Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 25

Clarification on Children parameter
Is the Children parameter intended to display a number of children, or names of the children? The template docs are lacking appropriate explanation. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Typically only numbers, names if the children are particularly notable. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi there, . Do you think there's any benefit to clarifying the template docs? If a preference for number vs name is split, I think at least the docs should contain some explanation that non-notable minor children should not be named, since that does come up quite a bit. (Can't remember the exact shortcut, but I remember it being a BLP concern.) Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "For privacy reasons, consider omitting the names of children of living persons, unless the children are independently notable" seems fairly clear to me - what would you propose to add or include instead? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Holy crap I am an idiot. I was looking at the template, and somehow missed the text about the Children parameter. I think perhaps because there are no embedded notes in the blank template with all parameters. Anyhow, my fault entirely. I think maybe an embedded note summarizing the doc text might be helpful for idiots like me. Ack! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be opposed to doing that, but if we were going to I would think we would for more than just that parameter - "relatives" and "parents" both have a similar note in the doc text, for example. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You are not an idiot. It's a long page. As I visit now (on a desktop, not mobile) our section 3 heading Parameters shows up at the bottom of the fourth screen and our parameter documentation table shows up on the fifth. It's reasonable for a new or occasional visitor to suppose that sections 2. Usage, 2.1 Blank template with basic parameters, 2.2 Blank template with all parameters --which headings all show up on the second screen for me now-- constitute the gist of the documentation. Subsec 2.2 displays 17 of those "embedded note summarizing the doc", enough to support a hasty naive presumption that that is the only doc we provide.

We may improve subsec 2.2 with a prose note such as "The brief embedded WP:COMMENTs displayed here are not the documentation (see below), merely an occasional reminder." --P64 (talk) 01:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

When should party field be included in the infobox?
Should the political party field be included for a non-politician who has self-identified with a party, absent any other support for the party or its candidates or affiliation with the party? There’s a debate going on over at Talk:Orson_Scott_Card I believe that self-identification isn't enough to make it relevant (particularly in this case where there's a bit of ambiguity), that some real connection with or support for the party and/or its candidates is necessary, but others disagree. Bennetto (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. I suppose you and I have the experience to judge what the documentation means by "relevant", which some other editors lack. Even if so, we may be able to improve the documentation and so forestall such misjudgment. --P64 (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Four of the labels
Any support for / objection to the following label amendments, please?:


 * 1) "Notable work(s)" → "Notable works" or "Notable work" or "Key works" or "Key work" or something else not including bracket symbols;
 * 2) "Opponent(s)" → "Opponents";
 * 3) "Spouse(s)" → "Spouse" (may be more than one, but meant to be only one at any one time);
 * 4) "Partner(s)" → "Partner" (may be more than one, but usually only one at any one time).

Sardanaphalus (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes to plural form for (1) and (2) but No to singular form for (3): there are parts of the world where polygamy is practised Noyster  (talk),  12:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * No to all of them because the labels must account for either one more or of each. Softlavender (talk) 11:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes to all four, offhand. Evidently I don't know {infobox person} as I have presumed. I think I know infobox writer (only now learned they differ in this respect) and prefer its labels as far as I do know. See eg Judy Blume whose {infobox writer} shows label "Notable awards" altho we list only one and label "Spouse" altho we list three. --P64 (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. Judy Blume's {infobox writer} uses embedded template plainlist for both its 3 "Notable works" (label plural) and 3 "Spouse" (label singular). As I understand, when {plainlist} is used the label can be designed to interact with the number of listings (plural label iff more than one listing); evidently the {infobox writer} labels are not so designed, which is ok with me. I dislike the internal spacing of those listings long enough to wrap, which {plainlist} may generate (contrast the display of those 3 Notable works and 3 Spouse with that of 2 "Genre"). --P64 (talk) 02:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

