Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes/Archive 17

Parameter aliases
I think we should also start discouraging the use of various ways of writing a single parameter. It encourages inconsistency and confusion. By that I mean templates shouldn't allow birth_date, BirthDate, DateOfBirth, date_of_birth, etc... eg stick with birth_date, and editors should expect all templates accepting a date of birth to use that name. Right now we've got weird varieties of camel case in some templates and support/encouragement (via docs) for strange aliases in others. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * While I can see an argument for standardizing docs on a particular style, and for saying that all templates using a particular parameter should use the same name for it, I don't see a strong reason for disabling aliases. What is the benefit of causing an error message if someone accidentally writes BirthDate when they mean birth_date? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that ProcrastinatingReader refers mainly to how the documentation of templates handles these aliases. I think the right way is to standardize and not mention in the aliases in the documentation, thus tacitly discouraging them. After the standardization, a bot could take care of changing all the aliases to the newly-accepted parameter name, after which the aliases can be deprecated without having a great amount of errors. El Millo (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I think he is clearly talking about standardizing the actual parameters, as well as updating the docs to refer to the "standard" parameter name. Agree strongly this would be a great idea. I waste a lot of time trying to remember the variation for a particular template before giving up and checking the documentation. Also agree with Nikkimaria that there is no reason to disable all the aliases, or updating all the articles to use the standard names - that would cause hundreds of thousands of bot edits. Using the new "standard" name should be encouraged by way of not documenting other variations, but changing existing uses should be optional - only done in conjunction with other edits. MB 20:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I'm going for from this section. I'd like to get to a stage where we can update docs to only show the standard name (hide the aliases in template code for backwards compatibility), and making sure all templates support the aliases as the primary option. Amazingly enough, quite a few templates don't even support the standard param name (instead only a non-standard TitleCase param).In the long run, yes, I would also like at some point bot replacement to deprecate parameter names over time (this is generally not classed as cosmetic edits afaik), but that's not part of my suggestion in this section (it's also outside scope of MOS). Overall, my belief is editors should not be surprised by different templates, and should be able to work with different templates without much thought or need to familiarise themselves with a new doc, to the max reasonable extent possible. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Why would that not be classed as cosmetic? Unless you're actually getting rid of the aliases, having a bot change the parameter name in use does not impact the rendered display. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be the other way around, first change the aliases for the standardized name and then deprecate the aliases, in order not to have errors appear in lots of articles. El Millo (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This presumes getting rid of the aliases entirely is a good idea. See MB's comment above. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well it's not a bad idea. It's just a big undertaking. El Millo (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * From experience, I recommend focusing on one parameter, or set of parameters. Coordinates in infoboxes was a HUGE undertaking, resulting in edits to a couple hundred infoboxes and hundreds of thousands of articles. If you are interested in a similar, stalled project from 2017, take a look at Maps in infoboxes, which failed to launch. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Category:Pages using deprecated image syntax nominated for deletion
Please see this CfD discussion about. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Infobox: “Avoid links to sections within the article” – Is this helpful to readers?
by citing MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE “Avoid links to sections within the article”.

As best I can discover, without discussion, either before or subsequently, by  (who hasn’t been active here for almost 10 years, so I can’t discuss his reason for adding this sentence with him).

It seems to me that the link to list of episodes is useful to readers to show that such a list exists, and to allow a reader to jump straight to the list, irrespective of where the list is.

There could be other useful links from an Infobox to anchors within the article, whether sections or not, for example for significant works.

Unless there are objections I propose to delete this sentence from the policy.

Jim Craigie (talk) 09:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Generally, I would agree not to clutter an infobox with navigation that is already provided by the TOC. However, it's another story whether your case is an WP:IAR exception. Additionally, the reverter  provided an additional reason in the edit summary of ... and Template:Infobox television says only put a list article (a separate article) into that parameter—Bagumba (talk) 10:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * but this additional reason is incorrect – Template:Infobox television doesn’t actually say “only” – it just doesn’t mention internal links within the article. Jim Craigie (talk) 10:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW, usages of Template:Infobox media franchise also tend to link to sections in the article, see Marvel Cinematic Universe as an example. --Gonnym (talk) 11:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE guideline as it stands makes sense to me. I see no great value in putting links in the infobox which would be redundant to the table of contents. There are lots of things we don't link, even though it might be viewed by some as useful, for instance wikilinks inside section headers are deprecated. To answer Gonnym's argument, I would also point out that lots of editors put small font into infoboxes even though WP:SMALLFONT says we should not do so, and people put national flags icons in pop culture articles even though WP:FLAGCRUFT says not to. Rather than look at random examples as an ideal model, I would rather discuss what we are trying to do with the encyclopedia as a whole. How do we want the reader to navigate? Binksternet (talk) 13:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The guideline at Template:Infobox television says "If a Wikipedia 'List of' article exists for the show's episodes, put its name here." Very simple IF–THEN statement. If A, then B. It doesn't say if not A, then improvise. It doesn't say "If there is no list article then you may use an internal link." Binksternet (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

