Misplaced Pages

Template talk:Infobox person: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:58, 26 July 2013 editOhconfucius (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers328,947 edits →Discussion: +← Previous edit Latest revision as of 22:04, 8 January 2025 edit undoWikieditor662 (talk | contribs)470 edits →Significantly influenced/ significant influencers: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talk header|noarchive=yes|search=no}} {{talk header}}
{{permprot}} {{permprot}}
{{Old AfD multi |date1=20 August 2010 |result1='''Merge''' |link1={{canonicalurl:Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 August 20#Template:Infobox actor}} |merge1=Template:Infobox actor |date2=22 February 2012 |result2='''Redirect''' |link2={{canonicalurl:Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 February 22#Template:Infobox journalist}} |merge2=Template:Infobox journalist |date3=14 June 2014 |result3='''Speedy keep''' |link3={{canonicalurl:Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 June 14#Template:Infobox artist}} |merge3=Template:Infobox artist |date4=31 August 2017 |result4='''Merge''' |link4={{canonicalurl:Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 August 31#Template:Infobox fashion designer}} |merge4=Template:Infobox fashion designer |date5=13 September 2017 |result5='''Redirect''' |link5={{canonicalurl:Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 September 13#Template:Infobox adult biography}} |merge5=Template:Infobox adult biography |collapse=yes |date6=2020 March 19 |result6='''Keep''' |link6={{canonicalurl:Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 March 19#Template:Infobox Native American leader}}|merge6 = Template:Infobox Native American leader}}
{{WPBiography|class=Template}}
{{archives|auto=yes|search=yes}}
{{Template talk:Infobox actor/Archives}}
{{Template talk:Infobox journalist/Archives}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 32K |maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 16 |counter = 39
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 6
|algo = old(90d) |algo = old(120d)
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|archive = Template talk:Infobox person/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Template talk:Infobox person/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{Calm}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{WikiProject Infoboxes}}
{{WikiProject Biography}}
}}
{{Template talk:Infobox actor/Archives}}
{{Template talk:Infobox journalist/Archives}}


:'''For pending merger proposals (2009 to date) see ]''' :'''For pending merger proposals (2009 to date) see ]'''


== Birth name, again == == 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 {{em|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 {{para|mother}} or {{para|father}} field, we could display “Father” or “Mother” instead of parent. Obviously where the situation is less standard (non-binary parent, same sex parents) {{para|parents}} and “Parent” or “Parents” would still be used, but for the common singularly notable parent, we would encourage {{para|mother}} or {{para|father}}. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">—&nbsp;<span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">]</span>&nbsp;(])</span> 06:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
At ], the lead is:
:'''Charles A. "Charlie" Wilson, Jr.'''{{Sup|}} (January 18...
In the Infobox, {{Para|name}} Charlie Wilson. So, in keeping with usual practice where a common name is used for the article and name, I put his full name in the Infobox as: {{Para|birth_name}} Charles A. Wilson, Jr.
The change was reverted by ] with the edit summary:
:''the A probably stood for something''
I reverted with the explanatory edit summary:
:''The "A" was well-used in his time in congress to diff him from Texas' Charlie Wilson. See house.gov. It's in the lead, and should be in Infobox.''
He reverted with the edit summary:
:''unless there's a cite that his full name was actually "Charles A. Wilson, Jr.", then te lead is sufficient enough. wait for an obit that lists the full name''
So, I put it back and cited one of many (200+) places the middle initial is used at house.gov, figuring that would be the end of it:
:''The Infobox is supposed to match the rest of the article, particularly because the name is different than the article title. I asked that you see house.gov, and have now cited one such doc there, his nom for #110.''
He reverted again, this time as ]:
:''no, it does not need to match the article. This particular field, 'birth name' is used for the full name of ther person at birth...unless we have a cite that the 'A' stands for nothing and he was born with this name, it should be left out here''


:Is there any {{em|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.
He even put the cite back in afterwards. So, he seems to ack that it ''is'' his name, but doesn't think it belongs in the Infobox, claiming that {{Para|birth_name}} is ''only'' for the person's name at birth (literally on their birth certificate, perhaps). He apparently would even accept it if we knew what the initial stands for. I claim that we ''routinely'' use {{Para|birth_name}} for a complete name when {{Para|name}} is an abbreviated name, nickname, stage name, etc., and that we have sufficient evidence that his full legal name is Charles A. Wilson, Jr. (albeit with an abbreviated middle initial for now). '''Is {{Para|birth_name}} to be used for this perhaps-not-quite-literally-as-named purpose or not?''' <font color="red">—&#91;</font>](])<font color="red">&#93;—</font> 01:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
: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. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">—&nbsp;<span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">]</span>&nbsp;(])</span> 03:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
:Just going to chime in here, I had always thought that the field was for people known as a name other than their birth name, eg. ] or ] - IMO the field has become overused over the past while. For this case, I think that if we have the full name or a citation that the "A." stood for nothing then it would be fine in my view. – ] (]) 02:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
::I think it is a very good idea. ] (]) 11:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
::My understanding is that the birth name parameter is for a birth name that is substantially different from the adult name of the individual. If the first name and the last name are the same at birth and later, then it just looks like needless repetition. ] (]) 06:59, 17 April 2013 (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. ] (]) 04:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)


=== Edit request 19 July 2024 ===
== Parameters that can optionally be called from Wikidata ==


{{Edit template-protected|answered=yes}}
] was just closed with a consensus to allow "modify existing infoboxes to permit Wikidata inclusion when there is no existing English Misplaced Pages data for a specific field in the infobox", but with an advisement that this be done very deliberately and cautiously. To that end, I'd like to start a discussion on picking ''a handful of parameters'' (three to five, I'm thinking) that we can try this out on. They would be called using a syntax like <code><nowiki>{{#if:{{{parameter|}}} | {{{parameter|}}} | {{#property:p000}} }}</nowiki></code> – in other words, as was decided in the RFC, any Wikidata value '''would only be displayed if the parameter were left empty here'''. Essentially the question is what parameters do we think this would be the least controversial with? A few I'd suggest are: ''spouse'' (]); ''birth_place'' (]); ''death_place'' (]); ''birth_name'' (]); and maybe something like ''signature'' as well (]), which could be called from Commons with a File: prefix. A full list of person-related properties can be found at ]; an automated list of all properties can be found at ].


