Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 9

Ethnicity/religion sections
Are the ethnicity/religion sections really useful? Even Template:Infobox officeholder only includes "religion". I ask this especially in light of the merger of Infobox Actor with Infobox Person - I can now imagine endless edit wars over why/how/what/when/if to include these two fields. Anyone else agree that they should be deleted and make life simpler? All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 03:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see a problem with religion, but perhaps ethnicity is problematic. 06:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would "religion" be useful? (for anyone other than elected officials, who have their own infoboxes, or priests/ministers/Pat Robertson types, whose religion or occupation would be outlined in other ways in the infobox, i.e. under "occupation") All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 07:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Why wouldn't it be useful? This is a general purpose biographical infobox. Tom Cruise is notable (besides his acting career, of course) as a Scientologist, so it would be useful there. Or any other biography where a person's religion is on record for that matter. PC78 (talk) 07:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What does "Religion: Scientology" in the infobox tell you about Tom Cruise and Scientology, other than that he is one? Nothing. Some people out there think that every Scientologist is notable as a Scientologist. That's the kind of debate I want to avoid. Anyway, can we at least agree that "ethnicity" should be removed? All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 09:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well that's kind of the point of an infobox, to give a snapshot of basic factual information; it's for the article text to expand on these points and contextualise them. I'm hesitant to say we should remove ethnicity without knowing how it's currently being used. I would hope it's not for noting that someone is 1/16th Cherokee or whatever. That's the kind of crap we don't need in infoboxes. PC78 (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In my (UK) experience, the inclusion of the ethnicity parameter can lead to NPOV issues, with there being great problems over how the term is defined. However, I'm also aware that in some parts of the world it is used as an official designation, and so can be pinned down for individuals.  In my view, it should not be used unless there are reliable sources which state unequivocally (and, preferably, officially) that a person is of a specific ethnicity.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The ethnicity paramater is not designed for "1/16th Cherokee" kind of stuff, as User:PC78 pointed out above. It is especially useful for people who lived under the large empires of Europe. It is maybe peculiar to understand for Americans, since they have lived for more than 200 years in their own country. Yet, various nations living under the German Empire, Russian Empire or Austria-Hungary, did not have this comfort. Hence the ethnicity/citizenship parameters are designed precisely for them. - Darwinek (talk) 09:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * In the modern world I guess this would apply to Kurdish people, Basque people and such. On that basis I would be satisfied with the paramater. PC78 (talk) 10:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Merged parameters from Infobox actor
editprotected A number of duplicate parameter names need to be added to this template to facilitate the impending merge of Infobox actor, and also to ensure that old revisions of the 40,000 or so articles using that template are compatible with this one. Necessary code is in the sandbox. PC78 (talk) 08:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed a couple of them: "URL" was really rare and "location" is to board to identify "birth place". "Alias" makes no sense and "Domesticpartner" isn't equivalent with "partner". -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You're wrong about those last two, and broad or not "location" was being used as a synonym of "birth place". They should all be restored for compatibility reasons. PC78 (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Just read your talk page comment. I don't see the problem in adding so many variants (it's not that many anyway, and we only seem to be arguing over four of them). In addition to compatibility with Infobox actor, it will almost certainly aid in future mergers as well. The only potentially confusing one is "location", but it's not like people are going to start using it just because we add it to the code. PC78 (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

PC78 has a strong argument: What we can do with older revisions? Many times edits are reverted and these changes establish compatibility. I still, don't feel comfortable with these variants that do the template more complicated to predict. I am thinking a tracking category for deprecated parameters instead. Any more opinions? -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The basic problem with older reversions is that WikiMedia's history is broken for transclusions. It would be a relatively simple matter, barring deleted/oversighted revisions (depending on user rights) to use the then versions of transcluded pages (although dynamic data like PAGESINCATEGORY would I think be a lost cause, or almost so), but for some reason this isn't done.  Attempting to keep WP in aspic, to work around this shortcoming is not the answer. One of the problems with performance is the inefficiency of templates, despite the former CTO's injunction not to worry about performance, those of us working with templates must, to some extent.  (A 5% performance hit is equivalent to roughly 20-30 servers I think, not massive, but not negligible either.)  A temporary tracking category is good, however some change in the way the server software works means it takes weeks, at least, for such things to propagate, so it is likely a database scan or two would be needed. The tracking category is then useful for maybe a month or two to pick up massive reverts, roll backs, cut and pastes, automation and people that "remember" the old names, it can then (and should be) removed. Rich Farmbrough, 19:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC).
 * I would be happy if someone finds me all pages transcluding this template and have location. The rest isn't a problem. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

too much info?
Currently there is an editor on Linda McMahon who says that if a line exists for "net worth" on a politician, that it is therefore correct to add the information even though the line is not used for US politicians as a rule. The documentation says "if relevant" - but how does one dispute relevance when one person is determined to add the information (and the candidate is well poorer than John Kerry)? Ought the documentation be more specific and add (instead of "if relevant") "if especially notable for wealth"? Collect (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding the documentation I'm not sure; it would still be largely open to interpretation however you choose to word it. In the article the figure is at least sourced and up to date so I personally wouldn't argue too strongly against including it. Since discussion there is ongoing, it would probably be wise to see what conclusions are reached before considering any changes here. PC78 (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Signature size
Is there any good reason why we can't use  for the signature image, just as we do for the main infobox image? Or to put it another way, would anyone object to such a change? The doc says 128px per Infobox officeholder, Infobox philosopher and Infobox writer; the latter of these currently uses, but in all three cases the image sits next to a "Signature" label, whereas here it is free to fill the full width of the infobox unobstructed.

On a semi-releted note, is there any reason why  (signature) and   (website) don't use headers? PC78 (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've just sandboxed these changes, so the effects can be seen in the examples at Template:Infobox person/testcases. PC78 (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Apparently uncontroversial. The necesaary code to implement these changes is in the sandbox. PC78 (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ —  Tivedshambo   (t/c) 19:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Per discussion here it would seem sensible to add a signature_size parameter to the infobox; regardless of what the default is, it's clearly not going to be suitable in all cases, so we need an option to resize the signature manually without resorting to hacks. Also add a tracking category for the use of signature at the request of. The necessary code is at Infobox person/sandbox. PC78 (talk) 11:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Minor tweaks
Please update with the code at Template:Infobox person/sandbox. The primary change is to use the "below" field for "footnotes" (which is what it's there for) rather than fudging it with a data field; visually this makes no difference, though I have changed the colour of the dividing line from black to match the border of the infobox. I've also added/removed a few non-breaking spaces where it seemed sensible to do so, and dropped the "(s)" from "Spouse" on the basis that although a person may have more than one spouse in their lifetime, they typically only have one at a time. Thanks in advance. PC78 (talk) 12:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Dabomb87 (talk) 23:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

WorldCat Identities
Could a parameter be added to the template for WorldCat Identity? This is the search page for finding an identity/person. For example, Jane Austen. Fictitious characters also have identities, such as Heathcliff from Wuthering Heights. There's a standalone Template:Worldcat id (for External links) but it would be more helpful to have it appear in the infobox instead, when possible. Flatterworld (talk) 03:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd support that, but we should firsts consider what other unique-identification services there area and whether we should include them also. I recall some recent discussion about this in another template, but not which.  Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe there's anything similar regarding written material by or about someone. Flatterworld (talk) 02:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You were probably thinking of Template:Normdaten, which includes LCCN, PND and VIAF-ID. --Kam Solusar (talk) 23:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Additional parameters for missing people
This infobox is used in a number of articles for missing people. Looking at Jimmy Hoffa and Richard Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan (two well-known examples), the existing "birth" and "death" fields seem insufficient for such information. I am therefore suggesting the addition of several new parameters for this purpose, i.e.


 * disappeared_date  =
 * disappeared_place =
 * disappeared_status =

Examples of how these parameters might be used in Jimmy Hoffa and Natalee Holloway are provided to the right. This proposal may need a bit of brainstorming to get right, but I think the basic idea is sound. Thoughts? PC78 (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I like the idea. I just think that it doesn't make sense to have an age in the infobox twice. If someone wanted to know how old she is today couldn't they just figure it out themselves? The age at disappearance is what is important, in my opinion. Is there a difference between {Disappeared date and age} and {Death date and age}? The only changes I would make, is direct Template:Disappeared date and age to Death date and age, and remove the "23 if still living" line. 117Avenue (talk) 03:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No objections to what you suggest. I saw the "age if still living" being used in some articles (see Lord Lucan) so threw it in here, but I'm not attached to the idea in any way. And redirecting the template seems reasonable. It may need to be seperated again if microformats are ever added to death date and age, but we can deal with that when and if it happens. PC78 (talk) 10:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've redirected disappeared date and age per your suggestion. PC78 (talk) 21:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

No objections to this proposal, so let's proceed. The necessary code to implement this change is at Infobox person/sandbox. I've also removed an unused tracking category per this discussion, so once done can be deleted. PC78 (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)