Template talk:Marriage/Archive 5

End
I have noticed there is a mixture of using just the start of marriage in the template: (m. 1900) while others are more complete with the "end=" parameter filled in, as in: (m. 1900; his death 1941) or (m. 1900; her death 1941) or (m. 1900; divorce 1941) or (m. 1900; annulled 1941). Should we always be filling in the "end=" parameter? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No. If the marriage ends with the death of the article subject, there should be no need to repeat the death date, which will already be given in the infobox. If no other date is given for the marriage's end, it is safe to assume that the marriage lasted until the death of the article subject, and it is not necessary to duplicate the information. DrKay (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't assume that, and I don't think the average reader assumes that. I just think no one did the research as to why the marriage ended, or that legally they are still married, even after death. How is the reader to know which of them died first without doing further research? Spouses usually do not have their own articles so the research involves looking up obituaries. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Per Requests for comment, you shouldn't be making edits to articles along these lines until the RfC has concluded. DrKay (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That would be true if the template instructions demanded that no end date ever be added, but the current instructions are for a start and end date. It seems that we have a mix of using an end date and not using an end date which I find confusing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Every situation is different, which will affect the parameters, but I guess I am a little confused as to what you are asking/proposing. Do you have any actual page examples of what you are talking about and how you think they should be different? Thanks.Kerdooskis (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The "end=" parameter has been in place for quite a while, it is not new. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Richard Arthur Norton, I'm totally with you. The whole situation can be rather confusing and ambiguous. Good on you for wanting to sort it out.  Schwede 66  18:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Use "end=divorced" or "end=his death" or "end=her death"

 * Support "(m. 1900 d. 1940) is ambiguous, the "d" could be "died" or "divorced", the cursor hover does not work in mobile, and if someone died, it is unclear which of the two died, without looking at other data. It also is confusing to AIs such as Siri and Google Now, usually they will correctly answer a question based on infobox data. The best solution is: (m. 1900; his death 1941) or (m. 1900; her death 1941) or (m. 1900; divorced 1941) or (m. 1900; annulled 1941) or (m. 1900; separated 1941) or (m. 1900; estranged 1941) or (m. 1900; abandoned 1941) or "Carlos Danger (m. 2010; sexting minors 2016)" using the "end=" parameter. How it appears can always be arranged differently globally at a later date by adjusting the template without adjusting the data. Without an end date and reason for the end it looks like they are still legally married, and legally a marriage ends at the death of one of the parties. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * One issue here is gay marriage, where "his" and "her" are not clear. Is this addressed in some way by the template?  Should it be? Hobit (talk) 13:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You can add any text such as "Smith's death" or "Jones' death", ad hoc text will not have a corresponding abbreviation, "his death" and "her death" currently does not have an abbreviation. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support: We obviously need to distinguish between death and divorce -- this is absolutely crucial and should never be left to ambiguity or confusion. We should also always indicate the end of a marriage if in fact it ended. Softlavender (talk) 08:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support: Of all the options listed here, this would appear to be the only one covering all possible cases, and once filled in, there isn't room for ambiguity. Not using abbreviations (or if abbreviated, it has to be unambiguous, so "div." would be ok) is important, as mobile use is increasing and popup info doesn't work on a mobile.  Schwede 66  08:13, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that "divorced" gets recognized and truncated to "div.", but it does not recognize "divorce" as a synonym to be truncated. In the code there is a list of "end=" variables and what they get truncated to that needs to be edited. Also the final format is not set in stone "(m. 1900; div. 1960)", it doesn't have to be a semicolon. If you remember the first version of the template was confusing, it did not contain "m." so it was hard to tell if you were looking at the birth and death years of the person or the start and end years of the marriage, it is continuously improving. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Support Of all the methods proposed, this provides the greatest flexibility for the editor and the most clarity for the reader, eliminating ambiguity for all involved. Alansohn (talk) 07:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support seems clean. RAN pointed out that my worries are easily addressed as-is. Hobit (talk) 22:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We don't need to be told twice that Smith died in 1959, once is enough. Note that the template output does not actually say that the marriages ended in 1927 and 1959, it only gives the dates of death. We can't know from the output whether the first marriage ended in divorce in 1921 or if Brown died in 1950. It would be more useful, and consistent, to give Brown's death date as the final parameter. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It is unnecessary to repeat the death date of the article subject since it is already given in the infobox. DrKay (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose needless duplication of information. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Use "(m. 1900)" and do not fill in an end date

 * I'd be fine with this because there is no option for deaths that is completely foolproof. The option using "his death/her death" doesn't work for gay couples and you can still insert a death date when it's after the end date of the marriage or not the legal end of the marriage. DrKay (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support. This option is not ideal because information is lost on the wives but on the other hand the infobox should be about Smith not the details of his wives' lives. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Use "end=divorced" or "end=died"

