Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 5

Opponents
Per the above, please copy from the sandbox; to insert after "Occupation":

and

and renumber other entries accordingly. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you mean by "per the above"...is this meant to incorporate the Gunfighter template? If so, wouldn't it need to be notable_opponents? Also, perhaps it would be easier to change the sandbox to reflect what you are wanting, which would make it easier on the responding admin (unless the sandbox is currently in-use for another matter). — Huntster (t • @ • c) 09:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've updated the sandbox, as you suggest. I used the shorter wording for consistency and ease of typing; there are only a handful of pages which used the gunfighter template and I'm prepared to convert them manually. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Gotcha, what was being introduced was my only concern. ✅. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 20:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

birth_name
The documentation of the birth_name field has led to some confusion and even an edit war at Barack Obama. The overwhelming practice appears to be that the birth_name field is intended for subjects like Irving Berlin or Marilyn Monroe where the subject is known by a name that is materially different than his or her given name, and not subjects like Al Gore or Ronald Reagan who don't use their middle names, or use a common diminutive of their first names. Is this correct, and if so, may I proceed with a slight clarification of the documentation of that field? --Clubjuggle T/ C 21:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is silly, because Barack Obama doesn't even use this infobox! It uses Template:Infobox Officeholder, which has no birth_name parameter. -- Zsero (talk) 23:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point, and one I've now made at Talk:Barack Obama. Is a clarification here still acceptable? --Clubjuggle T/ C 13:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Alignment
How is this box aligned to the right side of the page, after viewing the source, I can't find out how it does it.—  Dæ dαlusContribs /Improve 21:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This template uses the Infobox metatemplate, which in turn uses 'class="infobox ..."', which does much of the necessary formatting automatically. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 00:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Image won't display
I changed the infobox image at David Irving and now it won't diplay. Can someone take a look at this? __meco (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Unsure why you aren't seeing the image in the infobox, as everything looks fine on my end. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 12:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, now it works for me too. Apparently an intermittent glitch. __meco (talk) 13:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Duos
Is there an infobox for celebrity duos? For example, see the Krankies — we're reduced to having the real names as the title because there isn't an option to put them in the infobox fields. - Dudesleeper / Talk  19:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Additional hCard properties
editprotected

Please add additional hCard microformat properties, thus:

at the appropriate locations. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * now is that all you want added or do you want labels and data too? Stifle (talk) 10:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that's all that's needed. Everything else is already in place. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Stifle (talk) 19:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine, thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Date of disappearance
I created a template which would be useful for infoboxes in articles in Category:Disappeared people. Could an appropriate  field be added? --Egriffin (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Image should have alternate text
As per WP:ALT the image in an Infobox Person should have alternative text. Currently it merely uses the image name, which is not that useful for someone who can't see the image. For example, the alt text for the main image in Alexander Graham Bell currently says just "Alexander Graham Bell.jpg", which is not useful to someone who can't see the image (they already know it's an image of Bell from the caption). What would be more useful is alt text like "half-length monochrome photo portrait of Bell, with white beard, in a three-piece suit"; this describes the image to someone who can't see it, and contains info that is not necessary in a caption (which labels the image for someone who can see it).

This topic came up in Template talk:Infobox Writer and the solution taken there was to add a new "alt=" parameter to the template. You can see an example of its use in Philitas of Cos. I propose that the same change be made here, by replacing this:
 * [[Image:|]]

with this:
 * [[Image:||]]

in the template source; the change is the inserted " | " near the end. This diff to the sandbox shows the change that is being proposed. Eubulides (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hair and Eyes
How about added parameters for a person's hair and eye color? I think this would be appropriate and could be placed either before or after the height and weight parameters. Jimknut (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Request: Add generic personal data
As this is a general infobox, it should have a "Personal data" section, as in the general Office holder infobox. For example, the military service name be significant, but not primary - so a military person infobox might not be appropriate. &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 04:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

making this work
How exactly does this work? I've pasted the empty template from the first example into Template:Infobox Person and all I get is template loop errors...

