Template talk:Infobox person


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

Death cause parameter
There is a little bit of an edit war going on at Brad Renfro about weather the death cause parameter should be used. His death clearly falls somewhere in between of the two sets of examples given in the template documentation. Is it possible to make the guidance more explicit about how to handle cases in the middle. I note that this parameter is used on both River Phoenix and Elvis Presley so is consensus that this parameter should be used in these kind of circumstances?

The bit of the guidance that I'm struggling to understand is "should only be included when the cause of death has significance for the subject's notability." This sounds simple but I'm not sure how to apply it in these kind of cases. RicDod (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not the purpose or bailiwick of template documentation to set policy/guidelines. This has been left to editorial discretion on an article-by-article basis. If we think that has ended up being a bad idea, then it should instead probably be covered at MOS:BIO and discussed at WT:MOSBIO for addition there.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Functionally, infobox templates have become much more “guiding” than I think they used to be, and I would agree that a more central, more watched policy/guideline page would be better to set convention on these matters.
 * This specific question came up before, regarding Jim Henson. I personally agree that “significance for the subject's notability” is a particularly bad way to phrase guidance, but I remember there being resistance from another editor here when attempts to rephrase were made. — HTGS (talk) 09:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The template doc wording is definitely faulty, a copy-paste of "the subject's notability" wording out of WP:BLP. It can virtually never actually pertain to this parameter. Who, exactly, has ever been notable (i.e. worthy of having an encyclopedia article about them) simply because of the cause of their death? Rather, what it's  to get at is something along the lines of what's being argued about for MOS:DEADNAME stuff: that the factoid should only be included if significantly covered in multiple, independent, reliable sources. That's roughly the proper way to word this. But it is not clear that the community wants any such restriction on death-cause information. That's something that needs to be an RfC matter, probably at WT:MOSBIO where it will be seen by more than a handful of template editors and infobox flamers.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Who exactly? Maybe Elaine Herzberg, although that's a death not a person? Have not yet checked through the whole of List of unusual deaths... In fact, all of the "Death of..." articles. They only exist because of their notable deaths? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Write “contested” and call it a day. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 09:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Linking "Nationality"
Would anyone object linking the "Nationality" field name to Nationality to clarify this field is for a legal status and not an ethnicity, and so people can hopefully be more educated about the difference between legal nationality and legal citizenship? -- Beland (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)


 * That's a MOS:FORCELINK clarification. Most readers will anyways not click such a basic term—in an infobox header no less—and dictionaries anyhow have alternative definitions like an ethnic group constituting one element of a larger unit (such as a nation) Still, readers will know Wikipedia's convention for the field, if it is consistent. If editors are the target, Template:Infobox person/doc already states that ethnicity does not belong in this field. —Bagumba (talk) 03:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure which part of MOS:FORCELINK you are referring to, exactly, or what you're taking away from it? The advice there seems more applicable to article prose; in an infobox, we can't replace the link with an explanation of the meaning or an alternative term (as far as I know, this is the correct term for what it is). It's true the vast majority of readers will not click on the link, but readers who are confused about the meaning or who get angry about it and are about to write us an angry letter are a lot more likely to do so. I'm afraid readers will actually not be familiar with the meaning of this field, because for most biographies, it's omitted per MOS:INFONAT. -- Beland (talk) 03:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion. My point is that readers already have some idea of what Nationality means, even if it's differnent from WP's ibx conventions, and the nuance will not be conveyed merely by linking Nationality.  I understand it's a loaded term. If a distinction truly needs to be addressed (no current opinion), perhaps an explanatory footnote is a compromise. —Bagumba (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I was being cautious about not making too intrusive a change, but you're probably right a link is perhaps too small a change to clarify that this is not an ethnicity. A footnote is a good idea, but it might take a fair amount of work to make it show up in the right place across all the affected articles. We could change the field name itself, to something like "Legal nationality" or "Nationality (legal)"? I still think a link would be helpful for the curious, and it doesn't sound like it would have a down side? -- Beland (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As it doesn't address the original stated issue, adding a link is extraneous. Every reader has access to the search box, so the curious few can enter "Nationality". There's also the guideline MOS:LEADLINK—Too many links can make the lead hard to read, or at least devalues the more essential links. —Bagumba (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This is for an infobox, not the lead. The lead is written in prose, whereas the infobox is in a key-value format, where I think links on the keys are actually generally helpful because there's usually no room to put anything other than the key name.
 * In any case, since you want more than just a link to address the original problem, what about "Nationality (legal)" without a link? -- Beland (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Beland: The infobox is an element of the lead (MOS:LEADELEMENTS). In any case, since you want more than just a link to address the original problem: I have not stated that.  I've only said that the proposed link doesn't resolve the concern. As for "(legal)", I don't think it would be an improvement to invite editors to highlight additional nationalites that some people technically have, but which are not part of their notability. —Bagumba (talk) 04:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Presumably folks with Wikipedia biographies are notable for something other than their nationality? Isn't that what this field is for, to document legal nationalities that are unexpected, since the guidelines say if it's obvious from the birth country not to list it? -- Beland (talk) 05:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * An example would be someone born on a U.S. military base in Germany, who is notable only as an American, but also acquired Italian citizenship by descent through their grandparents in their later life. —Bagumba (talk) 05:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That sounds like an interesting fact which would be neat to add to an infobox. If we're worried about people abusing the field, it seems like it would be much more likely for people to put ethnicity here, given that's what most people think nationality means if it doesn't mean citizenship. -- Beland (talk) 07:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Update: After going through thousands of biography infoboxes, it appears that editors regularly put ethnicity into the "nationality" field, in violation of WP:INFONAT. I've started a discussion on abolishing or disfavoring or changing this field. Please add your thoughts at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes. -- Beland (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit request 10 March 2024
Description of suggested change: Disable bolding of native_name when native_name_lang uses a non-Latin script