✅ I am agree with User:Jim Craigie, it seems we also need another consensus for. -- Editor-1 (talk) 12:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Avoid is a soft normative phrase. Avoiding intra-article links is a infobox best practice, not a hard rule. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 13:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

✅ When I created the page List of One Piece media made the choice to include links to each section when listing the number of instalments of each piece of work, I personally found this to be helpful moreso than to try to link every single instalment themselves, the same format was carried over to List of Scooby-Doo media as well.★Trekker (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

✅ I agree with Jim, this is something I've done in the past when linking to list of episodes and would continue to do it. Never even realized that the text mentioned above was in MOS:INFOBOX. I don't find it redundant. The Doctor Who (talk) 14:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

As this goes against MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. An infobox is not a mini-article and should only summarize key facts about the subject. Article navigation belongs in the TOC. MB 15:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

✅ - I kind of agree and disagree. I think there are times when internal linking can be useful or necessary. For instances, for long running TV series it can be too much to link every starring role (if they hade a lot of change-over in that time) in addition to every producer, etc. etc. That can drive an infobox's length and become too much to read in a small space. In those cases, I see value in ignoring the rule and including a link that says "See below" for the appropriate section. Otherwise, you inevitably get people adding 30 names to an infobox because the section is there an empty.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Weak ✅ - I don't see much of a downside, aside from potential minor redundancy with the TOC. I absolutely hate very long infoboxes that stretch halfway down the page, and this is a simple way to avoid that. As Billhpike pointed out, saying "avoid" doesn't make it a strict rule, more of a general suggestion. As such, if people want to challenge an edit where someone cited this one sentence to remove such a link from the infobox, they can do so on the article's talkpage and gain a consensus to re-add it. However, I know from experience with other infobox templates with similar cautionary lines that there will be people who don't interpret it that way and systematically make edits using this one line as their "proof", potentially making them unwilling to even engage in such a challenge. For that reason I support removing it or altering the current sentence to make it more clear that exceptions are allowed. Xfansd (talk) 22:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Section links of this nature is becoming more common as a compromise to a huge list in the box during talks related to clutter.-- Moxy 🍁 00:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

✅ I agree with Jim, but feel editors should still be selective to what, if any, section links are included. As others have noted, such as Bignole, there are instances, particularly in television articles or media franchise articles, where section linking might be appropriate to direct readers to these locations, if they are not immediately aware that this content is solely housed in the section. Additionally, section headings may be worded slightly differently in which case the TOC would not be fully sufficient. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Mostly-✅ - the issue with infoboxes on franchise articles, sometimes become far too cluttered. When this happens, it is "overly"-detailed and becomes a table of contents. In franchise infoboxes, should there be installments in the different medium - it has proven useful to navigate the reader to the section that applies - instead of listing the same information that can be found in the TOC. For example: When a franchise has various and differing stars/producers/studios/etc., it's more concise and effective to direct a reader to the appropriate section.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Strongly as per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. For the vast majority of articles, in-article links like this are completely pointless as the section is either level with the IB itself, or is at most "one scroll-screen" down. It's utterly pointless. And that's what a TOC is for. Reword it, maybe – but absolutely don't delete it from the MOS. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Yes there are cases where this is genuinely useful, but we all know that if allowed links will proliferate endlessly. I think discussion of this potentially rather significant change should be more widely advertised - perhaps an Rfc? Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Apparent contradiction for infobox facts not in article
I recently came across some feuding editors who had two opposing interpretations of this page. One side cited MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE in support of the claim that infoboxes should not have any facts which are not in the text of the article. The other side cited WP:INFOBOXREF in support of the claim that facts in the infobox but not in the article are allowed even if discouraged (otherwise there would not be a rule that facts in the infobox but not the article need a reference in the infobox.) It would probably help avoid such disputes in the future if this contradiction was resolved. (And maybe these sections need to cross-reference each other so they stay in sync?)