What am I doing wrong? I've also installed parser functions already Isakill (talk) 01:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you trying to install this template on your own personal wiki? If so, you cannot just copy the example usage to another wiki...you need to copy the entire template code. If I'm misinterpreting your intent, let me know. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 02:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

No you arn't... it is my personal wiki, thing is I can't find the WHOLE template code. It would probably be less confusing if I could find it. All I can find is in this link: http://rafb.net/p/oyoYAY62.html it's the copy/paste from what I can find.. i've examined many different wikis through the net (anime, en.wiki, romsites, ect...) Isakill (talk) 05:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, as I mentioned before, you cannot copy the example. You have to copy the *source*. In other words, create a new template on your wiki, and copy the source (click the edit button here) to "Template:Infobox Person" on your wiki. You will also have to copy "Template:Infobox" to your wiki as well, as this template relies on that one. Once you get both copied over, Infobox Person should work fine. Forgive me, though...I'm concerned that if you aren't aware of how templates work, you might experience much more severe difficulties in creating an entirely new private wiki, fork or fresh copy, and I really can't help with mediawiki code if it comes to that. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 09:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think there are other subroutines that have to be copied over too for calculating ages at death. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This template has no reliance on age (birth or death) templates. If he wishes, he can copy Birth date and Death date and age for that purpose, though that is beyond the scope of the current request. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concern but if I can figure this out i'll be fine. My main problem is that I don't understand exactly how it works.. from what i've seen (thoough I obviously have missed something) the data seems redundant. As in Paste this into this and then paste it again to the page you want to use it on but with relevant data inside. Edit: this is the first time i've seen any (view source) links THANK YOU!!! Isakill (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Not redundant at all. Infobox is what's called a metatemplate. It is a template used to build other templates in a standardised format. In this case, Infobox Person uses Infobox to create a preformatted appearance, and you will need to copy over both templates (the template source code) for Infobox Person to work. In any case, if you need any more help, just ask :) — Huntster (t • @ • c) 18:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Individual wikiprojects are deleting infoboxes from articles
Several people from musical Wikiprojects are systematically deleting infoboxes from biographies that are covered by their projects:


 * "Rmv infobox as these are not used for classical musicians per WikiProject Classical music)
 * "Rmv infobox as these are not used for composers, per WikiProject Composers section) "

Here is an example at: Milton Adolphus

It appears that they are trumping Wikipedia biographical policy with their own subset of rules. It would be like the New York Wikiproject deciding that people born in New York City don't get infoboxes, or don't get birth dates added, or any other global Wikipedia rule. Anyone else have an opinion? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. This should be stopped, but be aware that the issue is a contentious one, and dissent has been very aggressively stomped on in the past (for example moving to archives of talk pages within two minutes of being posted; and false claims of consensus). WP:OWN applies. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * WikiProjects are to some extent free to set their own standards if there isn't a wider guideline in place, and there's no mandate to use infoboxen on biographical articles at a project-wide level. The only real way to resovle this is the calmly try to persuade the WikiProjects in question to drop their deviations from project norms. In time, all projects will move towards the norm. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Displaying the Wrong Display Label for the "Religion" Field
On the Madoff article in the infobox the label for the "religion" tag is displaying: "Religious beliefs."

The documentation I've seen, as well as what I've seen on other people pages, says that the display label for the "religion" tag should simply be, "Religion."

I've clicked on "edit this page" on the Madoff article and there doesn't seem to be any template overrides going on that I can tell, though I've known nothing about templates until today and I have limited editing experience on Wikipedia.

Can anyone explain?