Please make following changes to the display of Parents label, as described above:
<small>Oh, and, if people are concerned about cases where there's a consensus that one of these parameters should NOT be set to anything, we could always come up with some syntax to override without displaying anything locally, e.g. <code><nowiki>{{#ifeq:{{{parameter|}}} | __NULL__ | <!-- don't display any Wikidata values --> | {{#if:{{{parameter|}}} | {{{parameter|}}} | {{#property:p000}} }} }}</nowiki></code>.</small>


'''Diff:'''
''' —&nbsp;<u>]]</u>'''] 19:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
{{TextDiff|1=<nowiki>| label57 = Parent{{#if:{{{parents|}}}|{{Pluralize from text|{{{parents|}}}|likely=(s)|plural=s}}|<!--
:Regrettably, it's likely that spouse and signature, and perhaps birth name, would cause drama (though it would be interesting to see how a subject who was married twice or more would be handled). <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 22:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
-->{{#ifexpr:{{count|{{{father|}}}|{{{mother|}}}}} > 1|s}}}}
::For any properties with multiple values, the claims are shown separated by commas, as you can see at ]. I'm not sure if they can be configured to display differently, but I can find out, if you'd like. As for drama-inducing-ness, which parameters do you think would be less controversial? I have absolutely no preference myself; those were just the best examples that came to mind.''' —&nbsp;<u>]]</u>'''] 05:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
| data57 = {{#if:{{{parents|}}}|{{{parents}}}|{{Unbulleted list|{{#if:{{{father|}}}|{{{father}}} (father)}}|{{#if:{{{mother|}}}|{{{mother}}} (mother)}}}}}}<!--</nowiki>
:::For most parameters, multiple properties should be displayed using {{tl|flatlist}} (instead of commas or other in-line separators), or {{tl|Plainlist}} (instead of new lines); per this (and other) infobox's documentation and ]. If wikidata can't accommodate that, then that's a bug. Comma separators are particularly inappropriate where included values may contain comas - consider {{para|occupation|Teacher, Westminster, headmaster, Eton}}. I'd suggest hon. suffix and prefix (comma separators may be acceptable there); and URL (which should use {{tl|URL}}). <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 10:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
|2=<nowiki>| label57 = {{#if:{{{parents|}}}|Parent{{Pluralize from text|{{{parents|}}}|likely=(s)|plural=s}}|<!--
:::: Actually Wikidata should be returning a data structure consisting of several items whenever there are multiple values connected to a single label in Wikidata. We ought to be using Lua to read that data structure and filling a list with its values. That would yield the granularity we need to be able to make links as well. I'll see if we can make some progress on that on Sunday at ]. Wikidata isn't going to get far in infoboxes until it can store a data of type "date" though :( --] (]) 03:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
-->{{#ifexpr:{{count|{{{father|}}}|{{{mother|}}}}} > 1|Parents|{{#if:{{{father|}}}|Father|{{#if:{{{mother|}}}|Mother}}}}}}}}
:::::Yes, it's rather annoying that what would probably be the least controversial data to use (dates) are somewhat overdue in the development pipeline. Valid on pretty much any biography, very rarely the subjects of controversy, and would probably very often be supplied on Wikidata but not here (e.g. relatively obscure politicians form foreign countries).''' —&nbsp;<u>]]</u>'''] 10:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
| data57 = {{#if:{{{parents|}}}|{{{parents}}}|{{#ifexpr:{{count|{{{father|}}}|{{{mother|}}}}} > 1|{{Unbulleted list|{{{father}}} (father)|{{{mother}}} (mother)}}|{{{mother|}}}{{{father|}}}}}}}<!--</nowiki>}}
:::::I won't be there, but I'll raise the matter at the Amsterdam Hackathon the following weekend. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 10:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
:::::I'm ] that this is doable. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 20:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


The relevant testcases can be seen at ], in particular the last three.
== Adding 'Radio' alongside 'Television' ==


Apologies for all the nested ifs.
There is a Parameter 'television' defined as 'Television programmes presented by or closely associated with the subject' and I think that there should be a similar 'radio' parameter.


Thank you! <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">—&nbsp;<span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">]</span>&nbsp;(])</span> 00:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
This may be unique to the UK but there are some radio programmes (mostly on what is now ]) that are long-running and so well known that they are regarded as part of the nation cultural.


:I also think that the test <code>{{tlp|Count|<nowiki>{{{father|}}}</nowiki>|<nowiki>{{{mother|}}}</nowiki>}} > 1</code> would be better replaced by <code>{{tlp|Both|<nowiki>{{{father|}}}</nowiki>|<nowiki>{{{mother|}}}</nowiki>}}</code>, 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 {{tl|Count}} {{em|is}} better than {{tl|Both}} here. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">—&nbsp;<span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">]</span>&nbsp;(])</span> 23:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
One example that may be better know to non-UK readers is ] by ]. There that is listed under 'Notable credit(s)'.
::Are there any test cases available yet? &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 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.) <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">—&nbsp;<span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">]</span>&nbsp;(])</span> 21:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
:::: {{done}} ] ] 21:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{reply to|Pppery|HTGS}} Can the same change be made to ]? ] (]) 19:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I don't see how this is an improvement. Having {{bxt|Parent}} as the label, with {{xt|father}} or {{xt|mother}} included in parentheses following the name, rather than {{!bxt|Father}} or {{!bxt|Mother}} makes far more sense. This edit should be reverted. &#8209;&#8209;] (] <b>·</b> ] <b>·</b> ]) 19:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
*:{{ping|HTGS}} how is this change helpful? &#8209;&#8209;] (] <b>·</b> ] <b>·</b> ]) 19:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
*::@] explained why they thought it was helpful in ] above &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 20:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::Thanks Martin. Honestly @], your own comment almost makes my point for me. The options are: 1) label {{xt|parent}} + parenthetical {{xt|mother}}/{{xt|father}}; or 2) solely label {{xt|mother}}/{{xt|father}}. I just don’t see that a doubling up of descriptors (with one in parentheses) is preferable. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">—&nbsp;<span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">]</span>&nbsp;(])</span> 21:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::{{re|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. &#8209;&#8209;] (] <b>·</b> ] <b>·</b> ]) 18:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Ohhh I see, this is just a misunderstanding! (I hope.) For clarity: If a bio has {{em|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. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">—&nbsp;<span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">]</span>&nbsp;(])</span> 23:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::::{{re|HTGS}} There's that concern, which I'm glad isn't an issue, but I still don't see how deprecating the {{bxtd|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 {{bxtn|Son}} label, so why a {{bxtn|Father}} label? &#8209;&#8209;] (] <b>·</b> ] <b>·</b> ]) 21:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)


== Nazi Germany in infobox ==
I was prompted to raise this because I looked at the ] article, where her work on ] is listed under Television, which seems more than a little surreal to me!


