Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 17

Parameter for voice files
Note the voice file and media player, below the infobox in Sue Black (computer scientist). Can we add a parameter to the infobox, that allows the player (or something like it) to be inside the infobox? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 July 2013
please update to [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_person/sandbox&oldid=562855844 this version] of the sandbox, which adds honors or honours below awards. this will allow us to merge the honors infoboxes in articles like Jane du Pont Lunger. thank you.

Frietjes (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ -- WOSlinker (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to make Infobox scientist a module of this template
Please see Template talk:Infobox scientist. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 July 2013
Please change the signature parameter from label to header. Visually, it's much better, like in the website parameter. --Rezonansowy (talk) 04:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: I've added this to the sandbox - see Template:Infobox person/testcases. However, I think there needs to be more time for people to comment on this before I update the main template. If there is consensus for this change after a week, please reactivate the edit protected template so that a patrolling admin will the request. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 08:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: I've mentioned this request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 08:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Looks better, and matches image captions. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

religion parameter
Some users fills this parameter with None, because they believes that Agnosticism is not a religion, however the same is the case of Atheism. I think, this may be really problematic. In my opinion this parameter is not for define a type of subject's religion, but to define its position on this matter. So it should be look like below:


 * Atheism or Agnosticism etc.

--Rezonansowy (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with not using "None" -- just remember that it has to be cited from a reliable source (in the article body) and that it needs to be relevant to the person's public image or career. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a perennial issue; see the archives of this talk page. Atheism is not a religion, nor is it a belief, and for atheists (of which I am one) the correct value in that parameter is "none". Suggesting that atheism is a person's "religion" or "belief" is factually false, illogical (the oft-used analogy is "Fred's hobby is not collecting stamps") and offensive. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Atheism can definitely be described as a belief: An atheist believes no gods exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.130.90 (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Atheism can be described as banana. That doesn't make it one. I do not merely "believe that no gods exist". See the stamp collecting analogy; and please read the many examples of this tiresome debate on the archives before deciding whether to continue this one would benefit the encyclopedia. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits
 * Atheism is definitely a belief (at the risk of offending), and I accept that it's not a religion (even though that's debatable -- there's an atheist church in London and atheists are trying to get atheist chaplains in the U.S. military), but "None" should definitely not be used. It should just be left blank. "None" should never be used in an infobox at all, and there's a difference between being Atheist and being non-religious. --Musdan77 (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you mean some atheists are... Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Baptism
For some time, in Western Europe, the practice was to record the baptism, not birth, date of a baby, This applies to Beethoven, for instance. I propose that we add a baptism_date parameter, but code this so that it will not display if the birth date is entered. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * When I was working with Tom Morris and Justinc to code a demonstration of how we could import from Wikidata into Infobox person, I suggested that we needed a three-way decision: (i) parameter not present -> do not display; (ii) parameter present but equal to nothing -> get the data from Wikidata if available; (iii) parameter present and set to a value -> display that value. I think that may become accepted as a way of retaining the ability to override Wikidata with a locally supplied value, which may be occasionally needed if enWP has a different convention or view of a particular parameter from the rest of the world.
 * I wanted to flag up that in future, we probably won't have a binary decision like (display || not display), so making one parameter's display dependant on another's absence may be slightly more complicated to code - and the logic needs to be predetermined early to avoid having to recode a lot more as Wikidata starts to be used dynamically as a source. Checking Q255, I see that Beethoven's date of birth shows as "December 16 1770 Gregorian", source: English Wikipedia! So it looks like they have that wrong already even without an infobox. Oh well, no doubt we'll get a chance to debate that over there. The deWP article says he was baptised 17 December 1770 and was "wahrscheinlich" (probably) born on 16 December 1770, so it's no different from enWP. The French have an infobox and give his dob as "16 ou 17 décembre 1770" and don't even mention his baptism. You don't want to look at it. Oh well. --RexxS (talk) 01:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I may have too simple an approach, but why not have a way to (optionally) show both, usually only one of course? - Interesting that Wikidata is wrong, quoting enWP which is right ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * For most people (say, Philip Glass or Boris Becker), the baptism date is trivia. It's only significant if we have no birth date. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's what I mean, I would not mention it for Glass and Becker, but the parameter could be there, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Please sync from the sandbox. I've coded this, at least for now, so that it won't display if a birth date is entered. See test cases. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Birth name, again
At Charlie Wilson (Ohio politician), the lead is:
 * Charles A. "Charlie" Wilson, Jr.$[1]$ (January 18...

In the Infobox, 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: birth_name Charles A. Wilson, Jr. The change was reverted by User:Connormah 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 User:CMAH:
 * 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

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 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 birth_name for a complete name when 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 birth_name to be used for this perhaps-not-quite-literally-as-named purpose or not? —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 01:26, 17 April 2013 (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. Bill Clinton or Gerald Ford - 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. – Connormah (talk) 02:44, 17 April 2013 (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. DrKiernan (talk) 06:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * When you have a surname and given name that are as common as Wilson and Charlie, a middle initial does make an important contribution to clarifying which of (tens/hundreds/thousands of) thousands of people are being discussed. In the subject case, even more so, since another member of Congress named Charlie Wilson became famous after having a movie named after him and his work (Charlie Wilson's War). Moreover, I demonstrated that the subject was known almost exclusively within Congress, and often without, as Charles A. Wilson (Jr.). It's also the very first words of the article.


 * The argument that it's not OK because we don't know what the 'A' stands for seems completely hollow, and without any basis in policy. House.gov is an (perhaps the) WP:RS on the subject and it uses 'A', so we should reflect it, per policy, regardless of whether it is just 'A' or stands for something else.


 * The Infobox is supposed to summarize the important information of the article. To have his well-known-as name not appear in the Infobox does not make sense to me. If it doesn't go in birth_name, where does it go? Is the answer to move the article to "Charles A. Wilson, Jr. (Ohio politician)" and set Charlie? —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 03:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Until the election campaign of 1999-2000 got going, George H. W. Bush was simply known as George Bush here in the UK. He only gained the H. W. some years after the election of Dubya. -- Red rose64 (talk) 08:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Website parameter formatting
Out of pure curiosity, why is the formatting for the parameter "Website" different from almost all of the others? Instead of displaying with "Website" on the left and the address on the right, it uses a centered two-line approach. I'm assuming there's some reason for this, but I can't think of one, so I'd appreciate any enlightenment.--Lemuellio (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Presumably, to allow the maximum possible line length before forcing the box itself to widen? Some URLs are loooooong! Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Parameters for voice files
Please add:

This will allow the embedding of voice files per Voice intro project and prevent the awkward layout seen at, for instance, Corrie Corfield. The code has been tested in Infobox gymnast and can be seen in use in User:Pigsonthewing/sandbox2. Thanks to user:Frietjes for improving my rudimentary code.

(You might want to move the out-of-sequence parameters #64 at the same time.) Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Why is it necessary to have this in the infobox? I would prefer it simply in the article where it can be placed at the right spot. Garion96 (talk) 08:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There's nothing here saying that an audio file has to go into the infobox; just making it possible that it can do, where it is sensible to do so, such as in the example given, where, as noted above there is a visually jarring mismatch between the two current templates. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I see nothing wrong with the current formatting. The suggested addition adds extra code for a purely cosmetic change. If it's the lack of a horizontal rule between the listen box and the other infobox parameters that's bothering you, you can simply add above the listen box, without the need for any extra code (per the example on the right). DrKiernan (talk) 09:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it is not merely the "lack of a horizontal rule that's bothering me". Frietjes and I experimented with a number of formats and methods; forcing listen into infoboxes (as you have just done at Corrie Corfield, so my use of it as an example no longer makes sense) widens the infobox, unnecessarily, as can be seen by comparing those above; the code in the requested edit does not, as can be seen from the examples in my sandbox page. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You can retain a link to the old revision by linking to the revision rather than the article. I have changed your comment above to do this, but you are of course free to undo my changes to your comment. It still looks like a cosmetic change rather than useful pedagogically, and your favorable view of larger infoboxes is balanced by other users' distaste for them. As these are cosmetic choices (the arguments often come down to "I don't like infoboxes"/"I like infoboxes"), I think it better here to err on the side of caution. The middle, balanced view is to say "OK, we'll have infoboxes but we'll keep them small and compact". In my opinion, adding extra parameters skews the infobox more towards the "I like infoboxes" side and so, consequently, I'm not in favor of this addition. DrKiernan (talk) 11:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Clearly. Under what circumstances would you be in favour of adding parameter? Or is your objection to adding parameters per se, rather than to the proposal at hand? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * While generally I disapprove of new parameters, I'm not always against them if they appear useful or replace another less ideal parameter: I didn't object to the baptismal date suggestion. DrKiernan (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What do others think? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * we could probably make the module version work without undue stretching of the infobox. we could have a 'border=child' option or 'embed=yes' option or something that does everything that 'plain=yes' currently does, but also removes the padding.  a demonstration with some of the padding removed has been added above, but it would be good to have that automatically set with a 'embed' or 'border' or 'child' parameter.  Frietjes (talk) 17:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That would work for me. could you make it so, please? (watch for the out-of-sequence parameter 64).  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved, Thank you. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Gender
In a discussion elsewhere, this template;s lack of a gender parameter was raised. This makes it difficult to query Wikipedia for things like "women born in Germany in 1975"; and even, in some cases, for a reader to see at a glance whether the age is about a man or woman. I have previously made proposals to add such a parameter; the display of which need not be obtrusive (say a &#9794; or &#9792; icon in the top or bottom right corner of the template. Can we progress this? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn't this the sort of thing Wikidata is ideal for? As a visual element, I don't see any real need. Resolute 23:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A visual symbol would allow people to make a quick check, without needing to read an indeterminate amount of text looking for gender-specific pronouns. Wikidata may carry such values, but does not yet, and does not display them to our readers; and it's not a reason for us not to; after all, it will also carry DoBs, but we won't remove them from Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The percentage of articles where the gender of the subject is not immediately obvious is vanishingly small. Enough that I don't see this as a valuable visual addition. Lets be honest here. This is about metadata and the inability of machines to easily parse a subject's gender, not a human reader. Even if Wikidata is not sufficiently mature for such today, it will be, and that will be the proper place for things like this, imo. Resolute 00:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Lets be honest here. This is about both, as I said in my first post. The gender of "Albert Smith" may be obvious to you and me, but what about to a kid in Ulan Bator, who has never heard the name "Albert" before? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am one of those who disagree with the addition of this parameter. In the past there was a place for speculations, unsourced statements about some artists and other persons. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If the gender is not known, or sourced, then it shouldn't be added. We could use a third symbol for "gender queer" or some such. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn't this what the article is for? Why the drive to constantly expand the infobox? The addition of this particular fields is an especially bad idea, as it is going to continuously generate arguments with people that believe there are more than two genders.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not part of a "drive to constantly expand the infobox", so I can't answer that question, but I explained the reasoning for this proposal in my opening comment, above. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see why we should have symbols for male and female. I am against discriminating men from women. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not discrimination to state someone's gender, any more than it is to use a "he" or "she" pronoun. Similarly, giving their DoB does not discriminate on the grounds of age, and so on. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The information in the infobox has to be significant to the information that is given.. Sex is not significant. The ability to query information about the sex can be / should be found at Wikidata. GerardM (talk) 11:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Information available at Wikidata
Increasingly information is becoming available to Wikidata where the same information is not available in a specific Wikipedia like the English Wikipedia. When information that is shown in the infobox is available in Wikidata, we could show this information. In this way we provide the best available information. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 11:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Native name
Is this supposed to be in native script (if such is not Latin)? Widsith (talk) 05:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * yes, that's my understanding. Frietjes (talk) 13:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

"Partner" and Spouse
Two questions: a) This template specifies a "partner" is an "unmarried life partner" but there are no parameters on what qualifies as that. Some Editors are adding names of individuals with whom the subject had a significantly long, committed relationship (say, five years or longer). But including the term "life" implies that this relationship lasts throughout most of the subject's life, but that kind of relationship is far less common. What do you think about eliminating "life" from the the description? Take Clint Eastwood...his Infobox lists: He had significant, well-publicized relationships with both Locke and Fisher and, Locke, especially, was practically considered Eastwood's common law wife (he was separated but not divorced from his first wife during 1978-1984 when he was with Locke). But while they were significant, these were clearly not relationships for "life". b) Spouse field. This template indicates that the correct formatting of Eastwood's relationship with Dina Eastwood is: ..but another template is becoming more common in Infoboxes. In Dina Eastwood's Infobox, you can see: I think the marriage template should be added as an alternative to be used for the Spouse listing. What do you think? Liz Read! Talk! 15:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * spouse      = Maggie Johnson (1953–1984) Dina Eastwood (1996–present)
 * partner     = Sondra Locke (1975–1989) Frances Fisher (1990–1995)
 * Dina Eastwood (1996-present)
 * Clint Eastwood (m. 1996) which prints out as Clint Eastwood (m. 1996)