Sam* (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This accommodates beliefs that are not a religion, such as atheism. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  17:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm asking a technical question. If the spec shows that the label for the religion field is "religion" -- why then is the label showing up "Religious beliefs" on the Madoff article. Field names and their display labels must be semantically resonant with each other. If not, we are essentially corrupting the content placed in those fields. "Religion" and "Religious beliefs" are not meaningfully in sync with each other. Sam* (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah. The parameter is "religion", the label that actually shows is "Religious beliefs". I suspect that originally the label was "Religion", but was changed to "Religious beliefs"; there may be something in the archived discussions. If the parameter were changed, then thousands of uses of the template would have to be updated. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  17:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If I understand what you are saying... At some point the label was changed from "Religion" to "Religious beliefs." But the system is not dynamic. The label used at the time the template was inserted stays the same. How would one get an infobox to update? By simply removing that parameter and then including the parameter again. But that's a bit of a digression... I'm arguing that the original label is much better? Where is the discussion that led to the change? How and where can I make the case for going back to the old way? Sam* (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "I suspect that originally the label": I have not researched this; you can go through the archived discussions if you desire. If you want to propose a change to the label, I suggest you start a new discussion here. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  18:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This edit back in February of this year changed "religious stance" to "religious beliefs" and I believe it has been that phrasing ever since. Before that it was just Religion, but it seems October, November of 2007 that changed. And then back to religious beliefs. There is also archived discussion, like this. I'm still not exactly sure what was changed, when, and for what reasons, but hopefully this info will help you in your research. Hope it helps.-Andrew c [talk] 19:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Question About How Templates Work
Technical question: Is it correct that changing the display name of a template parameter will not affect the display names of parameters in infoboxes that were created before the change of the display name was made? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam* (talk • contribs) 20:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You have it rather backwards. let's look at the template code in question:


 * The label is what shows in the left column, the data is what shows in the right column. Label29 could be changed to any desired text with no issues.  is the name of the variable for data29. When adding the template you set   to the desired text. If you change the variable name, then you have to go to every article and change it; this template is used in thousands of articles. The variable name is not really critical, as the   variable name is not what shows in the left column, it is the preset text set by  . --——  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  21:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Change Display Name for Religion Parameter to "Religion" from "Religious Beliefs"
The display label for the "Religion" parameter was changed from "Religion" to "Religious beliefs" based on, from what I can tell, the following brief argument:


 * "It should be "religious belief" instead of "religion" because "religion" excludes individuals that don't have a religion such as atheists or agnostics."

I do not believe that argument makes sense. In the case of atheists or agnostics the religion parameter can be omitted (it is not required) or "None" can be used as the value.

Religions have varying approaches to the role that "belief" plays. In addition, religions have different approaches to the importance of belief in whether one can consider oneself an adherent to that group.

For instance, in Judaism, belief plays a relatively minor role in defining your membership to the group. Even when converting to Judaism, the role of the convert's beliefs is not a central part in the process. In Christianity it would seem that belief is relatively more important in determining one's status in the group.

I would argue that Wikipedia's current approach in this matter is skewed toward a Christian paradigm of what it means to be a member of a particular religion. That, of course, then breaks Wikipedia's NPOV approach.

Some other good arguments for changing "Religious beliefs" to "Religion" were previously expressed in this forum, but didn't get a response. In summary, it was argued that stating the name of a religion does not describe a person's belief. The relationship between one's religious beliefs and one's religious identification is not necessarily a direct one.

Should my proposal not be accepted, I would strongly advocate that the parameter name be changed to "Religious beliefs" so that the label and parameter names are in sync. Without the paraemeter name and the display label being in symantic resonance, we are essentially corrupting the data that we are collecting from authors.