What should we include "Nazi Germany" in <code>|birth_place=</code> and <code>|death_place=</code> parameter, for example ], ] and ] uses "Nazi Germany". ] (]) 00:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
] (]) 10:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
:We could either add this, or change the label of {{para|television}} to "Media appearances" or suchlike. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 11:10, 31 May 2013 (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. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 01:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
== Parameter for voice files ==
::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. --] &#x1f339; (]) 09:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
:::(I assumed in the examples it was only being applied to {{para|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.) <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 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 ]. ] (]) 09:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
:::I generally don't recommend piping as such per ]. As per name variants, I almost always recommend sticking to the article title, which is typically the ] appropriate for use in prose and list contexts as well. Also also, the country typically shouldn't be linked in these parameters per ].<span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 09:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
::::I don't see that as an Easter egg, more just ]. But yes, ] is an s.o.b. isn't it. ] (]) 09:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::So much so that I compulsively felt the need to correct that to {{xt|S. O. B.}} {{smiley}} <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 10:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)


== Marriage templates in infobox ==
Note the voice file and media player, below the infobox in ]. Can we add a parameter to the infobox, that allows the player (or something like it) to be ''inside'' the infobox? <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 19:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


For some years I've maintained the spouse field in the infobox for the ] article according to the template documentation. I've reverted many edits that added ], 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 ], which is part of the first archive of the Orson Welles article:
== Edit request on 4 July 2013 ==
: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 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. — ] (]) 02:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
{{edit protected|answered=yes}}
<!-- Begin request -->
please update to of the sandbox, which adds {{para|honors}} or {{para|honours}} below awards. this will allow us to merge the honors infoboxes in articles like ]. thank you.
<!-- End request -->
] (]) 16:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


==Arguments for personality characteristics and IQ==
:{{done}} -- ] (]) 17:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I propose to place arguments for ]:
* ] (inventive/curious vs. consistent/cautious)
* ] (efficient/organized vs. extravagant/careless)
* ] (outgoing/energetic vs. solitary/reserved)
* ] (friendly/compassionate vs. critical/judgmental)
* ] (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 ] is beneficial for that person provided that his IQ is proven. Like ]. Cheers. ] (]) 12:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
==RfC: Should the "influences" & "influenced" parameters be removed? ==
: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. ] (]) 13:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Should the <code>influences</code> and <code>influenced</code> parameters be removed from {{tl|Infobox person}}? 19:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
::@] ] provide scores that are very near to the truth. If any of these tests is applied to the intended person, for example ], then we can include that in the Infobox with referencing to that psychological test. ] (]) 13:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
:It has been a week since the discussion was expanded into an RFC, and the consensus is clearly unchanged. Reinstating the edit that removes the parameters.&mdash;](]) 16:07, 22 July 2013 (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? ] (]) 13:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
=== Edit request on 5 July 2013 ===
::::@] 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.
{{Collapse top|title=Edit request relating to the removal of the parameters. This was enacted but then reversed to facilitate further discussion.}}
::::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 ] (]) 14:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
{{edit protected|answered=yes}}
:::::@] For some of the parameters like ], the exact value is not important. We can mention that according to research, this person is introversion. Enough! ] (]) 14:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
After thorough discussions involving a large number of editors since April, with postings at ], '''from which this has been transposed,''' and ] pointing to that page, there is what appears to be unanimous support for the removal of the "influences" and "influenced" fields since these have been continuously prone &mdash; as the template's own directions warn &mdash; to uncited and sometimes grandiose claims and fannish POV. It has been a bucket-against-the-ocean situation in filmmaker articles, absorbing large amounts of time by Project Film editors in policing the generally unfounded claims placed there. Even cited claims, without context, add little useful information. We urge the admins of this template to please take these comments, gathered over months, to heart and work with us on this otherwise intractable problem. --] (]) 15:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
:No. This is rife with ] 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. ]], GHTV<sup> ]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-3.5ex"><small>]</small></sub> 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. ] (]) 19:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
::No, per original research concerns. This also does not sound like international measures. Semper Fi! ] (]) 12:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
:::…I didn’t think a sarcasm tag was needed there. ] (]) 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. {{ping| Hooman Mallahzadeh }} Can you actually name any notable persons whose infoboxes could make use of any of these additional parameters? <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">—&nbsp;<span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">]</span>&nbsp;(])</span> 03:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
:@], 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. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 03:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
::@]@] I am a graduate in "General ]" in M.S. form ]. 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. ] (]) 04:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
:::You are not disproving my point. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 04:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
::::@] 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. ] (]) 05:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::@], 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? <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">—&nbsp;<span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">]</span>&nbsp;(])</span> 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. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 17:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::@] 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 ] 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. ] (]) 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. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 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. ] (]) 13:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)


== Tracking category for |nationality=? ==
:Additional note: One other possibility, if other projects feel theses fields aren't prone to subjectivity, is to create an "infobox filmmaker" without them. --] (]) 15:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


I'm surprised a tracking category wasn't added for articles using the {{para|nationality}} parameter. Would this be useful in whiddling down articles that incorrectly use it? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 11:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:I removed the "Influences/ Influenced" parameters per the request, and tested it in a sampling of infoboxes. I did not renumber the parameters following the two deleted ones. If there is some reason that it is important to do so, let me know. I didn't believe the risk of screwing things up to make an unnecessary change was justified.&mdash;](]) 03:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
{{Collapse bottom}}
===Wikiproject Film discussion ===
{{collapse top}}
:''Note this section was copied from ]''--] (]): 18:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
:The following was copied to this page on . ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


:Yes, a tracking category would be very useful (for this infobox and the other infoboxes that still have {{para|nationality}}). ] (]) 12:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
It may be time to rethink this portion of the filmmakers infobox, or at least set specific standards. Right now it's little more than a dumping ground for fans' POV assumptions of who they ''believe'' influenced so-and-so, or who so-and-so influences. Yet virtually ''never'' do they give citations for these claims. And how could they? Mostly these claims come from own minds. At ], people have added names with no basis other than the editors' own POV assumptions. Cites in the article body support only the two influences currently in the infobox &mdash; which has been cleaned out before, and will almost invariably get filled in again with fans' uncited presumptions.
== 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=).
Do we really need those two fields in the infobox? Additions there are almost never cited, and these fields seem to do nothing but encourage amateur film buffs from adding their own POV claims. --] (]) 20:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


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.
:This has been a problem ever since the "actor infoboxes" (in which we had eliminated several of these subjective POV fields) were merged back into the "person infobox". At the very least these should be ]. IMO it would be better to have their mention in the body of the article where some context could be given. It would also be nice to keep them to a minimum but I don't know if either of these are workable. Whatever we decide we should note it at our MoS at the actors and filmmakers project. ] | ] 20:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


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.
::This may become less of a problem when the Infoboxes are migrated to Wikidata (due to start tomorrow), with the complexity to adjust them putting off those embarking on a simple POV insertion and more eyes (across multiple wikis) watching that subsequent changes. I agree entries should be sourced at minimum, ideally with a self-declaration for influences and a declaration from the 3rd party subject of the influenced field. for that field.] (]) 21:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


Thank you for considering this request. I look forward to your feedback and am happy to assist further if needed.
:::'''I favor their complete removal from the infoboxes, where they serve no purpose.''' The infobox should be exclusively for simple facts (date and place of birth and/or death, etc.). A discussion of influences should be in the body of the article, with sources. ---<font face="Georgia">''']</font><font face="Courier New">'''<sub>'']''</sub></font> 13:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support removal of field'''. In an article, influences can be discussed in prose with sources. The infobox should deal with hard facts, not subjective information like this. --] (]) 13:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
:Agree with ] and ], the infobox should be for simple uncontroversial facts.--] (]) 13:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


