Misplaced Pages

Template talk:Infobox person

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Connormah (talk | contribs) at 16:56, 2 March 2021 (→Seeking clarification re birth_name parameter: further cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:56, 2 March 2021 by Connormah (talk | contribs) (→Seeking clarification re birth_name parameter: further cmt)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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: 42 days 
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:
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 Template‑class
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
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

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 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: 42 days 
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

burial_place vs. resting_place

Is use of "resting_place" better than use of "burial_place" in an infobox when the subject of the article was buried? I ask after I changed "resting_place" to "burial_place" in Louise Brooks, based on the sentence "She had no survivors and was buried in Holy Sepulchre Cemetery in Rochester." An editor reverted the change and wrote, "If you have a problem with an infobox parameter, discuss your concerns on the talk page for the infobox. Please do not remove the parameter from the infoboxes on individual articles, as you did on Louise Brooks. As long as the parameter is part of the infobox, it can be used." I didn't realize that I had a problem. I thought I was applying the guidelines specified in the Explanation column on the template page. I would appreciate clarification. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thats correct. If the parameter is part of the template (in this case the template supports both resting and burial) you can use either. Usually if burial is confirmed, some editors use burial, if its not confirmed they were buried but the location is, use resting (eg crematorium and interred above ground). In this specific instance, if the sources say she was buried, you are fine to use burial place. Only in death does duty end (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
You may want to read this and the associated linked discussions there. The burial vs resting is a recurring discussion. Essentially you are either buried or you are not. If you are not buried, resting-place is a convenient but euphamistic catch-all for the numerous other ways these days of disposing of a corpse. Since no one genuinely wants more 3, 4 or 5 different parameters for indicating where the body is, discussion always ends up going nowhere. Only in death does duty end (talk) 02:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Only in death. I appreciate your comments. Eddie Blick (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

What is the point of the signature parameter?

I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I'm curious. Aside from say, John Hancock (the only notable signature I can think of), why are we including people's signatures? I see no encyclopedic value in this, personally. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

AleatoryPonderings, the most recent discussion that I'm aware of was Template_talk:Infobox_person/Archive_35#Signature_parameter_RFC which closed with no consensus. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2021

This edit request to Template:Infobox person/doc has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Could the two most recent edits to the documentation please be reverted per WP:BRD? The new format introduced makes it much more difficult to read and does not have a consensus. Thanks, 207.161.86.162 (talk) 02:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @207.161.86.162, Michael Bednarek, and JJMC89: Kindly reconsider. The spaced-out version can create a disadvantage for users with small screens, especially mobile users, as the elements appear more cluttered than necessary. The TemplateData "format" option makes the Visual Editor enforce this particular style. Conversely, I fail to see an inherent advantage in the spaced-out version; the parameters only might align if you have the correct screen resolution. I also like to cite Misplaced Pages:TemplateData/Tutorial. Although it is not a guideline, it notes:

This option may be preferable for very complex templates like infoboxes which have multiple parameters.

IceWelder 07:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it's reasonable to expect Misplaced Pages to support editing on a screen with less than 40 characters on a line. I'm sorry, but if we were talking about something that affected readers, I'd be bending over backwards to try to mitigate problems, but this issue only affects editors, and nobody expects editing on a tiny mobile screen to be as convenient as on a desktop pc with a decent screen. The parameters in the spaced/tabbed version will align in the edit box if you're using a monospaced font, as every editor that I know uses. --RexxS (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The "partner" parameter

