Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 6

Code to add military info section
Please add the following code so that military info can be added.

[ code redacted to save space and improve readability]

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment If this is done, surely it will render Infobox Military Person redundant? That's not necessarily a bad thing. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I nulled the editprotected for the moment; as there needs to be a consensus on this before the request is made. I also formatted your wikicode for legibility. I don't see anything obviously wrong with it, but we need some more review time. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  15:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Problem: this inforbox uses the infobox meta-template. Check out the documentation and look at the current code for this one. For example, allegiance would be:


 * label39   = Allegiance
 * data39    =


 * We also need to work out the placement for these fields. We also have two previous requests: one to change the order of some fields and one to add a religion label. We should try to work these at the same time. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  15:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Basically, I am just trying to add the ability to have multiple templates of information in an article like politicians do (See Jon Corzine, Jack Kemp, and Arthur Schultz).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Jon Burge has moved from a month at WP:PR to A-Class review at WP:MILHIST. I am still getting comments about multiple infoboxes. Is there any progress on this issue yet.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No further comments for some time, so I've reinstated the request. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Military fields
Hello, could the following military fields be added to this template?


 * allegiance   =
 * branch       =
 * serviceyears =
 * rank         =
 * unit         =
 * commands     =
 * battles      =
 * awards       =

Charles Edward (Talk) 17:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Revised code
I think the new code needs to be this:


 * label28   = Allegiance
 * data28    =
 * label29   = Branch
 * data29    =
 * label30   = Years of service
 * data30    =
 * label31   = Rank
 * data31    =
 * class31   = title
 * label32   = Unit
 * data32    =
 * class32    = org
 * label33   = Commands
 * data33    =
 * label34   = Battles
 * data34    =
 * label35   = Awards
 * data35    =

with current parameters from 29 onwards renumbered from 36 onwards. It seems that the "military data" parameters are no longer used in Infobox Military Person. Thoughts? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "thoughts" means, this needs discussion. Hence, I've cancelled the 'editprotected' template for now; please try and get some consensus here. This is a massively used template, so changes need care. If you need to, ask others to look in on the discussion here. If a clear consensus can be formed, then please reinstate the template to request the edit. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  23:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Career infoboxes

 * Instead of trying to tack all of this into one main template, perhaps we should look at supplementary subtemplates. We could have supplements for military, artist, author and so forth. they could be added in multiple combinations as needed. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 01:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no problems if you or someone else wants to come up with a way of making that work; but until that happens I don't think we should delay improvements to existing templates on the basis of a hypothetical solution which isn't available for use. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 08:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Like this. With a bit of work to infobox, we could make the career box a child of the person box, thus making a seamless infobox. If a person was known for multiple careers, then it would be easy to add the appropriate career boxes. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 10:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I understood what you meant, but, as you say, "With a bit of work" - so I refer you to my earlier answer. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to chime in my 2 bits here. There is also infobox astronaut and Infobox aviator that only have a couple of extra fields each and they could easily be eliminated if the last couple columns where added to this infobox.  Also, I have some concerns about eliminating the Military Person Infobox. I left the comments on the Military History talk page but the gist is that there may be some fallout in relation to differences in how images are handled on on the 2 templates and migrating them over. Because some fields are worded differently between the 2 we can't simply change infobox military person to infobox person without also changing some of the underlying names of fields. --Kumioko (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. You have a total of 80 fields to work with, so there is plenty of room to mix career info. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 20:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks; I've replied there; but - in brief - all your concerns will be addressed. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Known for and title info tend to clump together and need the equivalent of a bullet
"Known for" and "title" info tend to clump together. Is there a way we can use the equivalent of a bullet? This is a problem when there are several separated by line breaks and they are more than one word. It becomes difficult to parse them when they run into each other. Any suggestions? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Images used and ALT text
Does this template generate any sort of alt text for the images used? Should it? I don't know, but I'm guessing the current situation isn't too good - relying on captions the whole time. I do wonder whether it's a good idea to have the person's name as the alt text automatically - a net benefit or not? Hmm, comment requested. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 09:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Alt text implementation
Yes, this template should support alt text as per WP:ALT. I have implemented this in the sandbox, tested it in the test cases, and documented it. Can someone with privileges please install this change? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. --- RockMFR 22:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Birth place and death place fields
A discussion concerning consistency was recently brought to the Infobox Musical artist template concerning the "birthplace" and "deathplace" fields. Compared to this template, Template:Infobox Actor and Template: infobox artist, Template:Infobox Musical artist seems to be the only infobox without these fields, creating an inconsistency. Custom is to just use a break when filling the "born" and "died" fields. Question here is, how should this be adjusted for consistency purposes? —  Σ xplicit  04:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Location and date should ideally be in two entirely separate table cells, as line breaks in cells can cause accessibility problems. Correcting this on a per-infobox basis is an ongoing concern. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Separaton of data fields also gives greater (and thus better) granularity for data mark-up, such as in microformats. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