Best regards, ] (]) 17:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::I agree also. I've restored this discussion from Archive 46, since we reached what appears to be a consensus as of May 2 and no one made additional comments after enough time that the auto-archiving took this. No one acted on this consensus, but in the interest cautious and prudent before we remove that problematic field, let's post this one more time to make sure all voices have been heard. --] (]) 14:15, 26 June 2013 (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. (: "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. ] (]) 02:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' removal too, per the rationales given above. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
::@] 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. ] (]) 03:43, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' removal as well, per all of you. ''']''' ]</span> 19:59, 27 June 2013 (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? ] (]) 14:59, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' ] (]) 22:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' ] (]) 20:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC) ::::@] I have to say the same. ] (]) 15:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::::@], 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 . 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. ] (]) 15:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' removal. You are asking for trouble when you start adding anything but objective facts to the infobox. "Influences" makes little sense without accompanying context. ] (]) 20:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
:::::@] 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.
*'''Support''' removal. Along with the rationales provided the fields are a magnet for fan entries. I have seen IPs add all manner of names simply because the like the person the article is about. ] | ] 21:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
:::::] 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. ] (]) 17:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Man, great idea. Banish them from infoboxes for eternity. --] (]) 21:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' removal. Infoboxes should keep to hard facts. - ] (]) 22:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. This is one of my pain points and pet peeves. Too many entries in these parameters are unsupportable. Delete both of them. ] (]) 23:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' removal. A bare list does a poor job of presenting this type of information. For one thing, the definition of ''influence'' varies greatly from one case to another; e.g., "''A'' was inspired to become a filmmaker at age nine after seeing a film by ''B''"; "''A'' is widely considered to be a slavish imitator of ''B''";"''A'' learned filmmaking from ''B'' and then went on to make films of a completely different kind"; "''A'' once made a film parodying the films of ''B''"; "''A'' once expressed admiration for the work of ''B''"; and so on. An infobox reductively lumps all these together as though there were no distinctions. ] (]) 09:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


Just to make sure a related project is aware, I've put a notice of this discussion at ]. --] (]) 20:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC) :This parameter existed previously but ]; a new RfC would be needed to restore it. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 15:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)


== Wikidata as a source ==
::There is no doubt that we in the film project have agreed to remove the fields in question. I should point out that other projects - BLP & Biography, Novels etc - have not. Thus, if any of us were to go to the "infobox person" and remove the fields I am guessing there would be resistance if not outright WikiDrama. So, I want to suggest that we simply add to the MoS for the film and filmmakers projects that the fields are not used and to be removed from individual article infoboxes whenever possible. This is just one editors idea if any of you have other ones please feel free to mention them. I do hope that we move on this. We have had discussions in the past about altering the film MoS and then time goes by and threads get archived (as this one did) and we forget to followup. Please note I don't mean this to sound accusatory - I am as forgetful about this as anyone (as the thread I am about to add below will show.) Thanks to everyone for adding their thoughts and opinions to this thread. ] | ] 04:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
:::This project has, I think, a solid basis for removing this parameter from every person who is primarily known as a film director or producer. There might be a little resistance if we apply the removal to actor and actress infoboxes. ] (]) 05:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
::::You are correct - although I can't really remember seeing the fields used in the later - not that they aren't out there I just don't remember seeing them. We can always direct editors to this discussion if they question our changes to the MoS's. ] | ] 05:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}