At the very least for Chinese, per MOS:ZH. Hopefully it's alright if I don't fashion a diff for this one, but it's something I'm constantly having to readjust for with on dozens of articles. Remsense 诉  10:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Change made to sandbox. Please check test cases &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! I assume it was intentionally a blanket tweak—meaning, Latin scripts are affected too? I actually think that's preferable, just checking it was intentional. Remsense 诉  12:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well that's the simplest way to implement, and probably better for consistency. Unless anyone disagrees &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I recall some function somewhere that would return whether a given IETF code was Latin script or not. Remsense  诉  13:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * lang italicizes Latin script automatically: either when that is the default encoding for the language or when it is triggered by a language code. It appears to go further in these examples with Serbian, which could use Latin or Cyrillic script:
 * → Народна скупштина – no italics
 * → Narodna skupština – italics
 * → Народна скупштина – no italics
 * → Narodna skupština – italics
 * So, the function or the logic/algorithm is used somewhere in lang's module(s) and appears in some ambiguous cases to detect the script being used even if the editor did not specify the script. &mdash;  Archer1234  (t·c) 14:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ no further comments, so done &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Do you support overturning the 2020 consensus to remove residence from the Infobox person template?
Should the 2020 consensus to remove residence from the Infobox person template be overturned? 4theloveofallthings (talk) 01:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

There was a 2020 consensus to remove residence from the Infobox person template, and I want to readdress it.