 * I think this is fine because the abbreviations used ("div." and "d.") are just the usual, standard abbreviations found in any dictionary of abbreviations, but it's important to be strict about only using the "died" parameter if it is for the spouse's death not the article subject's because otherwise the death date of the subject given in the template can be mistaken for the spouse's. (And, no, I don't think the spouse's death date can be mistaken for the article subject's because the death date of the article subject will already be included elsewhere in the infobox if they are dead or not included at all if they are alive.) DrKay (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Are they still legally married, is she still alive? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The second question can also be asked of the first option, which doesn't tell you when she died either. DrKay (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "m. 1930" gives the impression to the reader that the marriage is legally binding in perpetuity, even when one party dies. You wrote: "doesn't tell you when she died either": There is also no restriction against putting in birth and death years for spouses, I add them when they are in the text, and when I take the time to research them. "Elizabeth Carter (1800-1860) (m. 1820; his death 1855)". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. There's no confusion here. This is a standard abbreviation for died and it's clear who died when. We could even add Brown's death date. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Seems the best of the available options. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Use "end=divorced" or "end=died" without abbreviation

 * Also fine with this, as I think it's unambiguous who died when. DrKay (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Same as option immediately above. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Conclusion
Per the comments at WP:ANRFC, no consensus was found in the above discussion and a relisting/reframing of the RfC with much broader advertising would be appropriate for a change to be enacted. (Courtesy ping: ). Nikkimaria (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

"Separated"
Is there a way to embed "Separated" into the template, as multiple editors believe in adding this into the template, when using it in Infobox person.  livelikemusic    talk!  21:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a very valid point, and a useful parameter I believe. Several notable people are not divorced but separated, which should be reflected in the infobox wherever applicable. Any discussion on this?  Mar4d  ( talk ) 17:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * People seem to put "end=separated", and if I do see it, I'm actually using abbr to make the abbreviation "sep.", etc. Maybe that could be embedded within the template itself, especially since sometimes couples can separate and not divorce, etc.   livelikemusic    talk!  22:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm here to ask the same thing. It's very common and not just in cases with living people who have yet to divorce. Historically, people frequently separated but never divorced for various reasons. I just use "end=separated" but I would like to have it abbreviated automatically, as it often kicks it onto a second line. livelikemusic's suggestion for abbreviation is a good idea, but can't we just get this added to the template? Thanks.  —Мандичка YO 😜 21:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Specify end date but not start date
What's the preferred way to represent a marriage where the end date is known but the start date is not? For example, on the Nancy Marchand article, I can see she was married until her spouse's death on November 19th, 1999 but the start date is unknown.

Paul Sparer

Unfortunately, the above is rendered as "Paul Sparer (m. 2017; d. 1999)". Niedzielski (talk) 04:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ... Paul Sparer – wbm1058 (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Death
I've been seeing a lot of marriage templates in infoboxes that ended with the subject's death being removed, i.e. going from m. Year of Marriage - Year of Death to just m. Year of Marriage usually citing this page, however I can't find an actual consensus for such a thing. The discussion above is pretty recent and seems to have ended with no consensus. Did I miss something? Thanks. (For the record, I support doing this.) Nohomersryan (talk) 07:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have been seeing that also. It leaves the reader with the impression that there is an error, either that they are still legally married even after death, or that the death of one of them is in error, or that no one has updated that the marriage has legally ended now that one of the entities has died. Some editors are also removing the "end=his death" or "end=her death" for unknown stylistic reasons. because it does not display when no end date is indicated. --RAN (talk) 18:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

