Template talk:Marriage/Archive 4

Microdata removed
I have removed  and the corresponding closing tag, as it transpires that mediawiki strips out the microdata, which does not therefore appear on the rendered page. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Questions, redux
The wikimarkup:

renders as:

Michelle Obama (m. October 3, 1992)

with the source code:

Please can somebody explain to me (and I have asked this before) the purpose of entering October 3, 1992 in that example?

Note that:

also renders as:

Ole, ole, banana!&#32;(m.  Error: Invalid time. )

again with the source code:

I'd love to know what the purpose of this is. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * , there is no purpose in entering the date in your example...

Proper usage: Renders: Michelle Obama (m. October 3, 1992) Contains code:
 * Is the purpose of the template. The "show" parameter is a waste at this point, and I'd all but written it out.  I only left it in there to allow for some backwards compatibility until I can make sure that it is unused.  I've not yet had the ambition to do that, but you are welcome to go through and make sure it is unused and deprecate if fully.
 * Also, you made an edit to the template, removing the microformatting that I had added saying there would be an explanation on the talk page, and I don't see that explanation. If you would, please.  Thanks. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 16:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove any microformatting; as I tired long ago of telling you and others concerned with this template, this template emits no microformats. I did, however, remove some microdata markup, which is why the section above this one, in which I explain why I did so, is titled Microdata removed. But thank you for confirming the pointlessness of the show parameter; another reason why this template is not needed. Since you imply that the example I give is improper;, why is it in the template's documentation? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I apologize for missing the above section, I clicked on the section link on my watchlist and therefor it was completely out of view. If the MediaWiki core software is removing microdata that we are adding, then a bug report needs to be filed and that needs to be fixed (or there needs to be a clear reason why it shouldn't be fixed).  The "show" parameter is  (you could have just removed it from the documentation). While I was at it, I also updated the doc to use templatedata so it is now more VE friendly. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 16:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

underscoring
Why is it necessary to define "m." by underscoring it with dots and having a question mark pop up? Surely, this is a standard abbreviation that does not require definition when one hovers over it. Furthermore, it is obvious from the context that it means married. This function is unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.221.61.66 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 26 August 2014‎ (UTC)
 * Given that there are no comments, can I assume that this change meets consensus? DrKiernan (talk) 10:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I imagine a fair number of the English Wikipedia's readers' first language isn't English, so perhaps the situation isn't as sure and obvious as 31.221.61.66 suggests. Sardanaphalus (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Non-breaking spaces
Why is there a non-breaking space between the name and the date range? It looks goofy sometimes, like at Jerald terHorst, where the spouse has three names. in my browser there's a huge space between names two and three because name three is bound to the date range. I don't think that there will be mass confusion if the date range is allowed to be on its own line if necessary, particularly since this seems to most frequently be used in infoboxes where it's clear what it is referring to. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with this comment - the use of the non-breaking space between last name and date creates goofy looking names in the infobox since the last names will often fit. per WP:BOLD I'm going to make this change on the template since no one explained or objected since the comment above. -- Trödel 20:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Move content to "Module:"?
The template is transcluded in 6,000+ pages. Shall we move the content to "Module:" namespace? --George Ho (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that Module is for programming language implementations and not based on the number of uses. However, it may make sense to get rid of standard template programming and use Lua instead. But even then, the template would invoke the code in the module space but the template would still stay here and call the module (at least that is the way I understand it). -- Trödel 22:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Text size for dates
Smaller text should really not be the default. In an infobox, other dates (years active, birth/death place, etc.) don't show at 85% size, and neither should this. I don't have a problem with it being an option, but it shouldn't be the default. Chase (talk &#124; contributions) 19:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I conquer. This change was neither discussed nor warranted.  It also somewhat defies the MOS of font size for iboxes.  livelikemusic  my talk page! 23:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I prefer it though. User:Trödel can you make the smaller font an option, as a compromise? Timmyshin (talk) 02:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Smaller font defies the MOS, though, especially for those with visual impairments.  livelikemusic  my talk page! 16:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Someone edited to make the smaller option the same as the default - 95% - I am going to change smaller back to 85% as it was before but leave the default at 95% unless anyone has objections and after reviewing the MOS - I think the 95% is a good compromise. -- Trödel 22:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not really care about the exact size but see my edit here. For partners/cohabitation, I'm sure some, would think marriage should not display smaller.. I'm not sure there is a separate template for that. Maybe this template could be used with an option. One reason I could see to have bigger is the current marriage if that could be an option.. comp.arch (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Use "|=normal" to make the dates in parenthesis the normal size. Made the change to Gillian's article :) -- Trödel 15:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Annulled?
What happened to this template? All of a sudden it shows annulled, annulled. It makes me not want to use the template at all now. --Musdan77 (talk) 02:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yikes! Pinging as it looks like this edit broke it.  Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 02:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've removed it. I'm against inventing our own abbreviations -- "div." and "wid." are recognized abbreviations that you can find in dictionaries, e.g. but "ann." for annulled is not. DrKay (talk) 06:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the abbreviation, 's point was that the template was showing "ann." in cases where there was no actual annulment, so your removal fixed a fairly serious bug. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 06:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for creating controversy I found an instance where someone had used this as the reason={ {abbr|ann.|annulled}} and thought - we may as well put it in the template. Can someone post the pages that it broke though? As this edit should only have effected if someone put in "ann" or "ann." or "annulled" for the reason parameter - if it put it in anywhere else then that was a serious bug I profusely apologize for and should have tested more before leaving for the day. My apologies to all -- Trödel 15:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Why was the template changed at all; it worked perfectly fine in the first place!  livelikemusic  my talk page! 16:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The change was reverted - see above (now emphasized) for my original reasoning. -- Trödel 14:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Who is widowed - topic or topic's spouse?