 * Yes- I support overturning the consensus to remove the parameter. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 01:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Please create a brief, neutral statement of the question separate from your !vote - see WP:RFCOPEN. Then answer to your question on what other parameter covers that information is "none" - and that's by design. Not everything that is found in the article needs to be covered. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Name, location, age, occupation all seem like things that should be covered. Not all things need to be covered, but are we really considering someone’s residence to be one of the lesser important things to cover? That seems ridiculous to me. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes - Why might the place of residence of someone not be important?  Coco bb8  (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That’s exactly how I feel as well. It’s often included in the article anyway! It’s something that one would expect in a summary of a person’s biography, so I personally think it being removed as a parameter was an overkill. By the same arguments made in 2020 to remove it, we could argue birth_place should be removed as well. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with the No arguments, but perhaps I am missing something. What value specifically does including residence to the template add to the article? One point against including it is safety concerns for the person. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, if their place of residence is cited in multiple reliable sources (doesn't have to be too specific, like just a city), then why not put it in the infobox?  Coco bb8  (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It already has to be in order for it to be included in the article. The narrative that in some way including it in a persons infobox would be doxxing the individual is ridiculous. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 01:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Plus, if it’s template editors that are saying that just getting rid of the parameter altogether is the solution as opposed to developing a way in which only city-level residences are listed, then I think that’s just lazy. I even quickly just now threw together ..  →
 * I am no template editor! Just cannot wrap my mind around how those who handle the templates on Wikipedia would genuinely have seen removal of a useful parameter under the false illusion that it is used to dox subjects (despite there being not a single case of this ever having happened) as the solution over .. developing a solution instead. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 02:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * One issue I can see is that a residence might be outdated, showing residences of the past. It seems residence in the infobox should be something current, which might not be the case, which could be misleading to the reader. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No, can't think of an article where an unqualified listing of a single residence in the infobox would be helpful. —Kusma (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Government Representatives. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It makes sense to mention the official residence(s) at President of Germany, but why would we need to add them to the infobox of Frank-Walter Steinmeier? They are not even mentioned in the prose. (And apparently he doesn't even live there). —Kusma (talk) 11:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No Completely non-educational unless you're some sort of celebrity stalker. Moxy 🍁 21:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, but what if one's place of residence is mentioned in multiple reliable sources?  Coco bb8  (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In my view if it's something like Buckingham palace it'll be in a personal section anyways. Not seeing how listing Kim Kardashian's address is helpful to the average reader. Moxy 🍁 22:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Listing someone’s address would go against Wikipedia guidelines. Kim Kardashian’s residence would be Los Angeles, California. If you’re going to make the argument against the parameter, at least make the argument without exaggerating the way it was used — as the parameter existed for nearly two decades prior to being randomly removed at the start of this decade. A better example would be congressional candidates. It is not required for a congressional candidate for a certain district to reside in the district they are running for. However, many people would be hesitant to vote for a candidate who does not reside in their district themselves. Congressional candidates only need to reside in the same state as the district they run for. Listing residence in this case could go to help voters be more informed about the candidates running in their district. Note that congressional candidates may have never held office before and thus would be using the Infobox person template.4theloveofallthings (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Your purpose of "help[ing] voters be[come] more informed" is a fairly clear violation of WP:NOT. Please refresh your memory on Wikipedia policies.  Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a directory, or an indiscriminate collection of information. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Coolcaesar That’s a good point. I have to respect that. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The information ends up in the article anyway? If the person seeking the information was a stalker, then they’re bound to read the entire article anyway. You’re shaping this in a way that makes it seem as though including information about a persons residence is not allowed on Wikipedia — when in fact it is. All that is curious to me is that while the information remains fair game for inclusion in a subjects article, why would it not be included in the infobox?
 * Just thought it deserved a second thought is all. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No I see no value in adding a person's residence to the infobox.Eddie Blick (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * What’s the value in adding a persons birth_place ? 4theloveofallthings (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * After thinking pretty hard about how to answer this—it is a non-trivial question—here's what I have, since I don't like to lean solely on previous consensus even when that may be the deciding factor in content discussions. It is much more reliably a representation of some aspect of the subject's biography. People moving from place to place is not reliably an interesting or informative thing. People live in LA for every reason, and most of them are meaningless for an encyclopedia. Whereas someone's birthplace inherently distills aspects of their early life, which is almost always important in some way for a biography whether they stuck around there or not. It's much more fixed in a more meaningful sense than "it would be annoying if we had to keep changing it". That's what I presently can think to answer, anyway. Remsense  诉  17:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The birthplace is also amazingly useful for further research, especially for finding dead Europeans in church registers. Similar for place of death. —Kusma (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No per the 2020 discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No per the 2020 discussion and for the reasons already discussed at length by others above. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No – "seems like it should be" and "why not" are exactly the arguments they sound like. Verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion, and it certainly doesn't privilege inclusion in an infobox, which is meant to summarize key information about a topic, not merely parameterizable information about a topic. For individuals can I really bring myself to consider this a key piece of information for their encyclopedia article—and 0% is much lower than the usefulness threshold required for a parameter's inclusion in my view.  Remsense  诉  16:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No – Per all similar !votes -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 16:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak support: I can see potential value in a residence parameter, but only if its scope could be extremely limited. If you run a search for pages using the parameter, plenty come up,(see reply) but I am inclined to say that inclusion criteria should resemble either: Only include actual buildings or grounds well known as the subject’s residence, as Carinhall is for Hermann Göring or at least the looser standard, Only include places strongly associated with the subject as their residence, as with Andre Agassi, who lives in Las Vegas; obviously both examples have flaws, but hopefully this prompts clearer debate. In either case, we would also reinforce that any place listed must be in the article body, not merely cited, so perhaps for some, this could be a third, looser standard. Note that both examples there  have their residence listed because they use more field-specific infoboxes. At the end of this, I would prefer to see most person infoboxes aligned one way or the other; that may mean notifying more template talk pages now, or holding another mass-RfC after this one’s conclusion. — HTGS (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It appears that most pages that include a residence now do so because they use specific templates that allow them, and the above search only returns those pages that use templates that reference this template. Most appear to be Infobox tennis biography, Infobox officeholder, which seems to have some merit, and Infobox gymnast. (There are likely others, but tennis and gymnast use height, which is part of person.) — HTGS (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is one of the practical flaws (limits?) of Wikipedia: it's very difficult to have something that's all three of "broadly visible to editors", "limited in intended scope", and "doesn't require constant maintenance to correct what we consider to be erroneous use". If we add this parameter back, nothing we can do will make its limited scope intuitive to most editors.
 * That is to say, I disagree with your conclusion: I don't think it's best for most to be aligned one way or the other. I think it should be there if it's key information, which depends on the subject in question. Remsense  诉  22:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I can see the logic in listing a residence for officeholders (political offices often come with residences; eg, the White House), but do you really think that sportspeople should be treated differently to any other bio using infobox person? I think I’m a little less pessimistic than you (and everyone else) on our limitations here though. I believe people adding infoboxes are either copying them from the documentation samples, inserting via the Visual Editor, or copying them from similar articles. Only the third of those makes it hard for us to tell people “Do it like X, don’t do it like Y”, and if we create a clear standard, then removing erroneous entries from existing articles will slowly solve the whole problem. — HTGS (talk) 02:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Reasonable minds can certainly differ, but to answer the concrete question:
 * Certainly! Different biographies have different needs. Remsense  诉  00:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I can’t honestly see why Infobox Magic: The Gathering player players should all have their residence listed, but the generic person infobox should not have the parameter even with strict standard for its use. It seems to me that some great degree of standardisation is needed, and while I think most sportspersons do not need a residence parameter, I’m open to it being listed, but really some decent rationale and usage notes should really be given. — HTGS (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. This is exactly the kind of parameter that invites stupid edit wars at articles - there is basically no one who meets WP:GNG who doesn't have a definable residence at most given points in time, so anyone who writes an article on a person with this infobox is going to try to include it. But the vast majority of people will have several residences that could realistically be used. So unless a person has a job with a notable residence attached to it, e.g. the White House, that information is pretty much disjointed from a person's notability and is completely dependent on the time in a person's life without actually having to be dependent on their notability during that time. That's a bad combination for a general infobox parameter, especially one that is so widely implemented as this one. If the residence itself is notable for some reason - either as a building of historical interest, or as a constituency for a political office, that belongs in prose, and can be incorporated as a standalone, or as a module in this infobox under . Now, if you wanted to argue about including this parameter into infobox officeholder, I'd be interested to hear the arguments on both sides of that one. VanIsaac, GHTVcont WpWS 03:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The removal of parameters based solely on the contention they cause among editors is a questionable rationale for making significant changes to major templates. If there's substantial division over the issue, it likely indicates that consensus on its removal is not universally accepted within the community. Decisions to remove key elements like those in a subject's infobox should require more than a simple majority. A two-thirds majority should be necessary, following multiple discussions across various spaces impacted by the change, such as the template's talk page and relevant WikiProjects. Although I understand the reasoning behind keeping it removed for now, the ease with which it was done concerns me. It sets a precedent that might prove problematic. But of course, that's just my opinion. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Well a) if you think that parameters with a penchant for arbitrary and meaningless values is just a mere matter of contention between editors, I think you need to gain significantly more perspective. And b) as far as I know, the only things on Wikipedia that are subject to any sort of majority is various administrative permissions and representation on boards of the Wikimedia foundation. Content is subject to WP:Consensus; not a majority, not a 2/3 majority, not a 99% majority. Consensus is oftentimes established via reference to Policy. An arbitrary threshold for removing a problematic parameter does not seem consistent with any sort of Wikipedia policies I am familiar with, but given that my heaviest involvement in policy is a good decade old, maybe you could help me out here. VanIsaac, GHTVcont WpWS 01:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Add "burial date" parameter
Please add a "burial date" parameter, since there is a "burial place" parameter. 2606:8700:A:2:8136:3331:CEB:FD6C (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I think the death date is sufficient. -  FlightTime Phone  ( open channel ) 17:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Just sounds like trivia and clutter to me. The infobox is only meant to summarise the most important facts of someone's life. Edwardx (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * interment would be far from trivial for the individuals whose dates of death are unknown due to being kidnapped and murdered, lost, or held hostage. For those people and their families do you think they consider the date of interment “trivia” or the only thing they have? Think before you write something so ignorant. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 09:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Interment would be a very nice addition to the infobox parameters! :) I think that what a lot of people on here who think date of death is sufficient don’t understand is that some people aren’t so lucky to know the date their loved one died. If we have parameters for when someone went missing.. I think haven’t a parameter for interment would be a very nice addition that would validate the experiences of many people. Would you be alright with me starting an official discussion on this for editors to take a vote? 4theloveofallthings (talk) 09:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @4theloveofallthings, if I may, this is an encyclopedia, not a memorial service. We reflect the aspects of topics as presented in the body of reliable sources, and we don't make presentation changes based on what we personally think would be redemptive or endearing. Remsense  诉  09:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If I may, you are misunderstanding me. I am not saying we have a duty to make the subjects families feel seen. I am saying that those who have been through similar situations and had family members meet similar fates to that of notable subjects would see the interment parameter and it would feel wildly more accurate and in line with what had happened — that perhaps as a side effect they may feel seen. We certainly shouldn’t make it our aim to do things to make people feel seen, but when the inclusion of something as important as someone’s interment just so happens to validate the real life experiences of others, that’s always nice.
 * You know, as opposed to calling it trivia just because you live your life through your lens and your lens alone. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * But we don't write Wikipedia articles for the benefit of surviving relatives? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * sigh Please read what I wrote again. I said my initial comment was saying that it would be a nice side effect of including a parameter that would be factually accurate. Forget about the happy feelings of the living now, as it was just a comment. For the subjects of the articles that would use this parameter, don’t you think that their date of interment is a wildly important fact about them? Being the very last thing that happened to them in their life? On a level of importance it’s up there with their birth. Don’t you think? 4theloveofallthings (talk) 10:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, we're concerned with reflecting what sources have to say, not putting forth what we have to say. No, I do not think it is as important as birth or date of death most of the time. Remsense  诉  10:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, sorry, I don't think that. I think date of funeral/memorial event is far more significant. What on earth do you mean "the very last thing that happened to them in their life"?? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Some would consider the interment of a human being to the earth to be the very last thing that happens to them in their life, meaning before eternal life. For Christian denominations, the Christian burial is considered sacred. In MANY cultures, the interment of a human body to the earth is sacred and important. Just because it is not to you does not mean it is not to others. Your profound oversight on that point is jarring to me. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 10:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles need to accommodate all faiths and none. Not sure that your comment about my "profound oversight" is useful here. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think most Christians believe that the transition from mortal life to eternal life is instantaneous and that there is no "limbo period" which is terminated only by burial. That's not to say that Christian burial is not also seen as a sacred act. Other faiths seem to put much more emphasis in ensuring that burial occurs within a given time after death. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Could you take a shot at explaining the lack of this information in comparably prominent positions in the layout of biographies within other encyclopedias? Remsense  诉  13:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Would one need to assess the relative importance of date of burial between those of different religious faiths? Would this, in turn, necessitate some kind of assessment, on the part of the editor, of the religious beliefs of the deceased at the time of death? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I am an atheist for the record. I am just capable of seeing things from outside of my world view. :) 4theloveofallthings (talk) 10:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Is a date of burial equally significant to atheists as to Christians? How can you tell? Or does its significance transcend matters of religious faith? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As OP pointed out, there is a burial place parameter but no burial date parameter. It’s just pointlessly excluded. We have birthplace and date of birth. We have death date and place of death. Why burial location without the date of burial? The argumentagainst it is what seems pointless to me, not the inclusion of a burial date. Hah 4theloveofallthings (talk) 10:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't call it trivia, I just don't think it's usually reflected prominently enough in sources about a subject to have a parameter added for the infobox. Obviously it's very relevant for some subjects, but I can't think of any class of subjects large enough to make this a net positive addition, where the benefit outweighs the misuse of it where it would be trivia or worse. There's a whole rest of the article for us to include such things, you know. Remsense  诉  10:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Edwardxdid in a reply before but I don’t see him getting chastised in the same way that I am for simply agreeing with OP that the inclusion of interment would be nice. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 10:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * “This is an encyclopedia not a memorial service!” Lol okay.. explain this. I’ll wait. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That is a Wikipedia: space page, which is not part of the encyclopedia. The changes you are proposing are to mainspace, which is part of the encyclopedia. TSP (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I apologize that I was apparently uncivil enough to make you feel it was worth posting an inane "gotcha" regarding the little candle i put on my user page for my dead friend. Remsense  诉  04:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)  Struck in appreciation for the apology below.  Remsense  诉  07:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @4theloveofallthings, I can see the possibility of some value, when date of death was not known. How would Interment fit with "funeral" or "cremation"? Which is the more significant event? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The reason why interment would be better than burial as OP suggested is that interment can cover both burial and the spreading of one’s ashes. It could also be used to refer to sky and tree burials. It just means the returning of one’s remains to nature and the earth. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 10:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There is also a difference between spreading of ashes and interment of ashes. I suspect that, for many people, the dates of these events are never made public, unlike those for cremation/ funeral. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Editors on here act as if adding a parameter takes up precious space. Parameters don’t take up any space and are only visible when explicitly type in by an editor writing an article. There is no dropdown selection of parameters that will now become cluttered with the inclusion of a new parameter, and in case you weren’t aware Wikipedia does not have finite space. You all just love to argue. Well you have fun! Haha 4theloveofallthings (talk) 10:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's just us other editors who "love to argue", yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Certainly not, dear Martinevans123! Lots of people love to argue. However, yes, I am referring to editors on Wikipedia because it would seem a bit irrelevant to mention the tendencies of others when speaking about arguments pertaining to Wikipedia edits, don’t you agree? Lmao. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hope your ass recovers. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not true: the existence of a parameter in itself makes editors like to use it, and blank templates are often pasted on to new pages, incentivizing other editors to come along and fill in the gaps. You asked whether it would be a good idea, and we're telling you why we don't think it is. Good grief. Remsense  诉  10:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I guess the template advice might say something like: "Do not use if date of death is known"? But yes, you're right, some editors are wholly unware of template advice and will just try to fill up all the parameters. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Have any of you who are making pointless arguments against the parameter even taken the time to look at OP’s contributions? They were editing the article for Georgiy Gongadze, a “Georgian-Ukrainian journalist and film director who was kidnapped and murdered in 2000 near Kyiv”. Now take a step back and reevaluate OP’s intentions as opposed to your own. OP’s seem very genuine and sincere, providing invaluable insight into an oversight on the part of template editors. Now, take a moment to consider YOUR intentions. Do you just love to argue and be right? If so, good for you! Enjoy asserting your perceived moral and intellectual authority over individuals trying to contribute to Wikipedia, and then don’t forget to question why the rate of new editors is on a rapid decline - threatening the very site you hold your imagined authority over. Because your inability to connect those dots is incredible to me, and I love to witness a good display of idiocy. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So your arguments here are good ones, and everyone else's are "pointless", yes? Because we are idiots? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * as it happens I agree with you on the overall point, but you are very far from helping your cause here. Please avoid personal attacks, assume good faith, take a deep breath, stick to encyclopedic arguments in your comments, and maybe step away from this subject for a bit if you are struggling to be involved unemotionally. Beware of the tigers may be relevant here. TSP (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @TSP you’re right. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 07:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Martinevans123I do apologize sincerely for being a hothead.
 * I am so sorry.. but I feel the overwhelming urge to respond, that it is quite possible for one to put on a display of idiocy without being an idiot... but that was entirely unnecessary to add to this thread.
 * But I did it anyway! /lh
 * Sorry again about the hotheadedness. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 07:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, 4theloveofallthings, for apologizing, which remains a rarity across Wikipedia. It's easy to get carried away when one feels passionate about something. Time to move on, perhaps. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that not everyone chooses burial, I don't see why anything like this belongs in an infobox. The article body allows information to be added with flexibility available to fit the particular person/situation. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Should burial_date be added as a parameter?
With the birth_place parameter having the corresponding birth_date parameter and the death_place parameter having the corresponding death_date parameter, do you agree to have the burial_place parameter given the corresponding burial_date parameter? 4theloveofallthings (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes - because without it there is a lack of uniformity. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No. This is an interesting, well-meaning idea, but information in the infobox should reflect lead-level weighting. The day a person died is significantly more important than the day they were buried, which can be covered in the death section of the body. burial_place is significant because it's where people would go to see the grave, but the burial date has only historical significance, and just not enough of it to justify infobox bloat.  Sdkb  talk 16:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I would go further, and say that, except in rare cases, the burial  is not a lead-level fact. — HTGS (talk) 03:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Karl Marx. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe that other Russian guy? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Technically inaccurate as neither of them was, but point taken. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Question: is there a policy for everything in the infobox should be lead-level weighting or is that an opinion? It's not what I see in practice. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 11:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Education and Alma mater don't usually appear in lead sections, do they? And place of death is often not included? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @FieldMarine, see the link in my comment above. It's part of the guideline.  Sdkb  talk 03:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It is a dominant practice, when adding infoboxes, to fill every field... like a farmer before crop rotation. That doesn't mean it's a good practice. Because so many people act this way, the response from others in discussions like this is to remove fields if they could appear too tempting. In cases like this, where it is difficult to even imagine a bio needing burial date, that is probably the appropriate response. — HTGS (talk) 05:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes for consistency with parameters for related information. Whether it should be used or not is an editorial decision to be made on each article, not one that should be forced by a centralized coding decision. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Not as proposed. The date of burial does not have the same relation to place of burial as birth date and place have. Furthermore, the asymmetry is amplified by the cultural jingoism of a burial date as opposed to a generic internment date. The only reason why such a date would be germane is in the case of a person whose date of death is unknown. If we had an  parameter that only functioned when   was unspecified, there might be an argument worth supporting there. But   is just not up to snuff neither as a parameter name nor as an unconditionally displayed value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanisaac (talk • contribs) 18:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Cautious yes though with some caution on exact format. This is useful where we don't have a death date - both cases like murders, and historical cultures where burial dates rather than death dates were recorded (e.g. I'm pretty sure we don't actually know Cervantes' date of death - it's been inferred from his burial date, which was what was put on Spanish gravestones of the time). Should it be a more general term? perhaps, but I struggle to think of one. I'm not sure I'm as convinced as some that 'interment' is a generic - OED defines interment as "The action of interring or burying in the earth; burial." (internment is something else again.) TSP (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @TSP I believe the only undeniable argument is that of uniformity. Please disregard my previous comments that lacked solid logic and unnecessarily insulted editors engaged in discussion. There is no excuse for my behavior, but I was having a pretty rough morning and inappropriately vented my frustrations in an insulting manner. (That is for Martinevans123.)
 * My personal stance is that since the burial location parameter already exists, my argument about interment was pointless. I think that striving for uniformity is very valuable for editors, especially when aiming to create a platform that is encyclopedic.
 * However, we are all entitled to our opinions without being needlessly insulted. I would like to apologize again. That’s all I have to say on this matter. Thank you for continuing the conversation. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 07:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It genuinely means a lot, apology fully accepted, and lesson learned to maybe choose less blunt words next time. Remsense  诉  07:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No. For one, zero articles have been presented where this would be an improvement. Per Sdkb, it is unlikely that such articles exist. —Kusma (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No per arguments in previous section. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, per Sdkb. If examples can be given, where the burial date of a person is worth including in the lead, I would reconsider. — HTGS (talk) 03:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, per the arguments above, especially Vanisaac and Kuzma. For the overwhelming majority of decedents, the date of burial or internment of their remains is a tangent and mere trivia which violates WP:NOT, specifically, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information."  It's important to maintain "big picture" perspective while keeping Wikipedia core policies in mind. For example, at the time Robin Williams died almost 10 years ago, we had quite a dispute in that article over how to cover the post-death treatment of his remains.  I thought it was important to include the information that Marin County, despite its fame and wealth, didn't have and still doesn't have a county morgue for processing suspicious deaths.  As a result, Williams's remains had to be driven about 40 miles to Napa County for an autopsy, where Marin rents space from Napa as needed, and then driven 40 miles back to Marin County for cremation and dispersal of his ashes over San Francisco Bay.  But with time and maturity, I have come to recognize that such information is relatively minor trivia compared to the more important issue of why Williams died, and was properly excised as a tangent from the main topic of the article. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * No per sdkb. It’s crufty and infoboxes are already potentially quite large if all parameters are filled. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No - infobox is for the most important facts, burial date is not one of those.--Staberinde (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Age update fail
The date of birth on Chris Packham is correct but the age is calculating incorrectly - he's now 63 but the template still puts his age at 62. Is this a known bug? Wa<b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  12:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If you check out the documentation at, you can see that the age only updates when the page cache is purged. VanIsaac, GHTVcont<sub style="margin-left:-3.5ex"> WpWS 13:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Add parameters for multiple terms or offices?
This template only allows one parameter for the person's office and for similar things. I propose that we add parameters such as office2, term2, predecessor2, and successor2 (with as many numbers as wanted) for people who are known for multiple positions or held the same position multiple times. This would match Template:Infobox officeholder.

