Template talk:Marriage/Archive 1

Year span
The problem with this template is it makes no distinction between the span of birth-death and the span of marriage. It is especially awkward where there is no link to the spouse to check when they were born. So Jane Smith (1900-1950) could be born in 1900 or have married in 1900. It should read Jane Smith (m. 1900-1950) so the reader knows which data is being presented. Several times I have assumed that the information was the marriage span and was the dates of birth and death, and I have also seen the other ... we need to add the "m." to the template. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me. Okeydokey Richard.  Done. -J JMesserly (talk) 06:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Marriage template microformat incompatible with Infobox person template
There's a problem with the vcard tag added by this template overriding the standard microformat metadata generated by the infobox person when it is used within that template. Browser plug-ins, such as Operator for Firefox, can't partition vcards within a vcard at this time - so should avoid this on any Wikipedia person page. Will remove the marriage template until this can be fixed. Thanks. Rostdo (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem seems to be inherited from Event What a mess! I've removed some classes form that as an interim fix, as it's 1am here and I need to sleep. I'll return later. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks - Agree it's better to have a clean root hcard on the bio page(s) now and figure out how restore valid marriage vevents later. One negative result is that Operator now applies the dtstart/end dates from the first nested marriage event to the root vevent on the infobox table.  Also, some clarification is needed on my previous comment: the Microformat parsing rules DO cover nesting of valid Microformats.  After a closer look, it appears the trouble had to do with uncertanty on how values from invalid nested objects should be handled by the tools (Operator, Oomph,..).   So there is probably work to be done on both ends.  But would still be better not to produce invalid vcard/vevent objects to begin with. Rostdo (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

We need to remove this template from all Infoboxes
This template is not compatible with Infoboxes. Infobox person, for example, already states the field "Spouse(s):", so the "m." portion of the date range is entirely redundant and cluttered. The spouse field in infoboxes should read "Michelle Obama (1992–present)", not "Michelle Obama (m. 1992–present)". This is redundant, and also doesn't apply to the "Domestic partner" field. Is there a way to easily remove this from all the infoboxes it has infected? Or can we remove the "m." from the template? Or can we simply get rid of this redundantly useless template altogether? Thoughts, please?. &mdash; CIS (talk | stalk) 12:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I would support removing the "m." abbreviation, or making it optional. Plastikspork (talk) 13:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine, I've removed it for now as I am not sure how to make it optional. If someone reading this knows how to use the coding language in that respect, and wants to add the option, please do so. &mdash; CIS (talk | stalk) 23:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Uhhh, no. A consensus of two people is not enough. It is not redundant because it is formated the same as years of birth and years of death, and has been confusing people, that is why "m." was added. I am reverting it until a more definitive consensus is reached. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

We have "John Smith (1920-1960) (1940-1960)" or "John Smith (1920-1960) (m. 1940-1960)". Two years in parenthesis need to be distinguished so that people know which is years of birth and death and which are years of marriage. It isn't always clear which pairs are in the parenthesis. If the person doesn't have their own article, their birth and death years appear in the infobox. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Date Ranges
"The form since 1996 should be used in favor of 1996–present in article text and infoboxes."

- MOSDATE This seems clear to me, so does anyone mind if I change it to conform with this guideline? Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I for one don't care. Perhaps you should ping Norton though.  -J JMesserly (talk) 02:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This was said and apparently agreed a couple of years ago. It doesn't seem to have been done, at least for the date of marriage (see Rebekah Brooks). The use of "–present" is arguably against guidelines as it becomes dated and violates WP:DATED. In the case of a date of marriage maybe "m 1996" or similar would be better than "since". Pol098 (talk) 11:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Ending space
This template seems to produce an ending space in the output string. If the template is followed by a ref, there will be a space between the ref and the string, which does not follow MOS. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Spaced en dash
Hello,

I notice this template spaces en dashes in all contexts, so Example (m. 1940-1956) produces " ". However, according to MOS:ENDASH, "the en dash in a range is always unspaced, except when the endpoints of the range already include at least one space." So the correct behaviour would be for Example (m. 1940-1956) to produce "Example (m. 1940–1956)", while Example (m. 3 October 1940-1956) would produce "Example (m. 3 October 1940 – 1956)". Can anyone make it so that the template detects whether the arguments are only years, and if so, unspace the dash?

Thank you. Inverse Hypercube (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem is with the m.  and w.  prefixes for the years, which are logically part of them just as a month would be, at least for appearance. (m. 1953–w. 1976) looks even more wrong than (January 20, 1953–June 11, 1976). —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 09:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Template update
I think that we should remove the reason why the marriage ended and just keep it simple, putting the years in parenthesis and keeping it like that: IE 1991–93 or 1997–2000 if it goes into the new millennium. The reason why the marriage ended will be in the article, so I see no reason why it has to be in the infobox. 173.69.8.105 (talk) 02:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason field (why the marriage ended, divorce or death) allows the infobox to be a simple one-stop-shop for personal information, which is its intention. In many articles, this information can be missing or very widely dispersed. For instance, the Judy Garland article makes it very difficult to follow the actor's marriages without the detail in the infobox. That was the article that initially piqued my interest in this template, as I simply wanted to know about her marital history quickly. I believe it should be retained as useful information.--Tgeairn (talk) 03:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Then at least fix it so that the ending year is abbreviated with two numbers rather then the whole year: IE: 1992–1994 should be 1992–94. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.8.105 (talk) 03:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have not done the research into why the MOS picked dates the way they did, but one place where removing the first two digits becomes a problem is that it can be ambiguous. My grand parent was born in 1906 and died in 2011. Do I show their dob/d as 1906-2011, while I show my great grand parent's marriage dates as 1901-11 (the other one passed away in 1911)? Consistent dates makes for much more readable copy, and they eliminate confusion or questions. --Tgeairn (talk) 04:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well if the end of marriage or death date extends into the new millennium, then it should be four digits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.8.105 (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No. No. Years given in WP should never use less than four digits. --Thorwald (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:MOSDATE does say that 1901–11 is acceptable, and means 1901–1911. 1901–2011 would need to be used for the 100-year range. 1911-01 should never be used (unless the range is, by context, in end-to-start order). Saving space in this way won't work well/clearly with the prefixes for reason in front of the end dates, though: (m. 1901 – w. 11) is just ugly, I think. —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 09:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * 1901–11 can be read as 1901–November. The "millenium problem" was all about two digit years. I always prefer seeing 1901–1911 for the best clarity. -79.67.254.246 (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Widowed
How does one distinguish between the subject of the article dying or the spouse dying? Either would have the same date and reason. Do we need a "reason=is widowed" to indicate that the subject died, not the spouse? —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 13:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above. The " " parameter should be expanded and/or clarified a bit. --Thorwald (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * So, when arg dies, reason=widowed. When the article subject dies, and is survived by arg, how about reason=survived (abbreviated s.)? The problem is that we also need reason=separated (abbreviated how?) —&#91;   Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 09:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Abbreviations only get in the way of quick comprehension. I had to think a bit before I realized "w" meant widowed. If the spouse died, "death of spouse" would make that clear. If the subject of the article died, we need no further explanation, because the same infobox has the date of that person's death.Peter Chastain (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * With the limited amount of space in the Infobox, though, they are necessary to avoid ugly multi-line constructs. I recently saw a situation where the subject died a couple months after their spouse, in the same year. In that case, the ending year by itself is ambiguous. —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 10:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

???? - present
I don't know if this has been discussed or not, I browsed through the previous comments and didn't find it so I'm sorry if I'm repeating something someone has already said but is there anyway to put in (present) for the couples that are still together, it looks weird and not uniform when an infobox looks like:


 * John Doe (m. 1993 - 1999)
 * Bob Dole (m. 2000)

can't the template be updated to have (present) put in there? Like this:


 * John Doe (m. 1993 - 1999)
 * Bob Dole (m. 2000 - present)

I think it would look nicer and better. Lady Lotus (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Questions
Can anyone explain the supposed advantages of the first of these examples, over the second, or even third?


 * Tanaya Paul (m. 2012)
 * Tanaya Paul (m 2012)


 * Tanaya Paul (m 2012)
 * Tanaya Paul (m 2012)


 * Tanaya Paul (married 2012)
 * Tanaya Paul (married 2012)

please? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone explain the purpose of this part of its coding:

please? Why enter coordinates in the template, if they're not displayed, and not emitted as metadata? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone explain the purpose of the uncertain parameter, and give an example of an article where it is used? If it's not used, why is it there? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Can explain the purpose of entering "October 3," in:


 * Michelle Obama (m. October 3, 1992)

when it renders as:


 * Michelle Obama (m 1992)

without the date and month, please? How does that differ from entering:


 * Michelle Obama (m. April 1, 1992)

for example? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone explain why:


 * Michelle Obama (m. October 3, 1992)

displays as only:


 * Michelle Obama (m. 1992)

and what, then, is the purpose of including:



How is that different from, say:


 * Tarquin Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Olé-Biscuitbarrel (m. First of never)

which also displays as:


 * Michelle Obama (m. 1992)

for example? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyone? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

More questions
What purpose do the following parameters serve:


 * street-address1
 * street-address2
 * street-address3
 * province
 * locality1
 * locality2
 * uncertain
 * region
 * state
 * department
 * postcode
 * country
 * hide-coord
 * noHcard
 * lat
 * lon

are they used anywhere; and is there any reason not to remove them? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyone? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The stupidity of this template
In the Meg Ryan article mentioned above, this template is entered (other examples omitted for clarity) as:

spouse

which renders as:


 * Dennis Quaid (m. 1991-July 16, 2001)

The text that is displayed is generated by the show, where it is entered as wiki-markup, thus:

(m. 1991–2001; 1 child)
 * Dennis Quaid

In other words, the template not only emits no microformat metadata, but also does nothing to format the text.

The same result could be entered by typing:

(m. 1991–2001; 1 child)
 * Dennis Quaid

which renders as:

(m. 1991–2001; 1 child)
 * Dennis Quaid

In other words, the text   and the closing   are utterly redundant.

Can anyone tell me the point of this farce? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm working on it Andy. Do you know how to make  tags show the collapsed version of the list?  Once there has been some time for the new maint categories to run through the job queue, we'll have a better grasp on what needs to be done to the template.  I've been told you are somewhat of an expert on microformat metadata.  Can you link or explain exactly what it is so I can understand why some of these things were included in the first place? Technical 13 (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you answer my question? I have no idea what you mean by " tags"; nor to which list you refer; nor why you've asked that and a question about what microformats are, in reply to this section, which is about the display of wikitext, and in which I point out that "the template... emits no microformat metadata". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * " tags" was in reference to the section right above this one, which I have already figured out and am just waiting on the job queue to finish processing the change to the template to categorize all of the parameters. The template is allegedly suppose to emit microformat metadata, and I'm not entirely sure what that is, if you could point me to some information as to what that data is used for, I would appreciate it.  Once I understand what was hoped to be accomplished by these additional parameters, and I see how many of them are actually used, I'll be in a better position to answer your question. Technical 13 (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As you've been told, it's like any other basic template that formats content the same way across numerous pages. If we decide to expand the way that it displays the dates, we'll have a far easier time than we would if we just had plain text.  This usage is odd, since "Show" isn't supposed to be used to do things that parameters such as the dates and reason are supposed to do.  Nyttend (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not dissimilar to the example given in the template's documentation. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't point you to what the microformat metadata is supposed to be used for; because this template doesn't emit any. I'm not sure how many more times I'll need to say that. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Then I'm not making my question clear, and I seem to be frustrating you. Let's try it like this.  Can you link me a template that DOES emit microformat metadata? Technical 13 (talk) 18:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Category:Templates generating microformats. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There we go, now I understand the concept a little better. Now, let me ask a couple different questions. Are you opposed to this template emitting such data?  Are you opposed to it "only" emitting that data and not doing anything else with the information? In the last 6 hours or so since I added the maintenance categories to the template, I'm not seeing most of the arguments being used at all (and I've modified the documentation to discourage use during this phase of the project).  We should give the job queue more time, because I'm still seeing the numbers go up every time I visit, so I know it is not done.  That being said, it looks like it might be safe to just chop these unused arguments off the template, which leads me to my next question. How does Wikipedia view maintaining templates for article histories?  Unfortunately, viewing a specific revision of a page doesn't use the templates as they were at that time, but as they are now (I could put in a bug report as that probably wouldn't be hard to change).  I know on other wikis, we take strong efforts to maintain article histories by making all templates as backwards compatible as possible.  Is that a concern here? Technical 13 (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that's not a concern. Are you near to being able to answer my question at the top of this section, now? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The show parameter seems to have been intended to allow formating to the output of the template to keep the other parts that were suppose to emit metadata from having all kinds of divs and spans in them for formatting. Unless, we are going to include h-card metadata, all of the pages that use it should be gone through and make sure the information is in the "other" appropriate arguments and deleted. Just my opinion. Technical 13 (talk) 17:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah-ha! I've found what the use of show is for in the process of trying to remove it from all the articles.  See the Clay Felker and Victor Adamson articles. Technical 13 (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Given, there still appears to be no need for it. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)