that person more accurately.

Although it seems a little odd at first, as a graduate in psychology, I really think that placing these personality characteristics is very helpful, so that readers can be familiar with his interests and lifestyle. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 04:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

You are not disproving my point. Remsense ‥ 论 04:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense Seems odd and bad and impractical at first, but I really think that placing them is very profitable and practical. Nowadays, by implementation of Web 3.0, and making the web "machine readable", in addition to humans, machines can profit from placing these big five to interact with people better. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 05:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hooman Mallahzadeh, perhaps it would be helpful to consider: you have expertise in psychology, but you do not have expertise in writing biographies (or encyclopedias). No doubt you have seen that these are very different fields as they are taught at your institution? — HTGS (talk) 05:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

No, it seems odd and bad and impractical well after having established an informed perspective considering all of the issues at hand. Remsense ‥ 论 17:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense I don't know why psychological tests like "IQ test" have not taken from all people at age 18? But I really think that taking psychological tests and keeping the results but informing them for celebrities like Albert Einstein and hiding them for general live public is helpful.

Introversion or extroversion of a person gives very much information about the jobs and hobbies that person have engaged and will engage. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 04:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to keep saying the same thing over and over: suffice it to say that the initial advice I offered to you in this thread remains the same. Remsense ‥ 论 04:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok... who provides the reliable sourcing for these types of evaluations? That would be the biggest issue. Secondary would be that you're essentially putting people in a box by adding this type of information, and tertiary would be that it's not useful for, I'd say, at least 99% of folks, and would lead to incorrect conclusions from those unfamiliar with the field. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Tracking category for |nationality=?

I'm surprised a tracking category wasn't added for articles using the |nationality= parameter. Would this be useful in whiddling down articles that incorrectly use it? Remsense ‥ 论 11:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, a tracking category would be very useful (for this infobox and the other infoboxes that still have |nationality=). Khiikiat (talk) 12:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Request to Add a Parameter for Native Place or Hometown

Dear Template Maintainers,

I am writing to request the inclusion of a new parameter (e.g., |hometown= or |native_place=) in the Infobox person template (or other related templates). This addition would allow contributors to specify the subject's native village or hometown, which is often distinct from their place of birth (|birth_place=).

This distinction is especially relevant in cases where a person’s cultural or ancestral ties are associated with a location different from where they were born. Adding such a parameter would improve the template's flexibility and allow for a more comprehensive representation of biographical data.

If creating a new field is not feasible, I suggest allowing existing optional fields (e.g., |notes= or |misc=) to serve this purpose. However, a dedicated parameter would ensure better clarity and standardization.

Thank you for considering this request. I look forward to your feedback and am happy to assist further if needed.

Best regards, Khaatir (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal, with a preference for "hometown". Sometimes a cited source gives a person's hometown but not the place of birth. That situation can lead to confusion because some dictionaries' definitions of "hometown" include place of birth. (Merriam-Webster: "the city or town where one was born or grew up also: the place of one's principal residence") If we had a specific parameter for "hometown", that would clarify that "| birth_place = " should be used only when place of birth is specifically stated in the source. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Teblick I completely agree with your point. Adding "hometown" as a specific parameter would clarify the distinction between birthplace and hometown, ensuring better accuracy and clarity in entries. Khaatir (talk) 03:43, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Then how does one classify what a person's home town is? If someone lived one place for a year following their birth there, but lived elsewhere for 20 years straight, what would you call their home town? Hey man im josh (talk) 14:59, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh I have to say the same. Khaatir (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh, I would not attempt to designate a person's hometown on my own. As I mentioned in my previous comment, I'm thinking about sources that specifically state a person's hometown, as in this example. In the situation that you mentioned, "If someone lived one place for a year following their birth there, but lived elsewhere for 20 years straight ..." I would put that information in the article's text, put the place of birth in the infobox, and leave the "hometown" parameter (if one existed) empty. Eddie Blick (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Eddie Blick I had a similar experience where, in an article, I added someone's place of birth, but their ancestral hometown was different. Both places are in separate districts. However, someone came along and replaced the place of birth with the ancestral hometown. Concerned about accuracy, I checked the provided references, which mentioned both the place of birth and the ancestral hometown. So, I added both.