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I see this has been discussed before, but I could find no clear consensus. I just now wanted to use the template, and in the case in question the topic's spouse had outlived the topic. Now, to me the reasonable thing to add to the marriage template in such a case is "widowed", as in the spouse was widowed.

Just to make sure I did things correctly I looked at the template, which really doesn't clarify things at all. Then I looked at the template talk (here), and see that this has been discussed repeatedly. Yet I see no clear outcome of these discussions, other than to leave out the word "survived". What about "widowed"? Who is widowed? The spouse (which makes sense to me) or the topic? What's the consensus? Manxruler (talk) 09:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think it should refer to the spouse not to the topic, i.e. the topic died and the spouse was widowed. DrKay (talk) 09:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think so too, DrKay, but the template doesn't explain that, and after skimming through this talk can't find any mention of a consensus regarding this question. I'll just leave the whole business out for now. This also relates to "death", whose death? Manxruler (talk) 10:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The spouse is widowed (or dies). If this is discussed again consensus may be easier to establish because a previous prominent contributor is no longer with us. Thincat (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Per, this parameter is confusing and misunderstood. Should it be removed? DrKay (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * To say that "X was widowed" is to say that X's spouse died, so I don't see "widowed" in the template as a clear explanation to the reader as to the cause of the end of the marriage. On the other hand, "his death" clearly explains that the marriage was terminated by the person's death, rather than by divorce or other type of termination. Eliminating the parameter completely would also eliminate that snippet of information from the infobox, which I think would be a major loss for those looking for dashboard information. (Consider Henry VIII or Elizabeth Taylor, for example.) Perhaps a reworking of the element order and punctuation would help clarify things. What if it looked like: "m. 1923-1967 (his death)" ? 32.218.47.115 (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar enough with the template syntax to mock that up in the sandbox. Are you able to do it? DrKay (talk) 20:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Removal of "widowed" function
This template uses a parameter, "end", to display a reason for the termination of a marriage. The template documentation advises that the end date should be the date a marriage was dissolved or the date that the spouse of the article subject died. However, in the event of a marriage ending by the death of the article subject, it is possible to signal that by using "end=widowed", for example Joan Smith (m. 1916-1942) produces the output "Joan Smith (m. 1916; wid. 1942)", attempting to indicate that Joan Smith was widowed in 1942. Should this functionality be kept or removed? DrKay (talk) 20:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Remove. Per the discussion above and at Template talk:Marriage/Archive 3, the word "widowed" can be misunderstood to mean that the article subject was widowed rather than the spouse, i.e. that the spouse died in 1942 and the article subject survived. Furthermore, all transclusions of the template are embedded within infoboxes, meaning that use of the widowed parameter duplicates information already given in the infobox, since the infobox will already give the death date of the article subject. If no date is given for the marriage's end in the "spouse" parameter, it is natural to assume that the marriage lasted until the death of the article subject, and it is not necessary to repeat the death date. DrKay (talk) 20:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Remove, confusing and unnecessary duplication of info.Pincrete (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Remove - Per DrKay -- T e r r a ❤ 03:21, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Remove. Too confusing.  I misinterpreted the example before I read this RfC. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Remove duplication of info and can be misleading. Fraulein451 (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Remove: DrKay's analysis carries the argument in my opinion.  S n o w  let's rap 09:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Engagement
A formal engagement, as a "promise to wed", is something that could usefully be added to some articles. Could or should a template equivalent to this one be set up?  Schwede 66  01:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I also support this idea - very useful for celebs who announce engagements that can be long-term. —Мандичка YO 😜 13:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Schwede: Isecond that idea. An engagement template should be created. Better yet, a template for domestic partnership and a cohabitation should be created, in addition to an engagement template.  CookieMonster755   𝚨-𝛀    20:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

MOS:DATERANGE recent changes
The Manual of Style guideline for date ranges (MOS:DATERANGE) recently went through an RfC that resulted in the deprecation of the two-digit abbreviation of year ranges within the same century (i.e. 2008–10), replacing it with the original full format (i.e. 2008–2010). Could this template please be altered to reflect that change in the MOS, whenever convenient for an administrator. —  Crumpled Fire   • contribs • 06:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This template is exclusively used in infoboxes, where two-digit abbreviation of year ranges is permitted. DrKay (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Maiden names
The template description should state Wikipedia style standards for whether wives should be listed by their maiden name or married name. —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I entirely agree. recently made edits to  and  removing the maiden name piping. I happen to believe that the maiden name is useful since this was the surname that happened to be superseded by marriage, preventing any confusion as to whether the wife had the same surname (e.g. Eleanor Roosevelt having the same surname as Franklin D. Roosevelt, them being distantly blood-related).  Any thoughts on this?--Nevé–selbert 18:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I prefer maiden names personally, but there was some prior discussion at Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 29. DrKay (talk) 19:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Died vs divorced
"Arline Greenbaum (m. 1941; d. 1945)" "d." could be divorced or died, on my desktop I can hover the cursor over the "d" and see that it means "died" but that option is not available for mobile. More than 50% of all searches are by mobile and growing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced, though I might be if some evidence of confusion in readers was provided. I think it could be changed to "died" without abbreviation by simply removing the line from the template, as shown in the sandbox, or by changing it to "| d | d. | died = died". DrKay (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)