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. ] and ]. Is anyone working on adding Wikidata to this template? ] (]) 08:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
===Survey===
* '''Oppose'''' for now. It's clear that some affected projects (films & acting; I assume in good faith) have been notified; but what about others? Such a wide-ranging proposal for change should be widely notified; to all affected projects, or through a centralised discussion. Note also that this issue is not a reason to fork the template. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 19:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
* '''Support''' removal. ] has gone back and forth for a year, now, with POV edits at regular intervals. — ] (]) 01:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Many others hit the problem: without context or sourcing, such lists are POV. They are also excessive for an infobox, which really should relate only key information, which this is not. Far better suited as a sourced section in the article body. ]] 01:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I agree with Andy Mabbett, that some care is needed. First we need to check just how big the effect of the removal would be. I would suggest adding a tracking category ] and adding the appropriate template code. Let that populate the category for a day or so and then see if it is just film people. We may well find that other professions use it, writer, scientist etc. Then when we see if its just a film thing or not we can proceed.--] (]): 13:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
::Now tracking into ].--] (]): 17:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
:::The categories taking a while to fill but the first two are ] and ] (a theologian) neither of whom are in film, so its looking like a wider issue than just film. I'm concerned that all the comments upto 5th of July are from one section of the community. For philosophy and theology there is a big tradition of schools of thought with people in one school influencing others, and philosophers often have a lineage of influence.--] (]): 17:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
::::Mention of the philosophers precisely illustrates the point that they need to be mentioned in prose in the body of the article. In the Vanhoozer article these names are in the infobox ], ], ], ], ], ]. None of them are sourced. None of the are mentioned in the body of the article let alone is there any description of how they influenced him. Thus, it is just a meaningless list of names. As you state "tradition of schools of thought with people in one school influencing others" in philosophy, but, if you don't describe how they influenced each other the info adds nothing to a readers learning and, indeed, leave one understanding less after perusing the article rather than more. ] | ] 18:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' It's information that is commonly mentioned in reliable sources, particularly for painters and musicians. That tree of influence is of interest to some people and should be preserved. Having it in its own fields in the Infobox makes it easy to extract into Wikidata and will make it easy for it to be of use. Much of WP is not sourced because people don't always take the time to do so, not necessarily because the info is wrong. I understand policy to be to challenge something that has a reasonable chance of being wrong and give others a chance to defend it before swinging the axe. Wholesale assertion of a whole class of data as wrong without proof, without a chance to defend it, and deleting it all&nbsp;– that's just wrong. <font color="red">—&#91;</font>](])<font color="red">&#93;—</font> 17:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
**'''Comment''': "Much of WP is not sourced because people don't always take the time to do so, not necessarily because the info is wrong." If people aren't taking the time to cite, that's a huge irresponsibility that cuts at the very core of Misplaced Pages policy and we have to spend the same amount of time policy that as policing incorrect subjective claims. And this category's very nature makes it the target of subjective claims by fans. It has been out of control for some time, and while we can argue theory about inclusion or removal of infobox categories, in the real world of editing filmmaker articles, these subjective and/or unverified claims are taking up an enormous amount of time and energy to continue addressing. And it won't end, because there are always going to be fans throwing subjective claims into infoboxes, where experience has shown us that wrong information will remain in place longer than in article bodies, which editors check more frequently. --] (]) 16:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - This is information with should be in prose. Not in an infobox. ] ] 20:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' away from just the film situation. As my example above illustrates these fields bring no understanding for readers who are not familiar with a given subject. ] | ] 18:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' removal. "Influences", be it of an artistic or philosophical or political nature, are by their very nature a vague and complex issue. Of course our articles ought to treat such influences, as well-sourced statements in prose, but I find it hard to imagine a situation where they could usefully be condensed to a simple list of names that would be appropriate for a box, and browsing through several entries of the tracking category mentioned above I clearly get the impression that few if any of the existing uses of these fields have been useful. ] ] 11:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' removal of the fields for the reasons given. It attracts cruft and encourages bad habits; and it does not fit with the purpose of an infobox. When the music articles stopped including the "Reviews" in the infobox it was a step in the right direction. The same arguments apply here. —] (]) 12:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' removal. These entries require context so the reader can understand the nature of any influence and sources because otherwise they are just junk. Particularly if infobox data is to be transferred to Wikidata, it must be unambiguous and bullet-proof in the sense of "would survive any Featured Article Candidacy or Review of an article including it".
*: I have checked a couple of items in the tracking category:
*:* in the case of ], ] is listed as an influence. The article supports this with a reliable source, but I question whether, in the context of schools of philosophy and so on, this field was ever intended for influences such as "great admiration" or "individual role-model". The article can make the nature of the influence clear, the infobox cannot.
*:* in the case of ], ] is listed as an influence but is not mentioned in the article at all! The influenced list has
*:** ], both articles mention they worked together, no real mention of "influence"
*:** ], no other mention, Martin does not mention Benny at all
*:** ], reciprocal mentions in the infobox, no other mentions in the articles. Pryor uses Infobox comedian, which still has these lists. Most entries in the Pryor lists are sourced, but as it happens the Benny entry is one of several that are not.
*:** ], no other mention, Hartman does not mention Benny at all
*:** ]. Benny does not mention Newhart. Newhart has "in the Benny tradition" without an explicit source
*: Thus, in just these first two articles I have looked at, most of the entries are unsourced and should never have been accepted in the first place. The rest are sufficiently subtle to require context in the article as well as reliable sources.
*: Finally, for clarity I would like to explain that I fully support the general principle of providing metadata separated from content. Those pushing energetically for this do their cause a disfavour by trying to extend the concept to unsuitable information. --] (]) 14:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
*'''Strong support''' for removal, which should not be construed as opposition to the notion of tracking influences in many fields. The concept is enormously important, and often insightful. However, a field with either "influences" or "influenced" implies that the answer to the question "Did person X influence person Y" is a binary notation which can be fully answered with a simple yes or no. Even a numerical score would not fully capture the notion, as Nietzsche was undoubtedly influenced by Aristotle in some areas, but perhaps not in others. This is precisely what prose is well-equipped to do—discuss the extent to which one person influenced another. To reduce this to a single bit of information is over-simplification carried to an extreme. While this may have been prompted by editors interested in film, it is equally true of other areas, such as economists, philosophers and artists. It would be a bad idea even if it were an attempted summary of a discussion carried out in prose, but it is doubly a bad idea because I have seen it used often when the the main article does not even discuss the influenced issue, much less have references to support the claim.--]] 01:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as not needed IMO & per all above!. ]] 01:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support removal''' SPhilbrick points out that an infobox entry on incluenced/influences reduces the question to "yes" (person A influenced person B), or "no" (person A did not influence person B). That is clearly inappropriate because in almost all cases the question cannot be answered in an objective manner, and cannot be reduced to yes/no. It would not be reasonable to restrict usage to those supported by reliable sources because it is unclear how a source could be "reliable" on the question—all that could be done is to write "source X says A influenced B for ''this'' reason"—that cannot be done in an infobox. Mentioning influences in infoboxes would be misleading because it would show a very superficial tree supported by opinions on arbitrary cases (source X may say A influenced B, but if asked, X might have said "however, that influence was minor; it was really C and D that had a major influence on B's work"). ] (]) 03:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support removal'''. Infoboxes should be restricted to unambiguous facts like birth and death dates; they're ill-designed for nuance or opinion or selective content. ] (]) 09:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support removal''': Although infoboxes are used to provide a condensed overview to article content, influences are best discussed in a relevant section within the article itself. There is absolutely no room in infoboxes to develop discussion beyond "who".{{Unsigned|Fylbecatulous}}
*'''Support removal'''. This is the sort of information that belongs in the body of the text, not the sort of "quick basic facts" expected in an infobox. ] (]) 21:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
*Nope, it looks fine the way it is. WikiProjects who find it 'inaccurate' should not use the influence/influences parameter, but the other WikiProjects, such as Literature, should be able to use it, as it helps define the subject and perhaps further explain the reasons as to why a particular figure may have acted the way he/she did. I think it's not a discussion about removing it or not; I think it's more of a discussion about using it or not. You may want to put this under a broader RFC, as it affects WikiProjects throughout Misplaced Pages, not just the ones that you have mentioned above. --] (]) 02:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
::If you will scroll up you will see that nine different wikiprojects have been notified of this discussion. As to literature if you look at the Agatha Christie article, to give just one example, ], ], Sir ], ] are listed as influences. None of them are sourced and only Doyle is mentioned in the article. So this leaves a list of names which may or may not have influenced her but are meaningless for the reader. No one is saying that the subject of an article should not mention the people who influenced them and those they influenced. What we are saying is that they need to be discussed in prose in the article with proper sourcing. ] | ] 03:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
*'''Strong support''' for removal. A pointless fancruft magnet at the very best of times. - ] (]) 05:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support removal''', having just deleted the singer from Mumford & Sons from G. K. Chesterton's "Influenced:" field. --] (]) 16:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
*'''Strong support removal'''--per all of the above. ] (]) 20:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support removal'''. ]'s analysis is accurate and eloquent. This is not appropriate material for value-attribute pairs. In addition, this parameter has cased hundreds of articles to have spurious "information" and will continue to so unless it is removed. ] (]) 07:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
*'''Oppose removal''', support to handle the fields with care, with a notice in the empty template example that only people whose influence appears sourced in the body of the article may be listed. (Example for usage: ]) The notice might stay in the article, to inform later editors. I personally will not add to the parameters in my infoboxes, but respect the work of others. --] (]) 08:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support removal''' Infoboxes aren't special zones where core content policies can be ignored, especially those regarding unsourced material, ] and NPOV. "Influences" in infoboxes are particularly prone to such violations, as the examples offered by editors above show. Plus, the usual problem of round pegs into square holes... --] (]) 11:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support removal'''. Per the above concerns about sourcing, POV, etc. Even in articles where "influence" is properly sourced, the word is so vague and semantically overloaded as to be useless for this kind of summary. There's little to be gained from knowing that X "influenced" Y if you don't know how and in what way, and trying to feed this to machines is a textbook example of ]. ] (]) 21:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
* '''Support removal''', often POV, often uncited, often UNDUE, often ... ugh! Get rid of it, ] (]) 00:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
* '''Support removal''' - Entirely subjective parameters. Infoboxes are bloated. ] (]) 01:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
* '''Support removal''' per the above —&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 01:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
* '''Support removal''' It's ], and in excess of the level of "essential biographical information" I would expect encapsulated in 30-second summary. At best, such mentions of "influences" and "influenced" are subjective, and could cause problems of ] even if sourced. At worst it can easily be ] beyond reasonableness and into potential violation of ]. As such, this is best kept clear of infoboxes. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">]</span></small>] 01:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
* '''Support removal''' influencers and influencees are rarely cut and dry or absolute, so this information belongs in the article body where context and proper explanation can be given. Information in the infobox can be taken out of context as "fact", when these categories are more matters of opinion or analysis. --] (<small>]</small>) 03:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support removal''' I don't care for Infoboxes but to the extent that they have a role it should be limited to factual information. The Influences are too open to POV engineering: BigCheese reviewed a work by the subject or name-checked the subject in passing in an article, therefore some inherited glory can descend on the subject; and these are the ones which can be clearly referenced, leaving just an undue weight debate to be had. Influence should be a matter of article discussion. ] (]) 06:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support removal'''. These sections are just cruft magnets. They are rarely sourced and have little utility, IMO. ] (]) 06:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' These are probably the most problematic of all the common infobox fields. It is rare that this can be unambiguously reduced to one or two names, and if it includes more than that it misrepresents the situation, for the influences will be to a different degree (consider ], for example:c can think of an appropriate case: returning to psychoanalysis, the primary influence on Jung was Freud, although many more are listed in the Jung infobox (many based on an unreliable source, and not discussed further in the article--checking the articles on them, they did influence him, but clearly to lesser degree than Freud) Clearcut cases like this are not sufficient to justify keeping the infobox; the way I would handle them is to mention the primary influence by Freud in the lead of the article, and discuss the influences in sections in the article-. ] (]) 18:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support removal'''. This is too subjective for an infobox field. Better to describe the nature of the influence in the body. ] (]) 01:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support removal''', goes against the concept of the infobox, which should be for at-a-glance facts nobody could possibly dispute. In situations where an influence is notable and supported by sources, for example Dali's many references to Vermeer or George Lucas' open admiration of Akira Kurosawa, then that info should appear in the article as prose. ] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 13:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
::The removal has happened. Of course it should be in the article as prose, sourced. --] (]) 13:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' removing from infobox to adding prose. –] (]) 20:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' removal. Are there really people who imagine themselves qualified to edit an encyclopedia and think that this could possible be justified? I know that we are supposed to be making effort to be inclusive, but that inclusivity should only apply to people who have some modicum of clue. ] (]) 21:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