A proposal to radically change this template at Idea Lab
Please see Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 15 to discuss ideas on changing this infobox (or other infoboxes) to better work with people with multiple careers. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Tangential question related to religion parameter
If the purpose of the religion parameter is to list the religion the subject subscribes to, and as many have argued above that we cannot change the meaning of the word religion, then isn't the appropriate value for religion the literal religion the subject subscribes to? That is, the correct values would be the noun "isms" like Buddhism, Judaism, Jainism, Catholicism, Islam, Episcopalianism, and not the adjectives like Catholic, Muslim, Jain, Hindu, and so forth. I believe that warrants clarification in the template instructions. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * IMHO, "Catholicism" (for example) is equivalent to "the Catholic religion" in this context. Omnedon (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It does not help to confuse religion with denomination, Catholic is just a shortened version of "Roman Catholic", a denomination of Christianity. The term catholic refers to the "church universal" and is a concept which is as important to many protestants (it is part of the universal creed) as to Roman Catholics.  Episcopalian and Presbyterian are simply subdivisions of the protestant Christian church and refer to their organization, Episcopal relates to being governed by bishops and Presbyterian relates to being governed by a "presbytery" or assembly of elders.  Denominations should not be mentioned in the religion box at all.  FF-UK (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding "The term catholic refers to the 'church universal'", many denominations have names that imply that they are all of christianity; Assembly of God, Church of Christ, Jehovah's Witnesses, Latter Day Saints, Orthodox Church... What christian church doesn't claim to be "of Christ", "Orthodox" or "Catholic"? So the literal meaning of the denomination name is of little use in making classifications on Wikipedia. On the other hand, simply picking the most specific name doesn't always help the reader much. As Emo Phillips once said:


 * Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!"
 * He said, "Nobody loves me."
 * I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"
 * He said, "Yes."
 * I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?"
 * He said, "A Christian."
 * I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?"
 * He said, "Protestant."
 * I said, "Me, too! What franchise?"
 * He said, "Baptist."
 * I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?"
 * He said, "Northern Baptist."
 * I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"
 * He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist."
 * I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region."
 * I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?"
 * He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912."
 * I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

So "Religion: Baptist" or even "Religion: Northern Baptist" might be a better choice than "Religion: :Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912" in the infobox. Some details are best put in the body of the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That is a great story, and makes a very good point, but 'Northern Baptist' is still only a denomination, not a religion. In the case described, the correct word in the infobox is 'Christian'. FF-UK (talk) 13:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sometimes the denomination is crucial to the subject's life and identity; for example, Ian Paisley is listed as Free Presbyterian and it would take a brave editor to change that. (Of course, there is the oft-told story from 30+ years ago of the man stopped by masked armed men in a Belfast street one night. "Are you a Protestant or a Catholic?" "I'm a Jew." "Yes, but are you a Protestant Jew or a Catholic Jew?) NebY (talk) 14:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that the denomination can be very important, but that does not make it appropriate to use against Religion in the infobox, unless as a subsidiary term. I have accepted your challenge regarding Ian Paisley. FF-UK (talk) 15:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a dare, and "brave" was a euphemism. NebY (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It seemed like an exercise worth trying, but I have to say I find this reversion truly depressing, back to an incorrect statement, removal of the reference itself (Paisley clearly stated "I am a Christian), and all done on the basis that the entry for Margaret Thatcher is also wrong! Score: Ignorance, 1 - Properly sourced fact, nil. FF-UK (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is precisely 0 chance that Wikipedia will ever give the religion of a prominent Unionist as "Christian." If you don't understand why this is, you probably shouldn't be editing articles relating to Northern Ireland.  --JBL (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is an idiosyncratic view about the (ill-defined) difference between denomination and religion -- it is certainly not a consensus of human beings generally, and I doubt it is a consensus of Wikipedia editors. --JBL (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hardly, denomination is a well defined term: "A recognized autonomous branch of the Christian Church", there may be some ignorance from some people, but I do not think that ignorance is a factor in judging consensus. FF-UK (talk) 15:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm ignorant of the fact that Paisley was a Christian (or, at least, thought of himself as being one)? Or is it that my ignorance bars me from helping to establish consensus? Maybe you think that people like Dr Paisley shouldn't edit wikipedia? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you are trying to say. The Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, founded by Ian Paisley, is very clear that it regards itself as a Christian Church.  It follows that, if you are not ignorant of Paisley's involvement with the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, then you will not be ignorant of that fact that he regarded himself as a Christian.  If another editor then corrects the religion infobox and provides a clear source for the claim, then having read that source there is no reason, other than a preference for the state of ignorance, for you to revert it.  As far as establishing a consensus, if the description were changed to "religious denomination" then the present entry would become valid, but as long as it is "Religion" then providing the name of a denomination is just plain wrong.  I used to be a great fan of Emo Philips and attended a number of his live shows.  But in the last one that I saw, probably about ten years ago, he tried to localize it to the city he was performing in without having any obvious knowledge of that city.  His demonstration of ignorance, when there was no need for him to have attempted the localization, destroyed the humour and resulted in a very unsatisfied audience.  Such is the effect of ignorance.  FF-UK (talk) 12:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Guess it depends on what you mean by "corrects". Poor Emo, eh? Seems his ignorance knows no bounds. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Nowrap birth/death fields
Can we get nowrap tags on the birth_date and death_date fields? With the recent padding change it has forced the (age xx)/(aged xx) portion of the death date/birth date and age templates on a separate linebreak, which I find makes it harder to read and unnecessarily bloats the infobox. Thanks. Connormah (talk) 00:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * fixed [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AInfobox_person&diff=637530355&oldid=635150223 here]? Frietjes (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Still seems to have the problem on some pages. I don't really see a problem with nowrapping these fields by default - even the longer months won't stretch the infoboxes that excessively. I'm just not sure how to do it, haha. Connormah (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * / - I think I found the problem - a few fields (death_cause/predecessor/successor?) seem to be pushing the right column over a bit more (see Mary Ann Mobley/Ken Weatherwax). Is there any other solution? Connormah (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Mary Ann Mobley has the date and age on one line in my browser, but Ken Weatherwax is on two lines. I am indifferent as far as how (or if) this should be fixed.  I, personally, don't see it as a big problem. Frietjes (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * IMO it looks messy with the linebreak and clutters the infobox up. Connormah (talk) 07:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Proposed addition of pronunciations to infobox person
There has been discussion before on this sort of thing, but mostly focused on whether pronunciation information should be in the lead or in the infobox. Without any bearing on the MOS question of whether the pronunciation belongs in the lead, I propose that we add a "pronounced" argument to this infobox, which can be used either in lieu of pronunciations in the lead, or in addition to a pronunciation in the lead, depending on the preferred style convention (either globally or article-by-article). I suggest that it be included under "native name", and preferably there would be slots for multiple pronunciation arguments, separated by language and/or country as appropriate.