The person is an academic, but since the |home_town= parameter was not available in either the Infobox academic or Infobox person, I opted to use the Infobox religious scholar, as they are also a religious scholar. Khaatir (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

This parameter existed previously but was removed following an RfC; a new RfC would be needed to restore it. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

That RfC addresses all the difficulties I have with the idea of a hometown parameter, and I think they're still applicable. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikidata as a source

Hi, I recently edited an English language article infobox to add a picture from commons and found that some of the interlanguage links had infoboxes that immediately picked up the Wikidata Image property e.g. es:Plantilla:Ficha_de_persona and nl:Sjabloon:Infobox artiest. Is anyone working on adding Wikidata to this template? Alex Sims (talk) 08:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

We don't, because there's no reason we really want to have the image selection for articles take place offsite. Remsense ‥ 论 08:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

"at the time" vs. "context and our readership"

While trying to figure out, what exactly happened at d:Wikidata:Requests for comment/Constraints for Germanies, I've read the birthplace guidance on this page:

• Use the name of the birthplace at the time of birth, e.g.: Saigon (prior to 1976) or Ho Chi Minh City (post-1976).

• For historical subjects, use the place name most appropriate for the context and our readership. What the place may correspond to on a modern map is a matter for an article's main text.

The Weimar Republic was called Deutsches Reich (like the German Empire before and Nazi Germany afterwards). Which of those bullets has priority? Do they mean, that one should use Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany instead of Deutsches Reich in the infobox of an article like Sophie Scholl, because she was killed by the latter or do we stick with "NPOV"/official name here? --Flominator (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

These countries were all called just "Germany" and that reference is not ambiguous for the times from the German Empire to the Nazi Reich, so that's what I would put in when the birthplace is in a location that still belongs to Germany today. We don't usually write "Federal Republic of Germany" when referring to the current incarnation of the German state, so why should we be more specific for these predecessors? (The "History" section of the article Germany starts with prehistory, not with 1949 or even 1990.) Gawaon (talk) 10:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Ping @Hutcher: for inserting it. --Flominator (talk) 12:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Parameter known as "partner"

The name of this parameter is creating a lot of confusion on its usage; it's intended to list lifelong, unmarried partners, yet I've seen many cases where editors are using it for fiancé(e)s or people seriously dating. (One example: see article on Zendaya - this edit, in particular - and yeah, this has been done at that article countless times.) Personally, I'm wanting the name of the parameter to be changed (though I don't know to what specifically); at the very least, I'm interested in seeing past discussions about this parameter, and whether a proposal to rename the parameter has happened. MPFitz1968 (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Specifying birth/death place within a city

For the birth_place and death_place parameters, Template:Infobox_person/doc specifies that what should be included is "city, administrative region, country", furthermore stating "it is not necessary to state: New York City, New York, United States when New York City, U.S. conveys essentially the same information more concisely." This edit is one of the occasions where User:Nikkimaria removed the borough from Brooklyn, New York City, US as the place of the place of the subject's birth and from Manhattan, New York City, US as the place of death -- all supported by reliable and verifiable sources in the article -- citing the template documentation as justification. Are we limited to only listing city and not permitted to include any more detail? Is there any basis to interpret "city, administrative region, country" to mean that we forbidden to mention a more specific place within a city and is there any reason not to list a borough or more specific neighborhood within a city where that information is available? Alansohn (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I think that in a metropolis that has well known and distinct districts/boroughs/arrondissements/Bezirke/Stadtteile/barrios mentioning them in the infobox enhances the its information value for readers. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I've always assumed that yes, it does mean we are forbidden from using borough. For large cities like New York and London, I think the borough would be very useful. Certainly more useful than the country! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree with including the boroughs. Definitely helpful content for readers. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

The existing guidance is fine. Anything we add to the infobox is potentially helpful to some readers. But, we have to balance that with keeping the infobox at a manageable size and avoiding clutter. They can always find the detail in the article itself. Do we really want Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, London, UK? No, thank you. Edwardx (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I would agree. In cases where something narrower than city is particularly noteworthy, exceptions can be made - for example for Mozart there is an article specifically on the building in which he was born. But as a general rule, city is sufficient. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

There's also suburbs (Chatsworth, Los Angeles) and neighborhoods (San Carlos, San Diego). Where to draw the line? —Bagumba (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Was just looking at Peter Yarrow. What would be more useful, to a reader wanting the essentials, there: "New York City, New York, U.S" or "Manhattan, New York City, U.S"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