:We don't, because there's no reason we really want to have the image selection for articles take place offsite. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 08:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
===Discussion===
{{Editprotected|answered=yes}}


== "at the time" vs. "context and our readership" ==
It's disappointing to see this change enacted, despite there being no clear consensus ''here'' and the discussion not being more widely notified as requested, It should be reversed immediately, until the later is done and consensus demonstrated. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 10:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


While trying to figure out, what exactly happened at ], I've read the birthplace guidance on this page:
:I agree. Also, the outcome doesn't really make sense. Are we saying that we will not report influences/influenced at all, or just not in the Infobox? It seems that the primary argument is that "it's too hard to police", but that would be an argument to remove the info from the article entirely, and that's not what's happening, is it? For the Infobox ''not to include'' something based on this criterion, but the article ''to include'' it makes no sense. Also, I continue to contend that it is an ''important'' topic in the study of the arts, and widely mentioned in reliable sources. Ignoring it just because it's hard is not right. There are plenty of similar examples of types of data in WP articles that need a lot of policing. They get it, too. <font color="red">—&#91;</font>](])<font color="red">&#93;—</font> 10:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
:* ''Use the name of the birthplace at the time of birth, e.g.: Saigon (prior to 1976) or Ho Chi Minh City (post-1976).''
:It's disappointing to see such a blindingly obviously correct ] move being contested and dragged into a pointless ] discussion that anyone with two brain cells to rub together would know could only have one possible outcome. Let's get on with writing an encyclopedia rather than have such ridiculous anti-intellectual nonsense cluttering up the central discussion list. ] (]) 21:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
::
*'''Comment''' From the comments above it seems there is a consensus the Film project find this parameter onerous. The infobox for people should contain generic parameters for documenting clear factual information that apply to everyone across the board, rather than a minority involved in certain disciplines. While "influences" may be applicable to philosophers and artists, it is overwhelmingly irrelevant to most occupations. Projects that have a specific need to document this information can easily provide it through project specific templates, or preferably through sourced prose where the context for such claims may be provided. ] (]) 11:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
:* ''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 ] was called ] (like the ] before and ] afterwards). Which of those bullets has priority? Do they mean, that one should use ] and ] instead of ] in the infobox of an article like ], because she was killed by the latter or do we stick with "NPOV"/official name here? --] (]) 16:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' The removal of this parameter was supported by the above consensus. The parameter is a controversy magnet, guaranteed to engender endless debate and needlessly consume the time of good editors. Do you honestly think you can reduce a person's "influences" to a few words? This exemplifies Andy's blind spot perfectly. --] (] · ] · ]) 11:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
*There seems adequate consensus to remove influences/influenced. @AlanM1: Where appropriate, of course an article should discuss influences/influenced, but it should be done in the article where some context can be given (was the influence great or small? did the person acknowledge the influence? in what way is the influence recognizable?). In many cases, it seems likely that an attribution would be necessary ("critic X says A influenced B") because the bare statement "A influenced B" is stating someone's opinion in Misplaced Pages's voice as a known fact. In the vast majority of cases, there would be no objective way of assessing how much of B's work was influenced by A, nor would it generally be possible to decide why A should be mentioned as influencing B, but not C or D or E. The docs for ] say that influences/influenced should only be for people who had physical contact with the scientist—that is to avoid nonsense like listing 100+ names as being influenced by Einstein. ] (]) 12:11, 14 July 2013 (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 ] starts with prehistory, not with 1949 or even 1990.) ] (]) 10:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
There is no "above consensus", save for that at the film project, which doesn't have precedence here. Discounting the !votes copied from there, there seems to have been a 6:3 split. That's not consensus, and my call for wider participation remains unaddressed. Why not see what the community's view is? <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 12:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
::::Since the above post was made, and following wider solicitation for comments, it seems clear there ''is'' a far wider consensus for removal than by any one Project. --] (]) 18:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
: If you want to solicit more input, by approaching other wikiprojects or by listing this as a general RfC, feel free to do so. But the prevailing opinion as expressed here so far, including all the opinions from a wider audience registered after you posted at ] today, is clearly in favour of removal, so it will certainly be justified to keep the fields out for the time being, pending any hypothetical swing of opinions in the other direction. ] ] 13:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
::My posting at WP:AN was a procedural note asking for an admin to enact the above {{tl|Editprotected}}; nothing else. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 14:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
::: I know that, but it's evidently had the side-effect of also bringing more previously uninvolved editors from a wider audience in to comment here. So far, every single one of them has supported the removal. ] ] 14:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
:Andy, there most certainly is clear consensus ''here'', so that aspect of your complaint is obviously invalid. And FTR, my support for removal applies to all professions using this infobox, not just film and actors. It's a bad field everywhere. ]] 15:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
:I'm marking this edit request as {{not done}}. First off, I agree with Andy that there were procedural problems with the removal of this parameter. While there was a strong consensus for removal from the discussion at WikiProject Film, this template affects many more projects than just that one, and I think there should have been a discussion involving a broader section of the community before the parameter was actually removed. Having said that, the initial consensus from discussion on this page is also for removal of the parameter, and so it seems to me that not much would be gained from reverting. For the purposes of discussion, it doesn't really matter whether the parameter is present or not in the live template, and if we reverted we might only end up reinstating the edit again. This template has 130,000+ transclusions, so we should avoid reverting unnecessarily. Instead, I think it would be better to let the discussion run its course, and perhaps expand it into a full RfC with a listing at ]. After the discussion has finished we can ask an admin to close it (I am willing to do so - just leave a note on my talk page) and then the edit can be reverted or not as necessary. — ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 04:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
::Update: I have just noticed that Kww has restored the parameter pending the outcome of this discussion. I should have checked that before writing the above post, but I'm going to leave it in place as it is mostly still relevant to the discussion. — ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 04:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
:::I'm seeing something like two editors against the change out of the large number who support it. And one of those two editors seems to be saying that this is about removing any mention of influences from articles, which is just not so &mdash; this is ''only'' about the two fields in the infobox. I know this isn't a poll or a vote, but I'm not sure "consensus" means "unanimous". --] (]) 21:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
::::There are more than two of us opposing and the reason is that this decision will have wide-ranging effects, but the proposal has not been widely advertised by its proponents. One project - no doubt in good faith - has effectively been canvassed,while others affected have not been informed. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 21:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
:::I've gone to the first two entries at ], which are architect ] and "senior talent recruiter and motivator ... involved in planning terrorist operations" ], and while a couple of the influences/influenced entries in their infoboxes are cited in their articles, the bulk of them are not. I'd have to think that as bad as unreferenced claims of influence are in the filmmakers project, it's probably far worse to have such uncited claims in articles involving politically related subjects. --] (]) 21:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
::::Andy's objection—at least his initial one—seems to be that the unanimous support disproportionately draws from one project. Given the subsequent comments I don't think that argument quite stands any more, but at the same time it wouldn't hurt to reach out to other projects. You should slap an RFC tag on this discussion and get some site wide input and see where we end up. ] (]) 21:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::I'm in the middle of a contentious RfC now, and a discussion at another talk page seems headed that way. I don't think I have the emotional wherewithal for a third. Honest to God, these things take it out of you.... --] (]) 21:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
::::::I've taken care of it. If it becomes contentious then the parameters won't be getting removed anyway, but if the position is largely supported then we may as well push ahead. ] (]) 21:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