For example, this would be useful for Bob Iger, who served as CEO of Disney from 2005 to 2020 and again from 2022 to present. The current infobox lists both Michael Eisner and Bob Chapek in the "predecessor" parameter, making it unclear which preceded which term. — <span style="font-family: Consolas, Courier New;">Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 04:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is what modules are for. There is no need to match the parameters of Infobox officeholder because you can just embed Infobox officeholder into Infobox person when you have this need. VanIsaac, GHTVcont<sub style="margin-left:-3.5ex"> WpWS 06:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Limit "criminal_charges" parameter to those that resulted in prosecutions (whether guilty or innocent), or ongoing investigations, only?
Would it be good to have clearer guidelines on the usage of the "criminal charges" parameter? Criminal charges appear to be much like wedding engagements. They are short-lived preludes to longterm events: Convictions or marriages (write your own joke :)

Considering charges can be dropped against someone, would making the guidelines clearer to limit charges to only those that actually resulted in criminal prosecution? (Whether acquitted or found guilty.) If not, what examples could there be of someone having a lead-level fact relating to a criminal charge that was dropped and didn't result in criminal proceedings (that are not currently ongoing)? 92.12.76.138 (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but please review WP:RFCTP. This is malformed, as the RfC is not being presented neutrally. I recommend either withdrawing or refactoring this, at which point I would be happy to offer an opinion. I'm also not sure why this is an RfC? Has this question been asked previously and was there any dispute about it? DonIago (talk) 02:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Fixed! Thanks. 92.12.76.138 (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Now I'm confused by what change you're proposing. The documentation for the infobox already states that that field should only be used in the case of convictions, which seems pretty unambiguous to me? DonIago (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose – I agree with DonIago above, but just in case: in order,
 * I simply do not think it is confusing as described. People generally understand that charges may include convictions and acquittals, et al.
 * I don't see how this is different from any impermanent aspect of one's biography. Listing one's employment isn't "being a newspaper".
 * Why use language that more specifically gestures towards guilt? Again, people generally understand that charges are just that.
 * Depends on the page.
 * Remsense 诉  02:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Updated prop. Thanks. 92.12.76.138 (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The main guideline here is WP:BLPCRIME. If living people have not been convicted of a crime, the infobox must present them as innocent, i.e. not use the "criminal charges" parameter at all. —Kusma (talk) 12:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I noted this above, but in case you missed it, the infobox documentation already states that this field should only be used in the event of a conviction. I think the IP needs to clarify their concerns and proposal. DonIago (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

"Party" parameter and independent voters
On BLPs of independent voters, is it more appropriate to fill the "party" parameter with "independent" or leave it blank? My cursory understanding of the parameter's usage is to note party affiliations, which independent voters do not have. This has been disputed on Sara Haines. KyleJoan talk 07:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I would have had a hard time imagining a non-politician (or non-political-person) whose of party affiliation is worth including in their infobox. In the case of Haines, it appears that her political stance has gained some coverage (,,  and similar) as it relates to her notability, and so it becomes a little more of an editorial question. I would probably not include it, given that the coverage is minor, and not coming from the kind of sources I would prefer for lead level material, but I can see the other side. Probably worth continuing at Talk:Sara Haines. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">— HTGS (talk) 04:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * How about Independent? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Whether a distinction between how politicians and other subjects fill the parameter is necessary, I don't see the point of a link to connote "political party: none" if there's not even enough coverage to neutrally contextualize one's nonpartisanship in the prose. KyleJoan talk 20:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Education/alma mater parameters
The education and alma mater parameters can cause a bit of confusion amongst some editors, especially with regards to listing colleges/universities some of the subjects attended. One of the instructions in the infobox documentation currently states "It is usually not relevant to include either [the education or alma mater] parameter for non-graduates, but article talk page consensus may conclude otherwise, as perhaps at Bill Gates." For example, Jeffrey Wright left New York University before completing his master's degree and Robert Frost didn't receive any degrees from Dartmouth College or Harvard University.