"New York City, US" will suffice. Edwardx (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

"Manhattan", New York City, US" would be more helpful to some readers. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Significantly influenced/ significant influencers

From what I've seen, one of the main reasons behind influenced/influencers being removed was that it was too broad and allowed people to add just about anyone. However, if we change the parameters to only significant (or we could use a similar word) influencers/influenced, that will narrow it down. Could that possibly work? Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• Are their examples of you can direct us to? Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  Are you referring to examples on Misplaced Pages? I'm no expert on the rules, but I'm pretty sure that there's a policy (I forgot the name) stating that information from other articles can't be used as evidence for implementing something, unless that other article is FA/GA. Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

You mention influenced/influencers being removed. It is unclear to me what you are referring to. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I was referring to the template parameters "influences" and "influenced", which were deactivated, but perhaps we can activate them again if we add "significantly" behind them to have them apply more narrowly. Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification…understood. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 02:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Glad you understand, you're always welcome to share your thoughts on implementing this if you'd like Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

How would you define "significant" in this context? DonIago (talk) 04:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

If you're asking about specific criteria, then perhaps we could implement it so that a person could get on there only if there is a reliable source(s) stating not only an influence but that the influence had a significant/notable/important impact.

For example, if a reliable source said "Da Vinci influenced Michelangelo", then this would not count. However, if it said "Plato was perhaps one of Aristotle's greatest influences, significantly impacting the way he interacted with the world around him" then it would count under this policy.

I gave a more powerful example there to illustrate why we should consider this, but any source that mentions that the influence was notable and / or expands on the impact could be included, and then again, you're always welcome to revise these ideas -- they're not set in stone.

Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

P.S. Since the infobox is sort of a summary of the entire article, adding it may also depend on how prominently the influence is mentioned in it. Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I think I'd be more convinced if multiple sources making claims that the influencer was significant were required. I'm not yet convinced that this belongs in the infobox rather than meriting full prose within the article, and I'm well-aware that good-faith but inexperienced editors will sometimes add to the infobox without realizing that it's intended to be a summary of the article. DonIago (talk) 06:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The problem with "significant" is that it's subjective. There was a related discussion three years ago at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Musicians/Archive 13#Influences/Influenced on Infoboxes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Redrose64 It sounds like the problem they were encountering there was that some people influenced way too many others (like Beethoven), but in that scenario it would probably be more beneficial to insert the movement/era they inspired, such as 12 tone music for Schoenberg and the Romantic era for Beethoven (those specifically are listed in another section, but you get the point). But if there was one person significantly influenced and nobody else, for example, then it may be useful to pinpoint that one person.

Also, I'm pretty sure that deciding whether to include anything on an article requires some sort of subjectivity.

@Doniago We could do it where it needs 2 or more sources if that's what we reach a consensus to implement. As for where to include, the infobox is supposed to have the most notable information in some articles, and sometimes I think it's very clear that one person had a clear influence on another, and that adding that could have more of a benefit than harm. And for the last part, I don't think we should exclude a rule just because some beginners might break that rule. We could also add a discretion message if necessary.

Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced that this kind of information is so critical to any individual that it merits being placed in the infobox without any context, though if other editors feel otherwise then I wouldn't push against them. Right now, it seems to me better that this is handled in prose, where such information can be placed in its proper context. DonIago (talk) 14:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

What about the earlier examples? Or like on John the Apostle's page listing that he was influenced by Jesus in the infobox? Wouldn't it do more good than harm to list those in the infobox? Wikieditor662 (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Pronouns?

Should the various person infoboxes have a line for pronouns, possibly with a recommendation to use it only in cases where this information is lead-worthy? I am thinking of cases like Karen Yeats, for instance. Yeats's use of they/them pronouns is prominent in the article's lead text (with an explanatory footnote) but not visible in the infobox. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

That sort of explicit parameter feels like it would invite all kinds of edit warring in a way that would be highly unhelpful. Article prose feels like a much better way to explore those subjects for whom pronoun usage is notable, and the implicit usage of pronouns in the article text conveys the same information while being guided by WP:MOS. The inclusion of a cut-and-dry parameter is rather wholly unsuited to precisely those cases where it is most important - where there is a significant backstory or controversy. VanIsaac, GHTV_about 19:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

• Template-Class biography pages