The discussion that spawned this RfC took place here (hist link), and previous discussions have taken place in a variety of venues, the most substantive of which is here (hist link). 0x0077BE ( talk ·  contrib ) 17:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Per the discussion above, I have left notices on all the derivative infoboxes I could find. I have also notified WP:Manual of Style/Biographies and WP:Manual of Style/Pronunciation, as previous discussions have taken place there. Finally, notifications have been left at WP:Village Pump (proposals) and WT:WikiProject Biography. 0x0077BE  ( talk ·  contrib ) 17:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Poll

 * Support as nominator. My impetus for this RfC was that I have been adding pronunciation information to a number of town and people articles, and while there are many cases where the pronunciation should probably be in the lead because the pronunciation may be counter-intuitive, such as Maya Angelou (pronounced - an-gel-oh, not  - an-gel-oo), there are also a large number of names which are mostly intuitive to native speakers, but where it would be useful to be able to provide confirmation about pronunciation and syllable emphasis. In situations where it's useful but not critical information, putting pronunciation in the lead seems disruptive in a way that putting it in an infobox doesn't.  0x0077BE  ( talk ·  contrib ) 17:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, proving clear documentation is provided, encouraging the use of IPA rather than "an-gel-oh" style, as above. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, echoing Andy above. I've seen some past discussions regarding names in the lede, but I'm not sure if I'm familiar with any arguments against having them in the infobox. Is this controversial? — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 21:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I personally don't think that it's controversial, but encouraged an RfC to get consensus for addition above, and since Template Talk is generally not heavily watched, but this template is transcluded on a huge number of pages, it seemed like a good idea. I think similar earlier proposals were problematic because they were undertaken unilaterally, which put a lot of people off, and because they tended to be tied up with the question of removing the pronunciation from the lead, which, I gather, is a much more controversial proposition.  0x0077BE  ( talk ·  contrib ) 01:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Having pronunciation in the infobox is useful. However if this would lead to removal of pronunciation from the lead, I would retract my support. &minus;Woodstone (talk) 07:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Provisional support*. If this is tied in with microformatting or wikidata, I think that the benefits would outweigh the risk of softening the policy rationale on pronunciations in the lede. If this is just slapping a new field into the infobox without integrating it into some of the larger efforts at organizing encyclopedic information, then I don't think it's worth it. VanIsaacWScont 04:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's almost certainly the latter in its current incarnation. Can you clarify what you see as the downsides of adding new fields without microformatting or Wikidata? I'm not opposed to those things, but again I think they are generally independent of the decision of whether or not there is to be a new field, and I don't really know how they would work. Ideally, any feedback you can provide on how best to integrate it into the infobox in a way that may prevent future duplication of effort when merging this with wikidata and microformatting would be useful if this is indeed implemented. 0x0077BE  ( talk ·  contrib ) 06:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with microformats. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Support: and no concerns about having pronunciation in both the lede and the infobox. No different than stuff like birth date.  Not an issue.   Montanabw (talk)  17:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Preferably only in the infobox. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Agree with Andy Mabbett provisions. Prefer no pronunciation guides (among other things, eg E. E. Smith) at or near the head of the lead sentence, prior to or within lifespan parens. --P64 (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
I would have liked this to be an RfC about removing pronunciations from the lede at the same time as adding it to infoboxes. Also, WP:WikiVIP may also be relevant. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason I didn't do it this way is that I see the two things as orthogonal. Infoboxes tend to summarize a lot of information that is included in the article, particularly information in the lead (dates of birth, dates of death, etc), so I think that whether or not the pronunciation is in the lead, it is also worth putting in the infobox. I felt that tying the two questions together risks muddying the waters, which can be a death knell for consensus in an RfC. 0x0077BE  ( talk ·  contrib ) 17:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, and regarding WP:WikiVIP, excellent project - I had a similar idea myself when I was preparing a lot of these pronunciation files. Personally, I think that the voice introductions should likely be a separate entry in the infobox, at the bottom, near the "signature" parameter. 0x0077BE  ( talk ·  contrib ) 17:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If there is room for common sense omissions where there can be no debate on how a name is pronounced for any variant of English (eg Matt Smith). --M ASEM  (t) 23:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I once knew someone called Smith, pronounced Sm-eye-th. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think more importantly is that from an international perspective, it might not be obvious to non-Westerners how to pronounce even uncontroversial names. I know a Chinese guy whose name I've been mispronouncing for months, because when I first asked him if I was doing it right, he figured that it was close enough. Presumably there's only one way to pronounce the name "Ramachandran" or "Sudhapalli", and no Indian person would think to put IPA in a very common name, but it would still likely be useful information for non-Indian readers. I'm thinking that we could take these "uncontroversial" names on a case-by-case basis and remove IPA if the infobox is becoming over-long or cluttered. Having the infobox option where it definitely doesn't need to be in the lead (like Matt Smith), opens up a useful place to put potentially helpful but not critical information. 0x0077BE  ( talk ·  contrib ) 15:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Not a concern, we have lots of stuff in the lead or text narrative that's also in the infobox (number of children, job, birth date, etc.) the two do different things. I don't see a problem here at all.   Montanabw (talk)  17:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Many times an infobox is not created until long after the article, so if a pronunciation is helpful, it may need at times to be in the lead paragraph. Also, pronunciations are needed for many other things besides people, so unless all of the infoboxes are changed, pronunciations will sometimes be found near the beginning of the article whether or not this change is made to the infobox. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 03:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't think the question of pronunciations in the lead needs to be addressed in this RfC any more than the question of birth/death dates in the lead need to be. My position is that it is not at all uncommon for the infobox to duplicate information from the lead or the rest of the article anyway. If people want to have a separate RfC on the question of pronunciations in the lead, I think that's entirely a separate issue. 0x0077BE  ( talk ·  contrib ) 13:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Implementation
Given that it seems like there's a pretty strong consensus for inclusion, I think it might be worth discussing the actual implementation. I'm in favor of implementing it below "native name", with "|pronounced#" and "|pronounced_lang#=" parameters with "|pronounced=" and "|pronounced_lang=" as aliases for "|pronounced=" and "pronounced_lang1=" respectively. The field name in the infobox would then be "Pronunciation (country)" (e.g. US, CA, etc).

The documentation should specify that for English with no language parameter is the preferred mechanism for adding pronunciations. I think we'd have to see the implementation, but if people are going to use in addition to the IPA template (often useful), I'm guessing just is the best way to do it, rather than having a separate parameter. 0x0077BE ( talk ·  contrib ) 20:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Given there's not much discussion on this matter, I think we can go ahead and implement the scheme I mentioned above. Should I try and prepare an edit request with the actual code, or would it likely be better to just have one of the technical people more familiar with the template make the requested changes? 0x0077BE  ( talk ·  contrib ) 15:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)