How should the wording of the documentation for the end parameter be changed? 18:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Option 1
Change the wording to read: Always add in the death date and the "end=his death" or "end=her death" (or "end=Smith's death" or "end=Jone's death" for same gender marriages) when one partner in a marriage dies. The "end=" parameter only displays when a death date is included.
 * ✅ This should be the way to do it. It removes the ambiguity that the marriage is still a legal entity beyond death, or that the template has not been updated with the information that one partner has died. See below: With no end date it leaves the impression that they may have been divorced before death, or that the other partner died first, but that no one has done the research. Option 2 is inherently ambiguous. --RAN (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Option 1 can be misread that Salma Rogers is a man who died in 1960, or that "his death" is a typo for "her death", or that Salma may have died first but we don't know her death date, or that Salma and Albert were divorced in 1956 but that no-one has added the date or done the research, etc., etc. The arguments for favoring option 1 are logically flawed: the format does not address the problem and provides no more clarity than the other option. DrKay (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC) Amended 21:28, 27 October 2017
 * ✅ This option has the greatest clarity. - PKM (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * After thinking about it, I'll throw my support here. I really don't know if it should be hardcoded, though. Nohomersryan (talk) 19:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support As argued above, the benefits of clarity to all readers, regardless of their experience with such conventions, provides the greatest benefit here. Alansohn (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ ChristianKl (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support This has the most clarity and explains remarriages more easily. -- Trödel 03:37, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support This option is the clearest for readers. Jklamo (talk) 10:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support When we have an infobox, we must have an infobox. Meaning that the typical, tired argument about "duplicating info already in the article" is null and void. This option goes for the necessary infobox-information in a short and easy manner. Clearly preferable. -The Gnome (talk) 09:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not just about duplicating info already in the article, but already in the infobox. Per MOS:INFOBOX, we should avoid such duplication. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please quote the sentence you are referring to in MOS:INFOBOX. Asking me to read the bible to find the answer is not useful in a discussion. The word "duplication" does not appear in the text. You have a habit of doing this during discussions. --RAN (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Referencing relevant policies/guidelines that support a position is appropriate in consensus-building discussions. Per the particular page I cited: "The less information [the infobox] contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance... wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." Nikkimaria (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So when the infobox is empty, it has reached perfection. --RAN (talk) 05:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Option 2
Change the wording to read: Add the death date of the article subject's spouse and "end=his death" or "end=her death" (or "end=Smith's death" for same gender marriages) when the marriage ends through the death of the spouse
 * ✅ Since the death date of the article subject will be given already in the infobox and marriages obviously end on the death of the subject, there is no need to repeat the death date of the subject. Infoboxes should be simple and should not unnecessarily duplicate information. DrKay (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This seems a nice, simple approach. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. The version above this one is needlessly long-winded.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  11:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ This seems simpler than option 1, and any missed detail will be contained in the article anyway. Sam Wilson 00:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support; simpler version, clearly preferable. Happy days, LindsayHello 18:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Option 3
Change the wording to read: Never add in an end date for a marriage when one partner dies and remove them from existing templates
 * (add your rationale here)

RFC Over
The RFC is over now. So what happens? It doesn't look like there is consensus for not including the end date if the subject dies. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've posted a request for closure at WP:ANRFC. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have some familiarity with this template, being the last to edit it (in September). I just became aware of this RfC today, while reviewing open items on my talk page. I'm working on synchronizing the template documentation with the template code, and fixing errors in template usage. I may close this, or at least suggest a path forward, in the next day or two. wbm1058 (talk) 03:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I restored Archive 5 to this page. The previous discussion makes this one seem like déjà vu. Reviewing both to try to prevent a reoccurrence of Groundhog Day. – wbm1058 (talk) 04:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Syntax confusion
I endorse the above close, and am following up by examining and addressing template usage issues. One issue is the confusion caused by mixing unnamed parameters with a single named parameter. Another is the syntax for specifying dates that differs from that used by the birth date and death date templates, which specify separate parameters for month, day and year. One particular example stands out. With this edit,
 * was changed to

, please read the template documentation. The full date for either the marriage or end of marriage may be given, and shows in the abbr for the full date when hovering over its "abbreviation" – in this case the year is the "abbreviation" for the full date. Also, there are only three unnamed parameters. The fourth parameter end must be named.

Noting that the subject, William died January 2, 2001, I was wondering about the odds were that his wife, who preceded him in death, died on New Year's Day or the second. Further digging found this edit which added the reason for the end of the marriage:

RAN, I find this to be counter-intuitive. Surely there is no place in an infobox for the death date of a spouse who survived the subject? As the date that their marriage "ended"? wbm1058 (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I read this three times, and I am still not sure what you are are arguing, did I make a typo that you are trying to point out? You changed the template to now read "Adele Langston (m. 1937–2001)" with no reason for why the marriage ended in 2001. Did they divorce in 2001 before the husband died? or did the marriage end when the husband died in 2001? --RAN (talk) 02:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * RAN, I think that most people believe a marriage ends when one of the spouses die, thus the marriage ended on January 2 when William, the subject of the article died. I might entertain the religious argument that the marriage never dies as it rises to heaven with both spouses, who remain married there. In which case we would just not show an end date in the infobox. But one position I can't fathom is that a marriage ends when the surviving spouse dies. If your edit
 * was a mistake, please let me know that, and fix it. I'm bringing it up here because I don't really know whether you think it's a mistake or not. I didn't change the template, it was who came after you that "copyedited" it, presumably to "fix" it.  Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 02:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know why I was pinged. I have never edited the template; I can't do that, as it's protected. I have only added a small section back on the talk page back in February 2012, almost six years ago. HandsomeFella (talk) 07:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , the reason why you were pinged is not because you edited the template, but that it seems you misused the template in the article William P. Rogers. If you don't think this edit was made by you last year, then your account has been compromised, and you need to take steps to secure it. If it was made by you, then you need to read the template documentation before you make the same mistake again, as Wbm1058 indicated. --RexxS (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Allright, I made that edit. I missed the link above.
 * It seems indeed as I have misunderstood the syntax of the template.
 * HandsomeFella (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * HandsomeFella (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)