spaces instead of underscores
Can't we have spaces instead of underscores in parameter names?--Speck-Made (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, in principle, but this infobox is transcluded in 21,335 pages. Making that transition wouldn't be easy. FWIW, I would welcome it if we would generalize all people infoboxes to use the same parameters, currently each one is different (Infobox Actor, Infobox Musical artist, Infobox Officeholder, Infobox Football biography, ...). Amalthea  13:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

honorific-prefix, honorific-suffix
The article "John Calvert Griffiths" uses the second of the above parameters. Part of the documentation of this template mentions it, but it doesn't seem to be supported. One might want to add it to the template. -- User:Docu —Preceding unsigned comment added by Docu (talk • contribs) 10:39, 2 June 2009
 * If anyone does wish to add them, please note the relationship of those parameters to the other hCard microformat properties used by this template; specifically the need to nest in an "n" property. I shall be happy to advise further. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Ethnicity
Is this a much used field? I just saw this edit, and was astounded that the field even existed. (Crazy species, we are, we are.)


 * I searched the archive, and found Template_talk:Infobox_Person/Archive_4 and Template_talk:Infobox_Person/Archive_2 to be the only threads dealing with this. There, it was proposed that guidelines on the usage of these fields was to be developed. Did that ever go anywhere? I couldn't see any instructions in the /doc, beyond the 2 sentences on nationality/citizenship, but might have missed it. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There are ongoing disputes at Talk:Humphry Davy and Talk:Cornwall about whether Davy's ethnicity (and/or nationality) should be described as "Cornish". Without going into the details of that particular argument, a number of editors there have questioned whether the field should even exist at all.  It clearly has the potential to be highly contentious, depending on what criteria for "ethnicity" editors choose to use - assumed sole or partial genetic inheritance, assumed or real family language background at birth, place of birth, etc. etc.  Is there any support for the idea of recommending against using this field at all, except, I suppose, in those areas where it is clearly both relevant and uncontested - or even for removing it entirely?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As one of the editors who's commented on the above pages and who is in favour of simply not using the category, my specific concerns were about rather pointless nationalist/identity fights being waged over individuals, and about having definitive and exclusive assertions being made about their alleged "ethnicity", eg are they "ethnically" Cornish or English? Catalan or Spanish? etc (especially when they are likely to be neither one nor the other exclusively). However, the earlier posts in this section highlight a further problem - sometimes the field is being used to indicate something much more broad, based on purported race. I think that just reinforces the point that the field is just confusing, and the insertion of definitive categories into it is likely to be misleading and/or controversial. I guess there may be some cases where it might be useful, eg for individuals living in states such as Lebanon, where identity can be a significant issue. But even there, surely the issue is better dealt with in a more nuanced fashion in the body of the article? --Nickhh (talk) 10:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. But I think a broad-based decision here is required, because if the field is retained in the infobox template without any guidance as to how it is used, POV editors will persist in interpreting it to suit their own views.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Concerns you raised above are valid, of course, but are assuming bad faith of editors misusing this field of the infobox. Both of you are missing the point. The reason of establishing this field was not to allow, e.g. people like Ernest Hemingway being labelled as "citizenship-American, ethnicity-white". The reason was to deal specifically with the area of Central and Eastern Europe, where ethnicity (especially in the past) was absolutely crucial determinant of one's life fortunes. Central and Eastern Europe had and has dozens of ethnic minorities (including Jewish). Their ethnic identities are recognized by law in most of the countries in the region. Using that field is therefore completely relevant and justified. Cases you both mentioned are problematic indeed, but should be dealt with separately. - Darwinek (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I think rather than "missing the point" [sic], I acknowledged the very point you seem to be making when I said "there may be some cases where it might be useful". You have raised the entirely valid example of Eastern and Central Europe - but, as has been suggested, even there the issue might be better dealt with through more nuanced observations in the main narrative of the biography, rather than by any specific assertion in an infobox of an exclusive "ethnic" identity. And whatever you assert the broader purpose of the field might or might not be, others obviously see it differently, as they inevitably will. Nor did I assume "bad faith" when others have taken the field to mean something else - I merely pointed out the rather obvious and inherent likelihood of confusion and controversy. And that was a secondary point in any event - there's a problem both with what the category means in the first place, and, even were we to have that conceptual clarity, with the specifics of how it is applied in individual cases. Cheers. --Nickhh (talk) 23:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Again I agree with Nickhh. Perhaps what would help is some clarification of what criteria for "ethnicity" should be used for the infoboxes, as clearly there are various criteria, such as shared identity, genetic background (often = skin pigmentation), family language, and so on.  In many cases - such as parts of eastern Europe - these may often go together, and indeed they may be recognised by law - but elsewhere that congruence may not exist.  It is notable that in the Parameters section of the template, no explanation is given for "ethnicity".  I think what we are proposing is that some explanation be agreed and set out in that table, so that it is clear to editors what is meant.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Musical artist
This discussion about whether or not to add Infobox Person parameters to Infobox Musical artist may be of interest, particularly in relation to the idea of standardising biographical infoboxes. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Relevance to notability
This template's documentation says:

"Only use those parameters that describe why the person is notable."

While I understand the intention, I don't think this means what it says; for example, Bill Gates would still be notable if he was called Jim Gates; Elvis Presley would still be notable had he been born on December 6, 1934. I suggest that the wording be changed to something like:

"Only use those parameters that convey essential or notable information about the subject."

Thoughts? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ This change was made on 1 August, and proved to be non-controversial. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Alma mater - abstract question
Just a real unscientific straw-poll, of which I'm asking here (and generically) because I want the community's reaction without any other influencing factors..."Suppose Mr. X attended an accredited university for a couple of semesters before dropping out. Credits earned were not used towards any degree, and Mr. X never earned a degree. Is it proper to list the University as an 'Alma Mater' for Mr. X?" I will also cross-post this question to the pump. Thanks in advance! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't reply here—use the Village Pump section instead, so we keep all the comments in one place. Thanks - Pointillist (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

request label "alma_mater" "label" name linkage
editprotected

template:infobox officeholder (and other infoboxes) have the label name "alma_mater" linked so it appears in box as alma mater (i.e., the "label" name itself, NOT the variable (i.e., name of school) which is linked per article). it is helpful for the reader (young/old) who just may not know the meaning of alma mater

an example of usage of template:infobox officeholder may be found at Maria Shriver.

can this be done for "template:infobox person" as well for conformity?

(it - alma mater - should also be italicized (in both infobox person and infobox officeholder)).--98.116.115.180 (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ — Jake   Wartenberg  23:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Spouse and death
The doc says “Name of spouse(s), followed by years of marriage. Use the format Name (1950-present) for current spouse and Name (1970-1999) for former spouse(s). Separate entries with a line break .”

But what should be written when either the spouse or the person (or both) is deceased? Are they still considered married after their death? (in which case we should keep “present” . Or does the union stop when one of the spouse dies? (and if yes, how to write it? 1950-death or 1950-1987 if he/she died in 1987).

Thanks, Calimo (talk) 16:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)