I've not considered this issue before, but personally I like the idea that an infobox can give a quick, orientating summary at a glace of the most important facts about a subject, and that the article text will amplify in more detail. This organizing principle helps scope what we might consider missing from the infobox. It's also nice that there's a standard layout so readers get use to the same info being in the same place, which is less true with prose. However, in practice I also see lots of infoboxes with minor, typically technical facts, that don't naturally fit anywhere in the article and aren't mentioned in it. These are classic reference department facts, and it's great that with infoboxes readers can quickly look them up without having to skim the article or even read the table of contents. I use these a lot on language and country articles. For example, when I need to know the ISO code for the Turkish language. My husband is often needing scientific parameters, like the heat capacity of carbon dioxide.

Given that experience and difficulty imagining a successful alternative, I'd lean toward affirmatively allowing these exceptions. Or maybe we actually want to stop universally discouraging this and instead identify certain classes of fact that actually we'd prefer not to repeat in the article? These technical facts are often found lower down in the infobox, often after a section divider. Maybe different guidance is needed for the first part of the infobox vs. the farther-down parts? What do you think? -- Beland (talk) 07:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE already says "As with any guideline, there will be exceptions where a piece of key specialised information is difficult to integrate into the body text, but where that information may be placed in the infobox. Prominent examples include the ICD codes in Infobox medical condition and most of the parameters in Chembox." That would seem to cover your examples, like the ISO code for Turkish. I think the current text is fine and doesn't need changing. What I think we shouldn't be encouraging is the expansion of infoboxes with minor facts: infoboxes should be brief. Bondegezou (talk) 09:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right; not sure how I missed that. I guess I just stopped reading that section before I got there. That seems fine, then. -- Beland (talk) 09:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Except that Template:Infobox medical condition no longer includes ICD-10 codes as all the technical info has been moved into a bottom-box Template:Medical resources. I think that the example of language ISO codes should be substituted for the ICD codes example. What do you think? --RexxS (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Good spot, and yes, agree. Bondegezou (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Infobox as navbox?
Is this an appropriate use of an infobox? The infobox is supposed to provide a summary of the article, but this infobox is just serving as a navigational tool between related articles. I know there are boxes that do this, particularly in series, but is it appropriate to use the infobox template for this purpose? – PeeJay 06:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like a great bipass to navboxes being excluded from mobile versions of the site. In my view the template should be converted to a nav box. This is the type of thing we omit on mobile view on purpose. Let's see what others think.-- Moxy 🍁 06:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Or the infobox expanded to help summarize the article, yes. But its current state is insufficient to call it an infobox. --Izno (talk) 07:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the question is why the article exists as a stand-alone? 1992–93 UEFA Champions League group stage is nothing more than a section of 1992–93 UEFA Champions League, which does have a properly filled-out Infobox international football competition (apart from the to make lists and , which I've just fixed). I suppose you could just copy part of the contents of the main article's infobox into the sub-article's infobox, but I still don't understand why there are separate articles. --RexxS (talk) 09:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Lots of junk like this for all types of topics ....we just had over 100 new unsourced pages like 2016−17 Coppa Italia Lega Pro created last week. Not possible to keep up |bar|1-month|~total|daily with these kinds of numbers. More shocking is the portion of porn articles created. :-) -- Moxy 🍁 10:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * These kinds of micro topic articles are the status quo in Sports Land. I would encourage nuking everything below the level of a specific sport at a specific event, but that's thousands of pages of cleanup an RFC beforehand. --Izno (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * These kinds of micro topic articles are the status quo in Sports Land. I would encourage nuking everything below the level of a specific sport at a specific event, but that's thousands of pages of cleanup an RFC beforehand. --Izno (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