According to the the template documentation, the parameter |partner= is to be used "For unmarried life partners" only. The description looks rather vague, I mean what conditions are to be satisfied in order to add somebody's name in that parameter. Are boyfriends/girlfriends of four-five months qualify for this? If not then how to express that to an editor/IP that keeps on reverting. Where we have to draw the line? Some IPs and new users seem hell bent on keeping that in this article as you can see here, here. I tried explaining them here, did that multiply times before. I came across this kind of additions in other articles as well. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: if you had initially raised the issue at Talk:Jasmin Bhasin, I would have blocked Sushmibhaduri8 for disruptive editing. But while there are behavioural concerns, I'm not convinced that Sushmibhaduri8 understands that the |partner= is to be used for life partners in a Domestic partnership as described and linked in the documentation. Please don't rely on edit summaries to argue a point. That needs to be done at the article talk page, so that it is not a dialogue, but a thread where other editors can contribute. I've protected the article for 2 days because of the edit-warring, but I'm happy to lift that protection early if progress is made at the article talk page. --RexxS (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
@RexxS: I know the process, WP:BRD, etc. This is not the first time, that particular user is just one of the many that tried similar things in this and many other BLP articles. Many users/IPs I came across would understand what has been conveyed in the edit summaries, but many use-and-throw users would just keep on doing it. Besides, I came here to build up a consensus and perhaps we can codify a policy on it. Users are more likely to pay attention to a policy than a set of descriptions in the template documentation. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
@Fylindfotberserk: If you know the process, why isn't there a single post on the issue at Talk:Jasmin Bhasin? Why do you make it difficult for me to take any action? There is already a consensus expressed in the documentation (linked to Domestic partnership) and that needs to be communicated to Sushmibhaduri8 by explanation on the article talk page. Having those conversations makes a permanent record that other editors can understand for the future. There is no chance of a separate policy: see WP:PAG for the convoluted process involved in that. Editor can either pay attention to the consensus expressed in the documentation, or they can face the consequences of disruptive editing. But I can't enforce those consequences unless it is absolutely certain that the editors are aware of the guidance in the documentation. Note that they are editing via a mobile app, so it is quite likely that they have never seen your edit summaries. --RexxS (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@RexxS: I don't see any "consensus" here, only a link to Domestic partnership article, which doesn't even mention anything about India, the country to which the subject belongs to. And this user Sushmibhaduri8 is just one of the many use and throw users. Trust me I deal with them quite often. Obviously, I would have done the talking and then would have filed a case WP:AN3 if the IP hadn't taken over the task. Perhaps that user would have been blocked by now, but without page protection, more new users and IP would come and continue the disruption, thus page protection became necessary, which you did, thanks!. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I can't enforce those consequences ← You mean you would have blocked them? Well I wasn't planning to do that right now. If you have seen the history (all the way to October), you'd have found quite a lot of IPs and users trying to do the same. Can't file complaint against each and every IP range, that's why asked for page protection instead. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
If you don't see consensus for an edit that has stood unchallenged for over two years, you need to look harder at WP:SILENCE. Nobody gives a shit about whether Domestic partnership mentions India; it clearly states "A domestic partnership is an interpersonal relationship between two individuals who live together and share a common domestic life", and none of those words have any dependency on where the subject lives. Don't denigrate your fellow editors; I have no intention of trusting you on assessing another editors' intentions, no matter how often you "deal" with them. If you can't raise the issue at the affected article, you shouldn't be asking elsewhere for help in solving it.
What part of if you had initially raised the issue at Talk:Jasmin Bhasin, I would have blocked Sushmibhaduri8 for disruptive editing. didn't you understand? The way to get enforcement or page protection is to tackle the issue on the article talk page. Is that really so difficult to understand? And don't patronise me – of course I went back through the article's history before applying protection. If you want to start making insinuations about my competence as an admin, you'd better have some bloody good evidence or you'll find yourself on the wrong end of a complaint for personal attacks. --RexxS (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @RexxS: Hey there, I'm going to take some of the heat on this, since I suggested that Fylindfotberserk get some clarification. I too missed the link to the domestic partner page. I also do still think that some more clarity should be brought to the instructions so that reading a link is not required. Changing "life partner" to "domestic partner" would at least clarify that we mean that the people have to live together. "Long-term" is also subjective, but I doubt anybody will want to establish a hard line on that. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk)
@Cyphoidbomb: It's good to suggest getting clarification, of course, but you know as well as I do that our hands are tied if issues don't get raised on article talk pages. Mobile users won't see other editors' edit summaries without some effort, and you can't even refer the next ip or newbie who comes along to a previous discussion if one is never started. My pet peeve is experienced editors who can't be bothered to take issues to the article talk page, and then expect others to clean up the problems they couldn't find the time to raise in the proper place. --RexxS (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
@RexxS: Understood. Fylind is a conscientious editor who has grown a great deal from when he started. I'm sure he'll take this as a learning experience. Got any thoughts about changing to "domestic partner"? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb: Okay, he just manged to push one of my buttons with his first response. I looked back at the history of the phrase "life partner" in the documentation and it looked like this until 2018 when it was redirected to Significant other. Neither of those seem to carry the clear definition that Domestic partnership does. The fact that the phrase was piped to Domestic partnership a couple of years ago indicates to me that it's a better fit to what was intended for the |partner= parameter, and my recollections of previous discussions here reinforce that perception. I've gone ahead and made the link explicit by rephrasing to "life partners in a domestic partnership". Let's see if that sticks. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, mate. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
@RexxS: I believe this discussion went in the wrong direction. My primary concerns coming to this talk page was ONLY to get some clarification on the parameter itself (those diffs posted here were addendums to let the community know exactly what I was looking for), and not to get a page protected and certainly not to get User:Sushmibhaduri8 blocked. So this → if you had initially raised the issue at Talk:Jasmin Bhasin, I would have blocked Sushmibhaduri8 for disruptive editing.— was never the issue and I wasn't trying to get it resolved here. For that I would have obviously raised it in the relevant venues, talk pages and go WP:AN3 way. I don't deserve to get vented upon for not taking measures against a user I was going to take in the future. I agree that a talk page discussion (or perhaps at WP:INB) on the "partner parameter" issue itself should have been raised by me (or any other user for that matter) months ago for all to see. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 06:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Seeking clarification re birth_name parameter