To reiterate, I am proposing that the display label used for the "religion" tag in an infobox for a person be changed from "Religious beliefs" to "Religion." Sam* (talk) 21:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I rather agree: the semantic difference between Religion and Religious beliefs is not nil. However, neither properly describes the beliefs of an atheist, agnostic or humanist. I suggest that we make  a variable that defaults to Religion. If we change the template to:


 * Then we can change the label text shown on the left to anything we desire. If not used, it would default to Religion; there would be no need to change any current article. You could then use it as:


 * Or whatever is desired. This gives flexibility where Religion might not be appropriate or desired. --——  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  21:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me! where do we go from here? Sam* (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's wait until after the weekend and see if there is any other input. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  16:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Awards and honours?
Is it possible to add a parameter for awards and honours? This was proposed here over a year ago, but apparently never followed up on. This would remove the need to use the seperate Infobox Awards in articles such as Daniel Carter Beard and Arthur Rudolph. PC78 (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit concerned that there is too much demand for more and more fields to cover everything associated with an individual. That said, I wonder if it would be reasonable for this template to function like Infobox album, and allow a misc field, into which subtemplates could be nested to fulfill this type of request. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's hard to call a template and not expect requests for additions like this.  I've repeatedly looked for an awards or honours parameter for this template, and keep getting disappointed.  Honours and awards are broadly useful attributes of people across many disciplines and careers, and for most people a highlight of their life.  IMHO it is more consistently of broad encyclopedic interest than several existing parameters (e.g. callsign, height/weight, body_discovered, boards).  68.167.191.54 (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC).


 * See below at . -- Amalthea 18:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Order
I have known_for, title, term, predecessor and successor fields, among other on the page for Percy Shaw Jeffrey. Why does it display: ?
 * title
 * known_for
 * term
 * predecessor
 * successor

The known_for field is clearly in the wrong place. Am I doing something wrong? Sorry if I am! Jarry1250 (talk) 10:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not exactly sure what you are asking about, but I'm guessing you are wondering why the infobox does not display fields in the order that you arrange them? If so, that is because the infobox has a fixed display...it doesn't matter what order the fields are written in, they will always display in the same order. As far as I know, there is no way to allow for per-article rearrangement, and to be honest, I don't think we would want that to occur for the sake of uniform appearance. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't very clear, was I. Having checked the actually template, my question is: Why do these come between a title and its term?


 * Salary
 * Net worth
 * Height
 * Weight
 * Known for —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarry1250 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * My guess is that those are more immediately related to the person, and the rest is more generic staff position stuff. Though I agree that Salary and Net worth seem odd in their place. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 09:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

← Jarry1250 elaborated on my talk page:

"If term is supposed to refer to the term of holding the title, why are there so many parameters between them? Wouldn't it be more logical to have the term immediately after the title?"

and seems to have a point. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyone want to propose a new order? --—— [[User:Gadget850| Gadget850 (Ed)

]] talk -  19:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's hard to think of all the possible combinations and I haven't checked the testcases, but this would seem the most logical:


 * label17   = Title
 * data17    =
 * label23   = Term
 * data23    =
 * label24   = Predecessor
 * data24    =
 * label25   = Successor
 * data25    =
 * label18   = Salary
 * data18    =
 * label19   = Net worth
 * data19    =

That order, not those numbers. These would have to go somewhere they'd make sense, quite high up I would think:
 * label20   = Height
 * data20    =
 * label21   = Weight
 * data21    =
 * label22   = Known for
 * data22    =

Known for should definitely be high up the list. While we're here, title2, term2 might be an idea too. The conundrum is whether to keep the title/term combinations in the infobox, or use other templates for that. Jarry1250 (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I reformatted the code using  for legibility. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  16:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding military info
For many people military service is a significant enough part of their life story that it should be incorporated in their infobox. Is there a way to incorporate military info like the politician infoboxes do (see for example Jack Kemp, Jon Corzine, or Arthur Schultz)?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Caucasian race
Can you please mention somewhere to use Caucasian race instead of Caucasian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arenlor (talk • contribs) 04:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * When talking of a human, isn't adding race being redundant? §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  09:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there really a possibility of confusing persons with a mountain range? --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  14:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

"Known for" before "title"
editprotected The order is annoying me now; even that simple change would greatly help. Thanks. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 17:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Please specify exactly what you want changed and where: the two are fairly far apart in the template; do you want them simply reversed, or altered to a different order relative to the other parameters, or what?--Aervanath (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, yes, here goes: as per the "Order" section above, the ordering of the elements in the template clearly needs changing: several elements come between a "title" and its associated parameters "term","predecessor","successor" and so on. Could these ("title" and its related parameters) be grouped together? Maybe it would be best to move "title" down to just above "term". That would be great. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 18:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done--Aervanath (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 12:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Spillover from image logic?
On the Stephen A. Schwarzman page, above the infobox, there's a little thing that should not be there; I can't follow the logic on this page, but the number "225" does not appear on the source of the page itself, so I think the template is most likely to blame.

Someone who knows what they're doing here should take a closer look and see where the problem is. I do not know if this problem afflicts other pages at the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauciusa (talk • contribs) 22:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This template does not use the image syntax or wikilinking, it has separate fields for the image name, size and caption. You have to look at the template documentation, as there is no consistency between templates; some format it in this manner, others require that you use the full syntax and linking. --——  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  22:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)--——  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  22:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Misc
To pick up something from, does anyone oppose adding a  field to this template? Current use I'd have for this is with Paris Hilton: her infobox was was recently changed from to  to fit in her raspberry awards. I'm not happy with it, both because she's not foremost an actress and because doesn't render two other parameters that were in the infobox before. I could live with losing them from the infobox, but if there were a Misc field where such subtemplates like could be put into (as we have with several other infoboxes, like ) this could be worked around. Is there any obvious reason why we prefer not to have that here? I don't think that there is a high danger of arbitrary information ending up in the template since that field doesn't easily support the normal key value pairs. Amalthea 18:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Lacking any reason against it, I'm going to add the additional line " | data39    =  " to the template (see sandbox). This will allow to add awards to the template, with a look similar to, see User:Amalthea/test5 for an example. -- Amalthea  13:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Microformat upgrade request- no visual impact to template

 * Visual impact: None
 * What it does: This change allows wikipedia to emit event microformat metadata, as do other infoboxes such as these.  The change should have no visual impact and introduces non functional classes to elements of the table.  These classes are recognized by external microformat parsers to retrieve information in the cells.


 * Requested changes:
 * | bodyclass = biography vcard → | bodyclass  = biography vcard vevent
 * | aboveclass = fn → | aboveclass = fn summary


 * Background: This allows events of the individuals life to be represented such as the span of their life, from birth to death date.  Currently the template supports hCard format which does not describe events.  Further information on what this does and how to see some of the benefits may be found here.

Thanks -J JMesserly (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate. -J JMesserly (talk) 04:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a retrograde step, and should be reverted. People are not events, and the various biographical infoboxes include a number of separate events, including things like birth, death, marriage, debut performances and office-holding. The edit causes what J_JMesserly refers to as (my emphasis) "events of the individuals [sic] life" to be presented as single event. He is aware of these objections from long discussion elsewhere, in which he has participated, but is steaming ahead rather than waiting until he has (if he can) obtained consensus, as requested. This resul in fragmented discussion and well intentioned edits such as yours, from people not aware of the problems they cause. The pre-existing hCard template in the infobox is designed specifically to emit data about people, and suffices. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There being no response to my above comment, please reverse the edit in question. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅, please discuss and replace the request when there is a consensus. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Not displaying "Body Discovered" label
Can someone with more knowledge than I have, look into why the lable is not displaying and fix the problem, if possible.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The parameter was coded as "Body_discovered", but was documented as "body_discovered"; these are case sensitive. I have fixed this. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  -  01:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The field now shows in Murder of Sarah Payne, which appears to be the article you were interested in. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  -  12:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

adding section for language
please add a section in the infobox for languages spoken, we dont have it now.Vhagakhtar (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That's because it is trivial and frequently unverifiable. There is no need to add this to the infobox. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)