RFC at MOS:BIO, which may affect this MOS.
An RFC at MOS:BIO is taking place, concerning ordinal jobtitles in bio infoboxes. Input would be welcomed, as it would affect this MOS. GoodDay (talk) 02:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Layout question
All infoboxes have a column of parameters on the left, each followed by an equal '=' sign. Some have the equal sign immediately after the parameter, or following a single space, while others will have the equal signs placed after multiple spaces, so that they all align near the right side of the infobox. An example of the former can be seen at Template:Infobox ship, while an example of the latter ca be seen at Template:Infobox film. Is there a reason for this? Or does it occur randomly, as the preference of the template's author? I ask because, it seems as of late, some editors have taken to manually moving (or so it seems) all these equal signs over to the right, which just seems to add a lot of unnecessary spacing to the infobox, and the appearance of a significant amount of content being added in the page history. ( though one editor recently stated that this happens automatically when editing from a mobile device. Most of my edits are from a mobile and I've never seen this). Barring this claim, should there perhaps be a single standard, applied to all infoboxes and hopefully followed by editors thereafter? Thanks -  wolf  04:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The spacing is normally used because it makes it easier and more comfortable to read while editing, while using no space is how most other templates are commonly used. I don't think a standard is set, but should there be one, I think the spacing should be the standard, as the extra spacing has basically no disadvantages. —El Millo (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This is one of those WP:CITEVAR-like things: some editors like it one way, some editors like it another; some editors don't care. But, those editors who do care may squabble over it.  We don't need no more drama.  If an infobox already uses one style (more-or-less consistently), leave it alone unless you have discussed changing that style on the article's talk page.  That an automated tool 'did it for me' is not a valid excuse for the change; use a better tool.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Do we have a policy / view / response to editors who make bulk edits to just change the infobox spacing? — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 09:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:AWBRULES. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Anything outside of AWB? — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 07:50, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably worth informing any editors doing so that they are likely wasting their time, as it does seem as though the spacing is often changed automatically one way or the other. CMD (talk) 08:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)


 * A major culprit is Visual Editor. I don't know if this is certainly considered a bug. BilCat (talk) 09:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Multiple infoboxes on a page
Hello, I have a query regarding a page that currently has two infoboxes in it (Kingston bus stations) - and it has been queried that an page should only have one infobox. Given that this is a summary page of two bus stations in one geographical location (and individual pages would either be very short, not notable or both) - I query how best to include infoboxes in the article. Is it possible to merge two Template:Infobox station? Is having two infoboxes on a page acceptable? Do let me or the talk page know! :) Turini2 (talk) 10:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

INFONAT
While I agree in principle with WP:INFONAT, it does seems to assume that birthright citizenship is common practice worldwide; there are, however, are many countries which do not follow this practice. In fact, it seems that most countries do not follow this practice which means that birthplace may not always be the bst indicator of citizenship. Any opinions on this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * My bad, I should've check this talk page's archives first. I did that and found Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes/Archive 16; so, it seems this has been sufficiently discussed before and a consensus established in favor of the current INFONAT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

INFOBOXETH
I clarified this was intended for bio boxes. Obviously, it's fine to mention ethnicity in anthropological info boxes; Infobox language and Infobox ethnic group have long had 'ethnicity' and 'language' params to link to each other, given the relevance of ethnolinguistic identity to both, and the relevance of the ethnic population when assessing language endangerment. (Often for the ethnicity param we give a population estimate that can be compared to the population estimate for the language.) But was INFOBOXETH intended for more than just bio boxes? I don't want to narrow the restriction to the point that people can use my wording to get around it. — kwami (talk) 00:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Adding a citation to an empty parameter, or a parameter listed as "none"
Can infobox parameters be empty, but also have a citation listed? Or, is "none" appropriate for infoboxes? Requesting additional comments concerning this topic.

The article Tver Oblast infobox lists the parameter anthem as "none." The infobox had a parameter with no content, just a citation. I removed the "citation" (which is more of a comment or footnote at best), and it was reverted by User:Ymblanter because they believe it's useful. Essentially, another user added these "citations" long ago to some Russian oblast infoboxes to explain that an oblast anthem doesn't exist, but is permitted by law. Some oblast infoboxes listed "none" and then the citation, or just the citation. Some pages had these, some didn't. Some pages had actual oblast anthems, like Ulyanovsk Oblast, which entirely makes sense in this case. But for the infoboxes like Vologda Oblast, Volgograd Oblast, and others, while there is no content for the parameter, there is a "citation" which explains why there isn't an anthem.

I have never seen this in any infoboxes on WP, and to illustrate the fact that there could be an anthem, but there isn't, all in the infobox makes no sense. I'm sure this is a violation of MOS:INFOBOX, but as I explained to Ymblanter on their talk page, it's as if one needs to find a policy on adding periods at the end of a sentence. They stand by their ground that this is useful, and that we have differing opinions. To me, if the indication were that notable, then it would probably be worth noting somewhere in the article, but if the word "anthem" isn't even mentioned in the article at all, why would it be useful to understand that an anthem doesn't exist, but could, in the infobox. Seems very trivial to add any parameter to the infobox that isn't notable at all, or for something that doesn't exist. I understand how in some cases, "none" may be appropriate for some infobox parameters, but this doesn't seem like one of these cases.

TLDR, these anthems seem completely improper since the articles don't even mention anything about anthems, and the citations/footnotes are invoking a law explaining that an oblast anthem can exist. I may be in the wrong, but I'm seeking clarification. Thanks! --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In general, either there should be something substantive in a field, or it should be left blank. If nothing else, this avoids clutter. I'd blank these ones. Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree, an infobox is supposed to summarize "key facts" and this is not one. MB 17:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Infobox: mayorships and city councilmemberships
Hello again, seeking more guidance here. Obviously, policies are not all-encompassing, but hoping to get some clarification here. Essentially, looking at the infobox for Jeff Hewitt (politician). Long ago, I read some discussion somewhere that indicated that not all offices are needed for infoboxes, but can't find a policy on that. Is there one? Second, I read some discussion long ago indicating that mayorships (and don't even have to ask about municipal councilmemberships/commissioners) of cities that aren't large at all shouldn't be included in the infobox. Maybe I'm totally in the wrong, but seeking clarification.

To the right is the infobox for Hewitt (note: I scrubbed the personal details for brevity), and I recently removed the mayorship and councilmember offices from the infobox. The creator of the article said that they were verifiable offices and should be included. We had a less than constructive discussion on the talk page and nothing was resolved. Hoping to get some clarification. My rationale for removing the offices (from the infobox only) is that the city of Calimesa barely has 10,000 residents, and therefore a the mayorship (and councilmembership) of the town shouldn't be included in the infobox. Obviously not advocating for the inclusion/exclusion of mayorships unilaterally. Obviously, depending on the municipality (the population, it's notability, etc.) sometimes including those offices in the infobox are appropriate, but I don't think they are here. The offices alone are not notable, but Hewitt obviously is not just some former mayor and he is notable given his other positions.

I am only speaking to the offices pertaining to the city of Calimesa, not the Libertarian Party of the Riverside County offices. Appreciate the input in advance, thanks! --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 02:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Nearly half the article is dedicated to his time on the Calimesa City Council, for which there was national media coverage because of some of the extreme and unusual actions he took. Putting those offices in the infobox therefore serves to summarize that part of the article, per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. There is no rule that minor local offices cannot be put in this template. That is purely a fabrication. I addressed your points on article talk—you are absolutely incorrect about notability. It literally says in the nutshell summary of WP:N: The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article. This is something that a LOT of inexperienced editors try to claim about notability, and it is plain wrong. Maybe I'm totally in the wrong... yes, you are. Don't claim your position is supported by consensus if you're unable/unwilling to provide a link to the relevant discussion. ― Tartan357  Talk 04:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * For the last time, I am not saying in any way, shape or form, that there is nothing wrong with the notability of the subject of the article, but this is now your fifth time saying that now. And for some reason you have decided to sanction me, which is flat out absurd. Sometimes there aren't actual policies or guidelines that govern what we are discussing, as the above section outlines. I have been civil and forthright, but for some reason you still sanction me. I never claimed that my position was supported by consensus. It's not purely fabrication. You do not WP:OWN the article you created. You have refused to address literally anything in the discussion. Please allow other individuals to comment here. Thanks. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 13:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You continue to mention notability, so I will continue to address it. Notability only has to do with whether we have an article or not. There are no other aspects to it. So the only recourse regarding a notability concern is deletion. And you have not been sanctioned. That is false—you were given a standard DS notice. ― Tartan357  Talk 19:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If this were a person who held a federal position, or was governor, lieutenant governor? I'd limit the rest of his state level positions shown, to his mayorship. However, seeing as the highest office he's held was 'mayor', then the lower positions should be added. GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, fair enough, but his highest office held is not mayor. A county office held is higher than a city office held. One could argue (Tartan probably) that being a member of the Libertarian National Committee is his highest held office held. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Um, actually, that's not the case in most states, and certainly not in California. Counties have very little say about what goes on in cities and mayors (and city councils) are not "below" county supervisors. EEng 22:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, as a general rule, when one is elected by a larger electorate, the office is deemed "higher." Especially when we're talking about a mayorship of a city that has 10k people vs a (portion of a) county seat of a county that has 2.2 million people. There is a huge difference there. It's pretty standard for counties to have a larger electorate than a city, but not always.--PerpetuityGrat (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * They're all under the positions of governor, lieutenant governor, state senator, state assemblyman. So, no reason to exclude. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess I missed it, is there a policy that I can refer to for future use? Much appreciated! --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't know if there is a guideline. I just follow the Biden precedent. GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Bolding in non-lead infoboxes
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting § Bolding in non-lead infoboxes. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 09:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Infobox plurality discussion
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § System for handling possibly plural infobox parameters. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 23:40, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

INFONAT
I've noticed a bunch of basketball BLPs that omit country of birth for US subjects and retain the nationality parameter. I've tried looking, but I can't find any guideline or consensus for this. Does anybody know if there's something that I'm missing? Cheers. – 2 . O . Boxing  13:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * As is not that uncommon with some projects, there are editors who have established what they believe is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS for doing it differently. This is against project consensus and makes the infobox less concise than if the country were listed with the rest of the birth place. You can see the history of Ruth Davis (basketball) for an example. I believe this could certainly be challenged per WP:CONLEVEL. MB 14:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at the talk page of WP:Basketball, raised the issue here last month. However, it appears that some project members are requiring a community consensus to override their local consensus of ignoring the community consensus. After reading CONLEVEL (new one for me, thanks), it looks like they've got the process a tad bit backwards. –  2 . O . Boxing  16:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In the discussion linked, besides the fact that I was unnecessarily aggressive, the members of the sports WikiProjects believe that they are interpreting INFONAT correctly because, since the birth country is not listed, the nationality can be listed. The "guideline" they use is a loose set of conclusions by various editors, for example here. Thrakkx (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Speaking as the author of MOS:INFONAT, it was written broadly in consideration of the common/typical biography that has a parameter for birth_place (where the country of birth is specified because it is part of the birth place). The nationality parameter is reserved for special cases such as a person changing and/or having dual nationalities. Looking at infobox basketball biography, it is implemented exactly that way. Not putting the birth country in the birth_place field as an excuse to use nationality certainly goes against the intent of the MOS here. This practice is also potentially confusing. If the infobox says a person is from some city/province and then lists a nationality, is that the birth country or a different country (we can't expect readers to know the country of every city/state/province in the world). In practice, I see that many articles using this template do list the birth county in birth_place for lesser-known places (e.g. Klavs Cavars, Vidas Ginevičius, Toms Leimanis, while commonly omitting it for U.S. and Canadian players. Articles should not use the infobox differently like this. MB 22:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @MB Calling it an excuse is ignoring the history. The guideline change was contrary to WP:PROPOSAL:  Before the MOS change, we had projects that did not duplicate the country when it was consistent with the listed nationality.  However, after the MOS change, we now have editors that blindly add country to the birthplace of "non-compliant" ibxs, sometimes while leaving the nationality in place, causing real redundancy.  See this recent edit at Kareem Abdul Jabbar. —Bagumba (talk) 02:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , what guideline change was contrary to WP:PROPOSAL? If you mean the addition of MOS:INFONAT to MOS:INFOBOX, there was a well-attended RFC on that. Also, as I said above, using nationality (which by implication is the person's current nationality) without stating the country of birth is less precise because the reader may not know in which country the birth place is located. Stating the place of birth, with the country, and using nationality only when needed is more succinct. It usually takes up less space as well, especially when US or UK are used. As far as the redundancy in KAJ, that is just wrong - it clearly doesn't follow MOS:INFONAT either and the redundant nationality should be removed. <b style="color:#034503">MB</b> 04:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Certain projects already listed nationality and didn't repeat an obvious country in birthplace. So requiring country would not reflect an existing overall standard practice.  I'm aware there was an RfC. I commented there.  The close did not mandate placing country in birthplace if it wasn't there:  With that background, please explain what "excuse" you were referring to?—Bagumba (talk) 06:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Some projects use their preference not to include country of birth in birth_place for Americans as an excuse to justify continuing to include nationality despite INFONAT. As noted, that presents a CONLEVEL problem. (And as noted, the cited edit to Jabbar is not consistent with INFONAT anyways). Nikkimaria (talk) 13:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. Keeping the status quo and doing nothing is not an "excuse". That's why WP:PROPOSAL suggests reflecting existing practices, and not changing guidelines to expect someone else to implement massive overhauls. But here we are.—Bagumba (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Editor's have been willing to give the time and effort to make the changes, but they're being reverted and told that their interpretation of INFONAT is incorrect. Hence being here. – 2 . O . Boxing  19:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly. If individuals don't want to make this minor change themselves, no one will force them to. But actively reverting is not "doing nothing". The problem here isn't WP:PROPOSAL, it's the belief that what "certain projects" do is equivalent to "existing overall standard practice". Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * please, don't try to claim that "keeping the status quo" and "doing nothing" are the same. You and others at WikiProject Basketball argue vehemently against any interpretation of INFONAT when it doesn't agree with your own. You systematically revert good faith edits that attempt to align infoboxes with the policy that is available for all to see and is interpreted in the same way, except for WikiProject Basketball. I think this quote from my discussion sums up the behavior of the project members: Thrakkx (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You systematically revert good faith edits...: Per WP:NPA: Feel free to take your concerns to an appropriate noticeboard. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Since you asked:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . These edits encompass the previous 3 years, many on the same articles. You have regularly enforced your interpretation of INFONAT. I'm not looking to punish you on some noticeboard; I'm asking you to stop reverting editors who are aligning infoboxes with established guidelines and practices that (we've already discussed) supersede your local project's consensus. Thrakkx (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I took offense to your use of systematically. As part of BRD, any of us can revert for a good faith reason. In your case, this discussion did not lead to consensus of your interpretation of INFONAT. This current thread, initiated by Squared.Circle.Boxing, does. Apologies if your choice of systematically was not intended to be nefarious, but the timing was odd days after this thread seemed settled and inactive. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 01:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Could someone please link the guideline that requires country to follow City, State (or City, Province)? It seems assumed that this is spelled out in WP:INFONAT, but it is not. Rikster2 (talk) 01:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)\


 * It's not spelled out because guidelines are written to minimize excess wording. I'll spell it out here. The birth_place field is assumed to mean the entire birthplace because that is what it is called and how it is used in virtually all infoboxes. It is not called birth_place_without_county or partial_birthplace. The common understanding of what birthplace means, along with the rest of the language in INFONAT should make it clear that nationality should not be used unless the nationality differs from the country of birth, as specified with birthplace. Actually, that quote does pretty much spell out that the country belongs in birthplace. Please stop trying to exploit a perceived loophole and accept project level consensus. The argument that if the country isn't already in the birthplace, it shouldn't be moved there and nationality can still be used is specious wikilawyering. <b style="color:#034503">MB</b> 03:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need spelling out. The RfC dealt with removing a redundant parameter in the infobox. The consensus was clear: if the nationality is same as the place of birth, the nationality parameter is redundant. Solution? Considering there isn't a conflicting guideline that recommends omitting country of birth in favour of nationality, then we include the country of birth and remove the nationality. Simple really. – 2 . O . Boxing  03:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This edit is just ridiculous and perfectly demonstrates the flawed logic used. You're expecting people to deduce that he was born in America because it says he's American? You do realise there's a fairly well known country called Georgia, right? I think enough is enough. Anybody reverting these edits under the assumption that a community consensus is required to override their local consensus of ignoring the community consensus needs to read CONLEVEL, and drop this particular stick. – 2 . O . Boxing  04:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Could somebody please link the consensus discussion that led to current WP:INFONAT? And, no, MB, you giving your interpretation of something not spelled out in the guideline does not substitute for a guideline giving clear direction. If country is REQUIRED per a guideline (which is how many are editing pages) then the guideline should be explicit about that. The name field doesn't say shortened_name or name_without_middle_name or common_name either, smart guy (I owuld have said "smart ass," but we are being WP:CIVIL, here, right)? Rikster2 (talk) 13:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * INFONAT says the country of birth, as specified with birthplace. That says the country is to be specified in birthplace. For your interpretation to be accurate, it would have to read the country of birth, IF specified with birthplace. The discussion was already linked above by Bagumba. <b style="color:#034503">MB</b> 13:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you please link the guideline that recommends removing country of birth and including nationality? If not, then there's not much else to say. I'm also reverting this, again, for reasons already stated. Was very clearly labelled American before folks started removing nationality and replacing with country in the birthplace field is not an adequate reason to go against INFONAT, nor is it an adequate reason to leave it looking like the subject was a Georgian-born American. – 2 . O . Boxing  14:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Why should we be assuming that the player's nationality is the same as their country of birth? Imagine if Steve Nash's birthplace in his infobox was listed as only "Johannesburg, Gauteng". Does that mean the reader is expected to look at the Canadian nationality marker in Nash's infobox and assume that Gauteng is a Canadian province? There's nothing wrong with listing the country of birth in a player's infobox, because their country of birth may not always match their nationality. Canuck 89 (Converse with me)  07:59, April 17, 2022 (UTC)

I keep seeing editors apparently adding white space, is that appropriate?
For instance here. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 11:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I believe that's a byproduct of them using VisualEditor. —Bagumba (talk) 11:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess that makes sense. Doug Weller  talk 11:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Associated acts without their own Wikipedia article?
I have a concern about including associated acts without their own Wikipedia article in infoboxes. What prompted this is the fact that, right now, TommyInnit has a "Slimecicle" as an associated act, but there is currently no existing article for such a person. I've seen instances of people removing associated acts without their own article, such as those on Cr1TiKaL's, but I can't find any guidelines pertaining to this. What do you people think I should do? L33tm4n (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: This article uses Infobox YouTuber. associated_acts has recently been removed from Infobox musical artist and replaced with several better defined parameters. <b style="color:#034503">MB</b> 01:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I'm asking about including associated acts that don't have their own article. L33tm4n (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I know that. I was just clarifying which infobox this was about because you just said "in infoboxes". This can't apply to infobox musical artist because the parameter has been removed from that one. If this only pertains to Infobox YouTuber, you may want to discuss at the TP there. <b style="color:#034503">MB</b> 22:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you. L33tm4n (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Linking to prefixes in info boxes?
Greetings. Can I ask whether there is any style guideline or policy which concerns linking to prefixes in biographical articles. The reason I ask is that it seems to be the common practise to do so but an editor on the Olivia Newton-John article has removed the info box link to Dame based on the guidelines on not linking to common terms. It doesn't seem obvious to me that "Dame" as a title is a "common term" for many or even most people. Any thoughts about this matter will be appreciated. Thanks, Afterwriting (talk) 10:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I would agree with the other editor. "Dame" seems like a common term and we would be guilty of over-linking to link to it. Bondegezou (talk) 10:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for commenting, but I don't think it is any longer a common term outside of the UK. In American English it has a very different meaning. It seems entirely appropriate to me to link to it as the prefix in an info box (as the vast majority of articles appear to do). Afterwriting (talk) 12:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Is there no guidance on Lead duplication of Infobox ?
Is there no guidance re the relationship of lead and infobox content ??? Both of them are to be summaries of the important items of the topic, but I was surprised nothing is said in either MOS:LEAD or MOS:IB about how they are to get along or a balance of their respective content.

The only guidance I saw in MOS:LEAD for infoboxes was a sidenote in the placement guidance MOS:LEADORDER : " Infoboxes contain summary information or an overview relating to the subject of the article, "

This interest came up from a TALK in Pound sterling noting the article starts with detailing of ISO code, abbreviation, symbols, and compound noun forms. To me this seemed poor narrative of redundant restating the Template:Infobox currency which is immediately alongside the lead. And almost all of the List of circulating currencies seem to start with the same sort of lead. It doesn't seem to be from a guidance of MOS:CURRENCY, or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers, or a TALK in archives...

More than just currencies though, I am surprised there is not something at a general level talking about lead and infobox content... have I missed something ?

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)


 * MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE explains that they are independent, an infobox should generally contain info that is also in the article. The article should be complete even if the infobox is deleted. There are exceptions. That MOS section uses CHEMBOX as an example where the infobox does contain info not in the article. In practice, there are lots of other exceptions - for example, places often contain the street address of a building when it's not in the article. <b style="color:#034503">MB</b> 15:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! This is largely a question -- the redundant contents in lead and infobox for Pound and other currency articles right next to each other looked odd and made a poor narrative flow, but I simply found no guidance about how the content of the two 'summaries' should relate.  I do like the MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE line saying "where a piece of key specialised information is difficult to integrate into the body text, but where that information may be placed in the infobox".   It mentions the ISO code for linguistics and the parameters of Chembox, and I note astronomical data Infoboxes for such as Sirius and Ceres (dwarf planet) are further examples of that.  Could wish for more along about such though -- perhaps MOS:LEAD should also say more about non-narrative items such as infoboxes and images.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)