Documentation for "birth_name" says, "Name at birth; only use if different from |name=." Does inclusion of a middle name qualify as being different if "|name=" does not include the person's middle name?

For an example, see the February 24, 2021, edit to Emily Deschanel, where "Emily Erin Deschanel" was removed from the infobox. It seems to me that "Emily Erin Deschanel" is different from "Emily Deschanel" and therefore should be shown in the infobox. I tend to be literal about such things, so I wonder how other editors interpret the guideline. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

In contrast, an edit to Elsie Mackay (actress) on February 25, 2021, added the actress's birth name to the infobox. Again, the only difference is the middle name. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
IMO, a middle name does not constitute a "different" name. Following MOS:BIRTHNAME, it should be part of the bolded headword but it alone is no reason to add |birth_name= to the infobox. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Longer is not different. The field is meant for people like Michael Caine or Kirk Douglas where the name is completely different. The full name works well at the beginning of the lede. MarnetteD|Talk 03:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
MOS:BIRTHNAME says nothing about infoboxes. There are biography infoboxes like {{infobox football biography}} that have |name=, |birth_name=, and |full_name=; it says to use "full_name" if different than "name" and "birth_name". I follow that reasoning for infoboxes that only have "name" and "birth_name" and put the full name in "birth_name" (if applicable). It's not called "former_name" or something like that which would imply using it for totally "different" names. MB 03:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
I didn't say that MOS:BIRTHNAME is about infoboxes, but that it recommends to use the full name in the article's bolded headword. Still, middle names, hypocorisms, etc. do not constitute a"different name". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
@Teblick: Hi there, I agree with your literal interpretation.
"Different" doesn't have to be as disparate as Steven Demetre Georgiou vs. Yusuf Islam. "Paul" is one of McCartney's real names. It just happens to be the middle one. Anthony Michael Hall's birth name has the same words, but two are flipped. Different = different and birth name = birth name. And I don't quite get a reason to omit it if the purpose of an infobox is to summarise content found in the article body. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate the feedback from all who have commented. Thanks for your time and your interest. Eddie Blick (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
The only thing I have here to add here is to not include initials when the middle name is unknown, as that is technically incorrect (eg. George W. Bush's birth name is George Walker Bush, not George W. Bush). Connormah (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Category: