Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 22

Date templates parameters
I've informed in the documentation that the templates Birth-date and age and Death-date and age accept all valid date formats, including YYYY-MM-DD, DD Month YYYY or Month DD, YYYY, as described in WP:YR. But user:Nikkimaria insists that YYYY-MM-DD is not "the way to go here"(?), even though it works as expected. What's the problem with YYYY-MM-DD? It's the recommended ISO 8601 standard! —capmo (talk) 02:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Spelling out the month is a more reader-friendly approach, and allows the date format used to be consistent with that in the lead and the rest of the text (which should not be all-numeric). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * These seem to be a variation on Birth date, Death date and their "and age" extensions, all of which use YMD parameter order, and are transcluded in many thousands of Infoboxes. We seem to be OK with using YMD internally. —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 03:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The difference is that the templates you mention emit a "friendly" date format (day or month first), whereas the "...and age" templates emit the date as entered: "" will emit "1966-8-7" which is decidely "unfriendly". OTOH, "" gives "August 7, 1966". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If you type you get August 7, 1966 which is quite friendly. BTW per WP:ENGVAR we also have the df=y command that allows the " Birth date and age|1966|8|7|df=y " you get August 7, 1966 MarnetteD | Talk 05:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

There seem to be an inconsistency in the output between the two families of templates (1-2-3 vs 4-5): Note that in the examples 1 to 3 above, the date formats are valid according to WP:YR. In the next example (and in the one given by Michael Bednarek) the date format is not valid neither by WP:YR nor by ISO 8601 standards (month and day should always be zero-padded when all-numeric): I agree with AlanM1's argument: we already have lots of pages using an all-numeric format (as in example 4), there's no reason to not allow the syntax in example 3, too. —capmo (talk) 06:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1 January 2000
 * January 1, 2000
 * 2000-01-01
 * January 1, 2000
 * January 1, 2000
 * 2000-01-01
 * January 1, 2000
 * January 1, 2000
 * January 1, 2000
 * January 1, 2000
 * 2000-1-1
 * 2000-1-1
 * What started this thread was Nikkimaria's objection to capmo's use of YYYY-MM-DD. Unfortunately, no diff was provided, but I assume the disputed usage was in an infobox, and the objection was about the visible output. I agree that having the YYYY-MM-DD format anywhere in an article's visible text, except as accessdate in citations, ought to be avoided and should be changed to a more reader-friendly format when found. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The disputed edit is this one, where Capmo made a change to the documentation for this infobox that would result in a visible output of YYYY-MM-DD. Internal usage of that format is fine when it is converted to a visible output that is not all-numeric. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Michael, I'm not sure what you mean by visible output. As my examples 1 to 5 above have shown, the visible output for article readers is always reader-friendly. The internal format of these parameters is currently open to each editor's choice. I'm not advocating to make YYYY-MM-DD the new standard, just to let it stay in the documentation as yet another choice. This would be especially useful in the English wikipedia, because people from the whole world edit it and many come from countries where this is the standard date format. For that same reason, YYYY-MM-DD was adopted as the standard format on Commons and is used in various other templates on the enwiki.
 * User Nikkimaria has agreed above that internal usage of that format is fine when it is converted to a visible output that is not all-numeric, so, do we have a consensus on this? —capmo (talk) 12:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Internal usage of that format was allowed prior to your change, as it's part of how birth date and age is written. However, your change would allow YYYY-MM-DD as a visible output - ie. what is seen in read mode - as in your example 3 above. That is the point on which we do not have consensus, as we argue that your example 3 is not in fact reader friendly. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

sizes: px or em/ex/% ?
In my opinion images should not be resized using pixel dimensions (px) as screen sizes differ more than ever. We want percent (%) of widths/heights or some relation to the font size (em/ex). For example signature_size (as well as image_size) should not default to e.g. 150px but to, lets say 20em or 80%. Kal666 (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * let me know when Example.png works. Frietjes (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Birth name again
I think that we should include an html comment in the copyable text in the documentation for this field to prevent overuse like [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Butler_(artist)&diff=prev&oldid=600457041 this] and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dan_Attias&diff=prev&oldid=599948793 this] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_De_Vere&diff=prev&oldid=599295198 this] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Bradley_(American_politician)&diff=prev&oldid=600230928 this] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jackie_Gaughan&diff=prev&oldid=599393263 this] and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peggy_Nash&diff=prev&oldid=600407456 this], to name a few. Birth_name IMO should only be used for a totally different name at birth, eg Bill Clinton, Gerald Ford, etc. and to a lesser extent those with known full names with middle names. We shouldn't be using the field for initialled named and names that are the same as people's "known" names, which IMO adds unnecessary repetition and bloat to the infobox. Connormah (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support The use of this field should be limited to names that are "different" then the current name as with people like Michael Caine. Initials and first or middle names are not different they are just longer. They are also redundant. On the average bio page you already see the "name" in the article title, the first line of the lede (which is also the proper place for the initials and middle etc names), the top of the infobox and, occasionally, as a caption of the pic in the infobox. We just don't need it a 4th or 5th time within the first couple inches at the beginning of the article. MarnetteD | Talk 16:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We should only exclude such information from birth_name if it is already included in the name parameter. The redundancy argument is a red herring; infoboxes are supposed to repeat key information found elsewhere in an article (including the lede) Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not a "red Herring" since the name is already at the top of the infobox. When repeated again and again it looks for all the world like a first graders 100 word essay which reads "I really really really really like my Xmas gift" thus leaving them only 92 more words to come up with. MarnetteD | Talk 17:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In which case, it is not redundant if a middle name or initial (or whatever) is not at the top of the infobox; per my first point. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

User:DrKay revised the page after the original post, before the first reply (diff 16:51). The other html comment remains

Why does the instruction focus on middle initial? --P64 (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's how I see the whole middle initial thing - if a person's name at birth has just an initial (see Harry S. Truman), then it should be fine, however I think that we may be misleading readers in listing other cases in which we are not sure what the initial may stand for (if it does stand for anything). If a person has middle names that they don't use commonly, I feel that the field could be appropriate to list those too, but again as I mentioned, using the birthname field for a person named Robert Butler, whose full name that we have is Robert Butler, which also is in the article title, lead paragraph, infobox name field, etc. is redundant. Mainly though I'd use the field in cases such as Caine, Ford, Clinton, Hal Douglas, etc. Connormah (talk)

This issue is arising again at Dave Diamond, where User:Connormah is insisting on removing the birth name from the infobox on the grounds that the individual's full middle name is not known, though the initial is, and his first name and surname are quite different from the name under which he was known professionally. It seems to me that we are doing a disservice to readers by not including the correct name in the infobox, in circumstances in which we do not have perfect knowledge of the individual's full name. It is better to include an incomplete but accurate name, than no birth name at all. I know I disagree with Connormah, but I'd welcome other opinions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, I see it that unless we have a citation, we shouldn't assume birth names. A birth name is a name at birth, which sometimes may include initials that do not stand for middle names (eg Harry Truman), but we need cites for those. Birthname field in the infobox should only be for full names IMO. The lead paragraph is sufficient for initialled names. Connormah (talk) 12:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The name, native_name, and birth_name fields need joint consideration. Probably all three rows in the table (Template:Infobox person) should wikilink guidelines for the subject of the lead sentence in a biography --what precedes the verb, usually 'is' or 'was'.
 * For instance see Omar Sharif. Which elements of the lead sentence lead should be in the infobox? (Before arriving here via my Watchlist, I added" عمر الشريف (arabic) "to template Persondata.)
 * See also Bobby Jones (golfer), at least re name. Does anyone advocate 'Bobby T. Jones' with the subsequent field blank? (Now I see this uses infobox golfer, with fullname and nickname parameters, no birth_name.)
 * [extend at once] I would assign 'name=Bobby Jones' as previous editors have done, the common name as lead sentence of our instruction says. No thought of 'Bobby T.' or Robert T.' here in the infobox title bar. --P64 (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * --P64 (talk) 15:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In which case, we need other_name, so that names which are not otherwise in the infobox can be included. And no, inclusion in the lede is not sufficient. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Social Media Pages
Many notable people maintain presences on Social Media. Should those pages be listed as additional website links? jbailey (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, Wikipedia is not a directory of handy links: WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:EL. Johnuniq (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That rather depends on the way they use those accounts. If they're using them regularly, and not just for promotional purposes, then they should be included. It would be ludicrous, for instance, not to have a link to the Twitter account of someone like Stephen Fry. While Wikipedia is indeed not a directory, it sometimes seems that WP:NOTDIRECTORY & WP:EL are trying to dictate community consensus, rather than reflecting it. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No. As for "using them regularly," first, they could be using it regularly today when their new album/show/book is out but not two months from now, and second, that doesn't speak to promotional use &mdash; lots of people on social media use it regularly for promotion. Also, I'm not sure what the significance of comedian-writer Stephen Fry is in the context of this issue. In any event, "If Stephen Fry does it, it should be OK" is not a valid argument. Indeed, what's the objective criteria here? Agree with Johnuniq that Wikipedia is not a links directory and add that it is not to be used as a promotional tool. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You might need to re-read what I wrote. I specifically referred to use for promotional purposes, and I did not make the argument to which you refer. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Image size parameter
Hi all, the image size default value has suddenly changed from 200px to 180px as is observed across the zillions of articles using this template. What consensus was there behind this change? Or was there one at all? The images are too small now for a visually pleasing infobox and quite detrimental. One of the articles have hardcoded image size parameter which is generally not advised per WP:IMG. — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat  ] 12:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've had to do some hard-coding myself because of this. Not sure what happened or why. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Please do not hard code and wait until the WMF fixes their screwup: VPT. -- Neil N  talk to me  12:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I added 1. Frietjes (talk) 13:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Influences/Influenced
Hey, this probably must have been discussed widely before, but I highly disagree with the removal of the parameters Influences/Influenced (old story, I know). Just take a look at the Template:Infobox comedian. It includes these parameters. I understand that it's specific to comedians, and since it's specific, it can include something that's restricted to comedians, but writers/authors also have and are influences, such as film directors, screenwriters, actors, scientists. Unless we create a single template to each and everyone, which would be excessive, these parameters should be included in this general infobox, as a valuable information about various kinds of people. I'm not there. Message me! 00:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this has been discussed often and at length; see archives. The arguments against these parameters in the infobox include demonstrable usage without foundation and the often complex nature of this aspect of a person's life, which requires context, explanations, sources. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Embedding Infobox3cols templates
I think the template should be able to be embedded to Infobox3cols templates to make it a bit more flexible as a template. For example, Infobox football biography, for the sake of footballers who've gone on to prominence in other careers like Pelé, Michel Platini and Andriy Shevchenko. I've actually found a way of doing it, and it'll also need changes to the Infobox3cols and Infobox football biography templates. See my testcase or the template's sandbox. Davykamanzi →  talk  •  contribs  •  alter ego   18:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * See also Template talk:Infobox3cols and Template talk:Infobox football biography. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting question.svg Question: Testcases and code look okay, but since it's such a major change will this in anyway change the current function or design of templates already in use? — cyberpower Chat Online 20:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * no changes to this template are needed per thread at template talk:Infobox3cols. Frietjes (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. It looks there is some controversy with this change.  It will need consensus first. — cyberpower  Chat Online 20:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

change label from "Political movement" to simply "Movement".
Please change the label of from "Political movement" to simply "Movement". This will help the field be used more broadly, such as for specifying non-political movements like art movements or philosophical movements. -- Netoholic @ 20:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. — cyberpower  Chat Online 20:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I feel like this is an innocuous, beneficial change. It saves a bit of vertical space in the template (avoiding the line break between the words) and makes the field apply more broadly as we tend to merge similar templates into this one. In biographies which refer to political movements, it is often paired with the "Political party" parameter, so it will still be clear in context. Existing template Template:Infobox artist have a Movement field already (art movement), and I can see this working for other things like philosophical movements. -- Netoholic @ 21:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per the above. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 18:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Signature below modules
any objection to moving the signature below the modules? for example, this would move it just above the website in Lindsey Stirling. Frietjes (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It is OK for me. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I support the change. &mdash; Fr&epsilon;ckl&epsilon;fσσt | Talk 12:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Done! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Infobox Spouse(s) — Should we indicate “spouse=None” or just omit
Copied from Village pump (policy)

Noticed an IP editor made this edit changing “spouse=Single” to “spouse=None” — no big deal, but it got me thinking, and looking for policy regarding, (in general) should InfoBoxes indicate ‘no spouse’ or should that just be omitted? Is there any agreement as to what we should be doing… my sense is that we should probably just leave that out of the Infobox if they're single; if their marital status (or particularly their lack thereof) is important (such as for a star of The Bachelor or something), then it can be included in the article somewhere, but otherwise trivial information about what isn't doesn't seem appropriate for the InfoBox. Cheers —  Who R you?  Talk 03:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In principle this should be discussed at Template talk:Infobox person. The documentation shown on the template page is silent on the matter, but I like Guy Macon's approach (diff) which is applicable here: Atheism is not a religion. Bald is not a hair color. Off is not a TV channel. Barefoot is not a shoe. Silence is not a sound. Never is not a date or a time. Clear is not a color. Johnuniq (talk) 03:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, both for pointing me to the right page to ask the question and for your response! Cheers —   Who R you?  Talk 04:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Marital status being basic information that one reasonably expects to find in even the most basic bio, I think there should be an entry even if the datum is "None", just so the reader doesn't have to hunt around in the article for the answer. The same logic applies to "Children" though, for some reason, my intuition tells me it's not quite the same. In one article I included Spouse=None | Children=None precisely because it is commonly, and mistakenly, reported that the subject did have spouse and children (and of course the article text addresses that as well). EEng (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Omit the parameter. Marital status is rarely relevant to the notability of a person; in fact, I'd suggest that if the spouse isn't notable, the default should be not to include in the *infobox*. Most notable people do not have notable spouses. In response to EEng, I'd strongly recommend not including the names of children in the *infobox*, because the children are almost never notable on their own. In many cases, the information about children is incomplete (so better not to include at all), particularly for non-living persons; for young children of living persons who are notable but not celebrities, this can also be a child safety issue. Risker (talk) 02:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "Omit the parameter" -- when? I was only talking about the case of Spouse=None or Children=None, and suggesting that those be included if they apply, rather than just saying nothing. That's what the OP asked; your talk about children's names if there are children has nothing to do with it (though for the record I'd suggest that if the article gives the spouse or children's names, the infobox should as well -- whether those names should be included in the article is a separate issue to be discussed in the general context of bios, not in the context of how to use an infobox). EEng (talk) 03:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Being married isn't notable. Having children isn't notable. The majority of our BLP subjects do not have notable spouses or children, and in many cases they are not even mentioned in the article. I propose that the "spouse" parameter only be used if the spouse is notable in his or her own right. I don't see much use for the "children' parameter. Both of these parameters are prone to vandalism and lack of correctness/completeness, so I don't see benefit in using them routinely. The purpose of the infobox is to give key facts related to the notability of the subject; it's not for providing answers to Trivial Pursuit, especially when it comes to information about non-notable living persons.  Wikipedia should never be their #1 google hit.  Risker (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I support "none" values to indicate we know there to be none, as opposed to not knowing. However, there are many more parameters to which that could apply, resulting in Infoboxes with a whole bunch of "none" in them – not good either.
 * As far as the tangent above, most any bio of someone, especially upon their death, mentions their family relationships, sometimes in great detail. It apparently is considered a proper part of a bio by most of the world, and I can see how it can contribute to the understanding of the subject. A person's family can often be quite influential on how they think and their public life, not to mention indicative of their feelings on birth control, education, discipline, etc. —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 14:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You're confusing a biography with an infobox, . "He is survived by his wife Shirley and his two sons, Joe and Frank" might be fine in the article. There's no need to have this in the infobox if they are not notable people. This also gets into the territory of Wikipedians deciding the definition of "spouse" on behalf of article subjects. We have plenty of article subjects who have/had nontraditional relationships. Risker (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No confusion here. I believe a person's immediate family are a notable part of their bio, and belong in the Infobox of their article, but I'm admittedly in the Infobox inclusionist camp. As far as unmarried partners, that's why partner was added, and seems to be attracting little drama. —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 12:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)