My questions are: should we use the alma mater or education parameter if the subject didn't earn a degree and (if not), how should we go about it? Also, which parameter should we use if the subject has attended multiple universities (such as Peter Weller, Bridgit Mendler, etc.)? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)


 * In both cases, if there is consensus to include, it should generally be in education. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikidata Integration
This template is in my opinion a good candidate for Wikidata integration. Wikidata has some quite detailed information on many people, and that information could automatically populate this infobox.

I would maybe caveat that, unlike some other infoboxes, this one should probably require referenced Wikidata entries to avoid some potential problems in the case of WP:BLP. David Palmer// cloventt (talk) 08:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I am pretty certain that this has been suggested and rejected before, on grounds such as verifiability, and spotting vandalism. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Infobox person/Wikidata exists. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! That is exactly what I was looking for. David Palmer// cloventt (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I would absolutely love if there were some sort of utility that would allow you to import Wikidata to populate an infobox, but would only prepopulate values for supported parameters that you could then save. Pretty much any other option is bound to be a BLP and vandalism nightmare and should be avoided. VanIsaac, GHTVcont<sub style="margin-left:-3.5ex"> WpWS 21:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I second that, it would help to neatly bridge that gap. David Palmer// cloventt (talk) 02:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

New Template:Listen voice
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Listen voice. —⁠andrybak (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

East Asian age reckoning
Reliable sources are reporting that Eiko Masuyama died at age 89 calculated in East Asian age reckoning:,. The Wikipedia article uses Template:Death date and age to calculate the age as 88. Should we create an age template for these cases when age is reported in East Asian age reckoning and use both in the article? Mika1h (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I wonder if there is a lunar year template to base the calculations off of, or whether you'd need to program that functionality in. Given that both the lunar new year and January new year are used, you'd need to be able to specify which to use in the calculation. But if the template were to output both ages, I think that would be a perfectly reasonable thing to have. I'd just caution that documentation should emphasize it only be used when reliable sources use the east asian age system for the person. VanIsaac, GHTVcont<sub style="margin-left:-3.5ex"> WpWS 14:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

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 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 “[Notable] 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. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">— HTGS (talk) 06:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Is there any 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. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">— HTGS (talk) 03:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it is a very good idea. Khiikiat (talk) 11:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Edit request 19 July 2024
Please make following changes to the display of Parents label, as described above:

Diff:


 * data57    =  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanisaac (talk • contribs) 01:19, 2024 June 17 (UTC)

Alma mater
The documentation for states that alma_mater is a more concise alternative to (not addition to) education. However, it is very common to see both parameters used in a single infobox. Usually, in such cases, education is used for secondary education and alma_mater is used for tertiary education. At other times, education is used for the degree and alma_mater for the university that awarded it.

One possibility is to change the template so that alma_mater is not displayed if education is used. (Something similar has been done with nationality and birth_place for . It has been discussed here: Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 25)

A second possibility is to abolish alma_mater altogether.

Does anyone else have an opinion on this matter? Is it worth starting an RfC? If I wanted to start an RfC, where would be the best place to do so? Khiikiat (talk) 07:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: sometimes a ref says a person’s alma mater is “x”, but they also attended other schools, with the alma mater being the first school attended. However, its use on the infobox does not appear uniform. Semper fi! FieldMarine (talk) 13:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Can we add net worth field to this template?
i think it is relevant especially for public figures or celebrities Gsgdd (talk) 03:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * This parameter previously existed and was removed per this discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * And a year later, I did the cleanup of all the instances that were left. But I did save the information that was removed if you wanted to go about putting that information into the prose of any articles I hit two years ago. VanIsaac, GHTVcont<sub style="margin-left:-3.5ex"> WpWS 05:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Please add conviction_status parameter
I'm trying to add "| conviction_status = Incarcerated" and this template does not support it. Honestly makes editing way harder than it has to be if everything was streamline and centralized. Alexysun (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Does criminal_status and the related params not meet your needs? If not, why not? Please explain what you're trying to accomplish in greater detail. DonIago (talk) 00:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)