Ping {{ping|Hutcher}} for . --] (]) 12:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
'''Thoughts'''. I can understand the reasoning behind removing it, but I suggest editors do not go around and remove the field from articles until a consensus develops to avoid edit wars and wiki-drama. See ] for example. I'd also caution editors that removing sourced material from an article, again ] is an example, is '''not''' a good thing. I would strongly recommend that any influences which are sourced should be added into the text of the article, or failing that placed on the talk page rather than lost in the edit history of the article. That's the best service to our readers and to previous editors and I hope a consensus to remove the field does not result in a removal of the field from a template and the loss of valuable, sourced information. Editors should be prepared to do some legwork to support the recommended change. ] <small>] </small> 15:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
:The proposal is to remove the influenced/influences fields from the ''template''. The text would still be in the article wikitext, but it would not be displayed. It would be up to those following particular articles to move any useful (but not displayed) wikitext from the template to a suitable place in the article, if any. I agree that no one should go on a pointless rampage to delete all the wikitext—leave it up to someone who will care for the article, although I can see why a couple of editors think that ] has a rather large number of people mentioned. ] (]) 23:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
:: Note that removing parameters from an infobox template also removes contnet from articles, but ''without'' creating a watchlist notification for ''those following particular articles''. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 07:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
:::That is true with the respect to watchlist notifications. However, in this particular case, if the "influences" are discussed and referenced in the article's text (where such a subjective judgement must be), removing that parameter does not remove content at all. If they are not discussed and referenced in the article's text, the loss of this spurious "content" is not a problem in my view. ] (]) 07:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
::::I think in this case a project could help by an advice to its members to carefully look at the parameters and in case of doubt better not use them. --] (]) 08:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::The potential help from individual project guidance is both minimal and impractical. As we have been told many times, no one is required to take a blind bit of notice of what projects say in their guidelines. Besides, many (probably most) of the misuses of this parameter are not added by editors who are members of specific projects. Often they are drive-by edits from people desperate not have an orphan tag on "their" article or are ones from editors seeking to make their subject look more important than he/she is. Most active projects which deal primarily with the ''content'' of articles in their scope are small, with very few truly active members (who already have a lot on their plate) and many articles in their scope. They simply don't have the people-power to go around monitoring all the infoboxes to look for problems created by others. The larger umbrella projects don't do significant content work at all. Many, many articles have only the umbrella Biography Project banner on their talk pages or at most a couple of other banners for defunct, moribund, or only tangentially related projects. There are over '''1 million''' articles with the Biography banner. ] (]) 09:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


== Parameter known as "partner" ==
::::::Concur with ]. The abuse of the infobox "influence" parameters is simply too widespread and recurrent to police. And concur with ] that in case of doubt about the way a parameter is used, it is better not to use them<s>, i.e., remove them</s>. --] (]) 18:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::::I feel misunderstood ;) (It happens.) I said "not use them", in the future. I did not say "remove them" because it would affect the efforts of previous contributors. See above, look for Kafka. --] (]) 21:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


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 ] - - 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. ] (]) 00:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::My apologies. I'm sure you can see how "not use them" could be taken the way I'd interpreted. I've struck out that portion of the above.


== Specifying birth/death place within a city ==
::::::::That said, responsible contributors would have put that information, with citing, into the article of the body, not just in the infobox, which is a summary of the article and does not contain information not found in the article. I would agree with the overwhelmingly majority of editors here in favor of removing the problematic fields from the infobox. --] (]) 22:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


For the birth_place and death_place parameters, ] 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." is one of the occasions where ] 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? ] (]) 14:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Come to think, I'm not sure what's meant by "not use them". If they remain in the template, they'll be used. Which is the root of the problem, their being used by fans pushing uncited POV. --] (]) 22:04, 21 July 2013 (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. -- ] (]) 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! ] (]) 14:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:Agree with including the boroughs. Definitely helpful content for readers. Semper Fi! ] (]) 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. ] (]) 21:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


:::::::::Now I come to think. Look at ], both parameters are there (not by me), names that appear sourced in the article. Removing the parameters would cause them disappear from the infobox without even a warning to the authors that something changed. Do you think that's fair? --] (]) 22:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC) ::I would agree. In cases where something narrower than city is particularly noteworthy, exceptions can be made - for example for ] there is an article specifically on the building in which he was born. But as a general rule, city is sufficient. ] (]) 00:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::There's also suburbs (]) and neighborhoods (]). Where to draw the line? —] (]) 02:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::Was just looking at ]. What would be more useful, to a reader wanting the essentials, there: "New York City, New York, U.S" or "], New York City, U.S"? Thanks. ] (]) 13:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::"New York City, US" will suffice. ] (]) 19:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== Significantly influenced/ significant influencers ==
{{od}}What does fair have to do with it? Changes to templates, infoboxes, editing methods, etc happen all the time around here. For instance we lost the OBOD a few months ago without any notice at all. It is part and parcel of editing an online encyclopedia. I hope that you realize that everyone who edits an article is one of the "authors." As has been stated by numerous contributors to this discussion a list of names in the infobox gives no indication how the subject was influence by those people or how the subject influenced others. If they are not discussed in prose in the article then the mention of them in the infobox is meaningless. ] | ] 23:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
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? ] (]) 19:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:I realize that every contributor to an article is an author, but how would you name someone who made some hundreds of edits to an article compared to one who made one or two? - We are talking about example Kafka, where the selected people (of many more) who influenced him and the selected ones (of many more) who are influenced by him ARE discussed in the article. --] (]) 07:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
*Are their examples of you can direct us to? Semper Fi! ] (]) 20:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::I think the Kafka article makes the case for dropping the parameters to be honest. Things like his birth date and alma mater are factual content well suited to the infobox i.e. they don't require any extra exposition for us to understand their nature. As for the influence names, it is impossible to know how they relate to Kafka without reading the article. Any data in the infobox which requires exposition in the article to be fully understood probably isn't suited to the infobox. The infobox should be self-serving in giving us a brief factual overview of his life, but there is no way to square that with such incredibly subjective parameters. ] (]) 07:42, 22 July 2013 (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. ] (]) 20:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::You can't see in the article anymore what I wanted to explain, because the parameters were removed. Anybody who knows what ], ], ], ], and ] stand for, could see at a glace what influenced Kafka. I find/found that helpful. --] (]) 16:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
:::You mention influenced/influencers being removed. It is unclear to me what you are referring to. Semper Fi! ] (]) 21:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::While this subject is now closed I will point out that Wikiepdia's articles are for readers who "don't" know what those people stand for or have in common. The only way for an average reader to discover any connection between those people is for it to be expressed in prose in the body of the article. That is precisely what people who took part in this discussion pointed out again and again. ] | ] 19:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::May I point out that the parameters were collapsed, and of service for those who were interested enough to click "show". Why not add something for their understanding? - I am also afraid that those who don't know Dostoyevsky will likely not get far in reading Kafka, --] (]) 20:03, 22 July 2013 (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. ] (]) 22:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Ok, thanks for the clarification…understood. Semper Fi! ] (]) 02:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::You just don't seem to understand that a name in an infobox is meaningless without context. Those that don't know Dostoyevsky won't get anything by his name being Kafka's infobox. BTW there are all manner of learning styles out there. I have no doubt that there are men and women who have read Kafka who have gotten plenty out of his works without reading a word of, or even knowing who Dostoyevsky is. ] | ] 20:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
::::Glad you understand, you're always welcome to share your thoughts on implementing this if you'd like ] (]) 03:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*I don't see why we should keep the parameters and their associated fields when the parameters are no longer called. If the influences are notable and are sourced, they will all be in the body of the article, so removing these parameters should not result in any loss of qualitative information. It would just serve to clutter up the already very busy edit window, and maybe as some sort of sop who dream one day of resurrecting the appearance on the face of the infobox, with all the concomitant problems that that restoration would bring. I suspect that the problem is widespread enough for a bot request to be made to remove {{para|influences}} and {{para|influenced}} along with their associated content from articles that use this infobox. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">]</span></small>] 02:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
:How would you define "significant" in this context? ] (]) 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 "] influenced ]", then this would '''not''' count. However, if it said "] was perhaps one of ]'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.
::] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 06:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::The problem with "significant" is that it's subjective. There was a related discussion three years ago at ]. --] &#x1f339; (]) 21:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::@] 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.
::::::@] 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.
::::::] (]) 22:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== Pronouns? ==
== Proposal to make Infobox scientist a module of this template ==


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 ], 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. —] (]) 19:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Please see ]. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 20:12, 24 July 2013 (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 ]. 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. ]], GHTV<sup> ]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex"><small>]</small></sub> 19:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:04, 8 January 2025

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


Articles for deletionThis template was nominated for deletion or considered for merging. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
Deletion discussions:

Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease 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:
WikiProject iconInfoboxes
WikiProject iconThis 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
WikiProject iconBiography
WikiProject iconThis 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
Archiving icon
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

Archiving icon
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:

−| label57 = Parent{{#if:{{{parents|}}}|{{Pluralize from text|{{{parents|}}}|likely=(s)|plural=s}}|<!-- -->{{#ifexpr:{{count|{{{father|}}}|{{{mother|}}}}} > 1|s}}}} | data57 = {{#if:{{{parents|}}}|{{{parents}}}|{{Unbulleted list|{{#if:{{{father|}}}|{{{father}}} (father)}}|{{#if:{{{mother|}}}|{{{mother}}} (mother)}}}}}}<!--+| label57 = {{#if:{{{parents|}}}|Parent{{Pluralize from text|{{{parents|}}}|likely=(s)|plural=s}}|<!-- -->{{#ifexpr:{{count|{{{father|}}}|{{{mother|}}}}} > 1|Parents|{{#if:{{{father|}}}|Father|{{#if:{{{mother|}}}|Mother}}}}}}}} | data57 = {{#if:{{{parents|}}}|{{{parents}}}|{{#ifexpr:{{count|{{{father|}}}|{{{mother|}}}}} > 1|{{Unbulleted list|{{{father}}} (father)|{{{mother}}} (mother)}}|{{{mother|}}}{{{father|}}}}}}}<!--

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)

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:

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, GHTVWpWS 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)

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)

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)

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, GHTVabout 19:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Category: