Wikipedia talk:Persondata/Archive 5

Schema.org microdata
I'd like to propose and take a reading on having the table template also include the schema.org/Person microdata chunks in with the table itself.

The changes required would be simple addition microdata snippet to each of the existing   tags (keeping the existing table as-is), thusly:

This is very low-overhead to implement and serve, but immediately makes the existing data table much more palatable to search engines. I know there are other wiki* projects who are sucking this data out and processing it separately; but in this case it allows a very-low-overhead argumentation of the existing display format without requiring a massive make-over. —Sladen (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC) (Instead of just "name";   and could probably be used if the position of the comma can be parsed, but that's secondary and would require more effort, and in danger of taking to make additions, rather than just annotating what's already there).

Articles about multiple people
What to do in articles about multiple people? GregorB (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting one, that - as I see it, articles about the separate people might be fine for persondata, but articles about the group as a whole (such as bands) are not really suitable. In the ideal world we'd have one article per person, but as that doesn't always happen and as multi-biographies leave me exceptionally confused, I'd be interested to hear some answers on how to proceed.
 * One of the more recent suggestions I heard was to have multiple templates on one page (one template per person) - on dual biographies this is fine, but when three or more come into the picture that can start getting weird. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It gets even more confusing one one person is dead and the other is living... this goes onto tracking pages, causing confusion and having living person category along with a death date category on a page gets real fun. I don't think there is a good solution out there.  At the moment, I don't add persondata to the page and if I find it, I delete it. Bgwhite (talk) 06:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I do the same, I just hit the Remove button on these. Dcoetzee 08:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Articles about groups are definitely unsuitable, but there are cases in which individual people are clearly enumerated in the title (say, Laurel and Hardy). So we have the following options:
 * Remove persondata altogether (definitely the cleanest option).
 * Provide only the parameters that make sense (Laurel and Hardy is a good example: only NAME and SHORT DESCRIPTION are provided).
 * List all values (all respective dates of birth, etc.) - obviously not really an option, since the template is not designed for multiple values.
 * Insert multiple persondata templates - is this possible at the moment?
 * Note that some of these problems are also applicable to categories. No clear solutions there. GregorB (talk) 12:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My suggestion would be to treat Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy as articles about people with the Persondata template and person categories, and treat Laurel and Hardy as a performing group (like a band) with no Persondata template and no person categories. However, this doesn't resolve the issue for articles about multiple people where the individuals don't have (need?) their own article.  GoingBatty (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In that latter case, there's usually a redirect, and that's where the categories (might) go. Some people frown at this, and there's a case against putting persondata in redirect pages (even if it makes sense, in a way). So, I guess that for the time being it's probably best to restrict persondata to biographies of individuals. GregorB (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It's absolutely fine to leave multiple persondata templates. There are no categories except to help fill in the template where stuff is missed out. Perondata's only function is to provide metadata to agents, and as such it should do what they want, which, at the moment, we do not know. Rich Farmbrough, 21:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC).

Updating WP:NAMESORT
I'm trying to update WP:NAMESORT, the guideline on how to sort people's names. I'm trying to reference why something is done and give help for names in certain areas or countries. Your comments are needed at: Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people. Bgwhite (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Specific place of death?
If Lady Gaga died while touring the Eiffel Tower, would Place of death be listed as Paris, France or as the Eiffel Tower?Naraht (talk) 15:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Listing it as "Paris, France" is probably easiest - the guidelines on birth/death places recommend against being too specific. (No comment on the hypothetical scenario.) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 15:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank You.Naraht (talk) 16:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Alignment with Nav boxes
When both template types are used in an article, the top border for the Persondata box directly abuts the bottom border of a Nav box and presents poorly. See Helen Sobel Smith. This can be corrected by adding two lines of space (why two is a mystery to me) between the templates but this seems an indirect way to correct. Can the Persondata template be edited to provide some separation between it and a preceding Nav box? Thanks. Newwhist (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Diacritics, special characters
I see in the archive that this question was already asked, but not answered, so I repeat the question posed by PeeJay2K3 there: "is it appropriate for letters with diacritics to be used with Template:Persondata? Or, to put it another way, is there any reason why diacritics should not be used?" - I noticed that in most instances, people apparently tried to avoid diacritics in persondata, e.g. Alf-Jørgen Aas (PD: "Aas, Alf-Joergen"), Chérif Abdeslam (PD: "Abdeslam, Cherif"), or Johann Friedrich Höger (PD: "Hoger, Johann Friedrich"), this seems to be the standard approach. But on the other hand I can't see a good reason to omit diacritics. For the name in persondata is constructed like a heading in library catalogues and should, I think, be as close as possible to an internationally accepted standard form, which usually includes the diacritics. This is a case different from the "defaultsort" for categories, where diacritics are omitted for correct sorting - yet the "NAME" field in persondata is not a sorting field but intended for automated extraction of basic data about a person, of which correct spelling of the person's name is an important element. Just leaving the diacritics out (often resulting in plain incorrect spelling like "Hoger" for "Höger" - the alternative German spelling to "Höger", if no umlaut is available, would be "Hoeger", not "Hoger") lessens the quality of data. The German Wikipedia, for instance, never omits diacritics in their persondata. Regarding automated processing and display of persondata, there is e.g. the "Wikipedia-Personensuche" based on German Wikipedia's persondata, it generates person information pages like this one for said Fritz Höger. I'd say that, if there are concerns regarding sorting, I would rather add an aditional sort field to persondata (like the categories' "defaultsort") instead of mangling the names. Gestumblindi (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My guess is some of this is due to AutoWikiBrowser's general fixes:
 * Removes accents/diacritics in tags and category sort keys so that sorting is alphabetical, not ASCIIbetical per WP:SORTKEY (English Wikipedia only)
 * Sets persondata name using the article's existing DEFAULTSORT.
 * I'll post a link on the AWB talk page asking folks to join this conversation. GoingBatty (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, AWB is generally the one to "blame" for the diacritics. If the NAME field is not going to be used for sorting, then I personally think diacritics should be included.

particles and prefixes

 * There is also the case of particles or prefixes. Otto von Bismarck is sorted "Bismark, Otto von", but his last name is von Bismark.  So, the NAME field would be "von Bismark, Otto".  AWB is partially at fault for this, but people do the same thing.  I don't think it is possible to code this up as how one uses a particle to sort and as a surname depends on where and when a person was born.  If I see it, I have been manually changing it.  Bgwhite (talk) 06:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, no, in fact "Bismarck, Otto von" is correct in the NAME field, please see Persondata. Whether to use "ABC, XYZ von" or "von ABC, XYZ" depends on the country. Usually, you would use "von ABC" for an American (of German descent), but "von" at the end for Germans (living in Germany), see also the quite usable cataloguing rules for that (AACR2, IFLA "Names of Persons"). Gestumblindi (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You are misinterpreting it. It says to use the person's surname, but when in doubt, do as you would alphabetize it.  Both in Germany, US and the rest of the world, sorting/cataloguing it would be "Bismark, Otto von", but the surname is "von Bismark".  IFLA's guide, located here, says the same thing (pages 75—76) as does the Library of congress.  U.S. phone books would also sort on Bismark.  The German standard DIN 5007-2 differs from others on when to use the particles vom, zur, am, zur as part of the sort value, but this is applied inconsistently (German phone books can vary for example).  See my post above about updating WP:NAMESORT.  The updated guidelines are currently at User:Bgwhite/Sandbox.  Comments are needed.  Bgwhite (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that you are the one misinterpreting here. The NAME field should either be constructed like a heading in a library catalogue, and then it would be "Bismarck, Otto von", or without any attempt at constructing a heading at all, I think - then it would be "Otto von Bismarck". But as the NAME field currently follows the "heading" approach, diacritics as well as the correct order of elements should be observed. Your LoC link, by the way, doesn't work, did you mean Bismarck, Otto, Fürst von, 1815-1898? "Von Bismarck, Otto" in any case would be wrong. On the other hand, it's "Von Stroheim, Erich", not "Stroheim, Erich von", because Von Stroheim lived and worked in the U.S. (and in this particular case just invented his "Von", but this is beside the point). There can be no catch-all rule for such particles, it really depends on the country, as the IFLA guidelines clearly point out. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Exact wording is "...the |NAME= field, in the following format: Family Name, Given Name Middle Names, title". It never says like a library catalogue, "heading", or anything at all.  Just that it should be in the format above, but when in doubt, do as you would alphabetize it.  Be careful with "Von" and "von" as that is two different things.  A capitalized prefix usually is part of the search order and lower case is not.  I don't know where you get that the U.S. sorts with von first.  In my phone book, Chicago Manual of Style, New York Times, AACR2 and Library of Congress they all would say "Stroheim, Erich von". Erich von Stroheim  is a bad example as he is known by both Von and von, so it gets confusing.  Library of Congress has his name with "Von"... "Von Stroheim, Erich" with "Stroheim, Erich von" as a variant.   (Reminds me that I need to add Sunset Boulevard to my queue) Don't add any more here.  Take this to Wikipedia_talk:Categorization_of_people.  Your comments on the updated WP:NAMESORT would be very welcome, especially what is written on prefixes.  Bgwhite (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well... I'm answering here in order to keep this discussion in one place, and it's still about persondata, not about categorization.In my phone book, Chicago Manual of Style, New York Times, AACR2 and Library of Congress they all would say "Stroheim, Erich von" - I don't know your phone book, but the Library of Congress, following AACR2, very clearly sorts "Von Stroheim, Erich", see their entry, as they do with all Americans with a "Von". As you note yourself, later. Of course, library catalogues / authority databases always give entry variants (similar to redirects in the WP), but the heading is the correct one. You are, however, basically right in saying "A capitalized prefix usually is part of the search order and lower case is not", as Americans of German descent tend to capitalize particles like "von" after a while, and making it part of the family name, according to American custom. Still, Americans with a "von" are never sorted like Bismarck, and Germans living in Germany with a "von" are never sorted like Von Stroheim. This is in fact a rather easy rule, and one followed by most libraries. Gestumblindi (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The correct German usage for "von" (and Dutch for "van" and French or English for "de") is probably that it should be lower case. Whether the defaultsort should be at "v" (or "d") is not clear to me in respect of natives.  However, in England and America (not understandiugn that it means "of" "from" (or something of the sort), we treat it as part of the surname.  Accordingly an English or American resident should probably be under v (or d).  For those still in Germany (or the Netherlands or France) we should probably follow native practice.  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's basically what I say and what libraries around the world say :-). "Native practice" in this case being "Bismarck, Otto von". Gestumblindi (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Back to original question
I think to find the correct answer we should make the correct question: Where is Persondata used? I think the discussion won't conclude anything if we don't see who really uses Persondata. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good question. That would clear up alot of things on all the parameters. Bgwhite (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The question was about diactiticals and special characters. Personal data includes the Defaultsort item, though in my view, it would be better if that were kept as a separate item: less sophisticated users are inclined to think that there is no defaultsort (which is vital for a biography) and add one.  The question is whether å ä and ö should be treated as separate letter at the end of the alphabet (as in Swedish) or in some way shown in the list of a and o.  Since this is the English WP, I presume that we treat them as a and e.  I am not clear how defaultsort would treat a name with a diacritical on it.  If all the é items appeared after the e items, those not familiar with the convention might fail to find them, for example in a category.  Perhaps the answer to the problem is to ask another - how is defaultsort programmed to sort items.  It is effectively treating letters with diacriticals as separate letters, coming after the unaccented version, perhpas we need to ask for the software to be changed, so that it ignores diacriticals.  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The sorting of the same letter with diacritics varies also in different languages, e.g. the ä you mention is indeed treated as separate letter at the end of the alphabet in Swedish. In German, however, the "Umlauts" ä, ö, and ü, don't count as individual letters but as variants of a, o, and u, and e.g. ä is therefore traditionally sorted either with "a" or as if it were spelt "ae". But really it's not that much about sorting here, I think. It seems to me that names in the NAME field should use the correct spelling (with diacritics), with a separate solution for sorting, if needed. Gestumblindi (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is: We can only assume how Personata will be used. Is it going to be used for creating lists somewhere so we need to copy Defaultsort? Is it going to be used to displaying names directly from meta and in this case we will need the original name (i.e. the pagename)? Is persondats the only way to obtain meta info from a page? -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Persondata originally started on the German Wikipedia. Their page is here. (translated version).  They give alot of examples on the right way and wrong way to enter things.
 * 1) Name field. It contains how the person is known.  It is listed how the name is sorted with diacritics and special characters.
 * 2) Date fields. Dates are spelled out... April 27, 1980 and not 1980-04-27.
 * 3) Alternate Name. Among the things listed was that it contains the real name of the person if the Name field contained a pseudonym.
 * Maybe update the English persondata page so it is consistent with the German one? Bgwhite (talk) 11:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If persondata will be used to obtain databases then using ISO format for dates would make more sense. Diacritics are OK if you are discussing only Germany names. I am not sure we can fix any certain rule. Moreover, I wonder why we can't use Infoboxes to obtain meta info. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Between the hCard microformat and the push for standardised fields, you probably can. The only barriers to doing so is that we're often told not to add infoboxes to very short articles, plus there are lots of infobox templates and only one template for persondata. (Of course, you could send a bot/AWB to add the generic infobox person to every bio, but that leaves a big clean-up job for people who want to switch to more specific templates, and I'm not sure you'd get consensus to proceed.) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am aware of these problems but I am confident that Infobox standardisation will move forward. :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, people have removed infoboxes form my stubs, meaning someone will have to replace them later. Simple and forward looking is the ticket, but that seems to much of a challenge.
 * The answer to the original question is "Yes, definitely diacriticals should be used." There is no point merely replicating defaultsort. And indeed I share the concern that we are overegging the pudding with cats, text, defaultsort, persondata, infoboxes, article titles, microformats and main text. And indeed there is dbpedia which specialises in this stuff. Rich Farmbrough, 01:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 30#Template:Persondata
I have listed Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 30. Please read both options and my reasoning before condemning it :-) Fram (talk) 10:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Unique Identifiers
I have created WikiProject Unique Identifiers for discussion and coordination of all UID related matters. Please join! Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Village Pump
There is a discussion at Village Pump idea lab about lowering the short description parameter backlog. BCS  (Talk) 03:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is now at the proposals pump. Comment on it (or don't) at your leisure. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Links in persondata?
Some articles, like, feature persondata containing links like " Ottawa, ON, CAN ". This seems very strange to me, considering that persondata is invisible and does not create actual links that people can click on. My intuition is that links in persondata are a bad idea, as it's supposed to be plaintext data. If this is the case, I could modify Persondata-o-matic to automatically remove these links (replacing them with the name of the linked article, subject to review by the user). Thoughts? Dcoetzee 20:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on plain links, but I have issues with piped links like the ones above and actually do remove those on sight. Often they're used when linking historical names of places such as Saint Petersburg which was previously known as Leningrad and Petrograd (in these cases I use the name as it was when the person was born/died for historical context), or in abbreviations like the ones above (these really should be changed to plain text.) Overall, I'm not that bothered but would appreciate a straight consensus one way or the other. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If there's consensus to not used piped links, could you please add it to Persondata? We could then get a bot to remove the existing piped links, and ask the AWB developers to change AWB so it doesn't add piped links in the future.  Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 03:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Currently, Persondata says: These fields can possibly be extended in the future, and currently it isn't necessary to provide wikilinks in them; however, these might be useful in some future application, so feel free to add them to locations if you wish. I think that's reasonable, but I agree that piped links aren't necessary. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess wikilink syntax might be useful if the template is made to recognize these or external parsers one day become smart enough to recognize these as Wikipedia articles. I guess we can keep them for this reason. But piped links are pointless, they don't add anything as this is machine-readable data and machines don't need "prettification". — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Uses of Persondata
What uses are being made of the Persondata? I grok the theoretical uses, but are any practical uses being made of it that we know of? Do we keep a catalogue of uses of persondata anywhere? thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * DBpedia uses it. Bgwhite (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

People only?
Is this data to be entered for people only, or is it appropriate for any biographical article? I'm (slowly) working my way through those flagged for the WP:BIRDS project, and have just come across an article for a named penguin (mascot of the Norwegian Royal Guard). Should there be any persondata entry for this article, or should I remove it? MeegsC | Talk 12:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, people only. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! MeegsC | Talk 14:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI - a bot running AWB added the Persondata template to Nils Olav in this edit (and will likely do so again) because the article uses Infobox military person, which also may not appropriate for a penguin. Good luck!  GoingBatty (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be the only article to do so, however. Unfortunately, the creation of "infobox military animal" doesn't seem like a good idea. Would commenting out the persondata template stop bots/AWB adding it, or does some sort of exception need to be programmed in? 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it would be possible for the logic to ignore articles with the category Military animals. I would suggest that might be a good start. Kumioko (talk) 23:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Exception added. Rjwilmsi  06:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

did she have a friend in her club i.e. edward th 8th who was ushered out by police and then spared a term in prison!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.163.122 (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Script
Isn't (or wasn't) there anywhere a script to easily add (or modify) the persondata parameters on an article? mabdul 22:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Was it Persondata-o-matic? Bgwhite (talk) 00:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I'm talking about a JS script, not an independent application. mabdul 00:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Darn. I can only think of JS that shows some information, but not edit.  Sorry.  Bgwhite (talk) 05:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Whats the point?
Whats the point of the Persondata template? I'm writing a script using the wikipedia api to gather information about some people. I am using the Persondata section to gather some of that information but there are many inconstancies that make this section less useful for my particular task. For example the dates listed, from a human readable viewpoint, spelling everything out as noted above is great, from a data usability standpoint not so much. There should be a choice for a single calendar format and a single data entry format. I would personally suggest `YYYY-MM-DD`. On a side note, I would recommend adding GENDER as a field to the template.

For the location I would not use links to pages but rather just a single formate of information, COUNTRY, REGION, CITY, for example. Persondata isn't visible on the page so I assume its meant to provide information in a structured format for scripting purposes - that only works well if the formats are readable by scripts, easily. Along those same lines I would split NAME to be FIRST NAME, MIDDLE NAME, LAST NAME, NAME SUFFIX.

If the point isn't for data access, then what is it?

(Jzaun (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC))

Cleanup lists
I'm not sure if you know, but the huge Category:Persondata templates without short description parameter is tracked as a cleanup category in the weekly Cleanup List by Project lists generated at the toolserver. Very useful if you want to stick to a topic, or region for your short description adding work. However, I don't think it belongs, so I've asked for it to be removed from the cleanup list, but recreated in a standalone MaintenanceListing list, along with the Category:Persondata templates without name parameter. So, keep an eye on User talk:Svick/WikiProject cleanup listing if you enjoy cleanup tasks, and contribute there if you have an opinion on the lists. The-Pope (talk) 12:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Articles not being removed from hidden category
Aurélie Védy, Poojashree Venkatesha and Jair-Rôhm Parker Wells appear in Category:Persondata templates without name parameter despite having the name parameter filled in. Is there something wrong in the articles? Thanks. 130.88.141.34 (talk) 13:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sometimes, for whatever reason, an article will/won't show up in a tracking category. A null edit (saving a page without changing anything) usually will fix this.  In persondata's case, removing the persondata in the article and then retyping (not copying) will fix the situation. I did it in Parker Well's case.  Bgwhite (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The tracking category is no longer listed on Jair-Rôhm Parker Wells - thanks to whomever fixed it. GoingBatty (talk) 03:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. Someone has gone through and fixed them now. 130.88.141.34 (talk) 14:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikilinking in Persondata
I have run across a number of articles in which there are wikilinks (e.g., to place of birth) within this template. Is that correct? It seems to me that since the purpose of Persondata is to be machine readable—not human readable, that there should not be wikilinks within the template. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 18:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * FWIW, none of the examples at WP:Persondata or Persondata use links in the fields.--ukexpat (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Persondata says "Although you can link to locations if you wish, avoid using piped links as they clutter the field." GoingBatty (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the replies. It appears to me that wikilinking is rather pointless because the links are not meant to be seen by people, and it will just clutter things up if someone later comes up with a scheme for parsing these things by computer. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 03:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Also note that Persondata states "These fields can possibly be extended in the future, and currently it isn't necessary to provide wikilinks in them; however, these might be useful in some future application, so feel free to add them to locations if you wish." Who knows what the future will hold?  GoingBatty (talk) 04:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Are there any rule to use britsh or american norm for Dates of birth and death in persondata?
Regarding to a very small "edit war" (1) I want to know: where can I read this rule (named by Manxwoman? I'm not a native speaker (English), please answer with short sentences! :-) Many thanks! --Kettentaucher (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Project page says "Follow the Manual of Style guidelines on whether to use DD Month YYYY format or the Month DD, YYYY style ...". The MOS guidelines state that all dates in an article should be in the same format, so if the date format of the article is day first so should the persondata entry. Similarly for month first dates the persondata should be month first. I am ignoring the caveats about reference sections in the MOS. Keith D (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with Keith D. I'll try to write a short version of the American vs. British date format rule. If the article is about an American person or place, use the American format. If it is about an English-speaking place that mostly uses the British format, or a person from such a place, like Australia, Ireland or England, use the British format. If it is about a non-English speaking place like France, or a subject that is not connected to any location, like algebra, use the format chosen by the first Wikipedia editor who made a choice. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Do style guidelines cover such a thing? It isn't visible nor does it affect the reader experience in another way, afaik. Evidently persondata users (outside computers, i understand) need to handle numerous formats. -P64

What about completed templates such as birth date and birth date and age in Persondata fields? I replaced several of those during the last month. If they are considered destructive it may be useful to find them automatically. I infer they originate by copy and paste from infobox person, along with linked and piped location data. --P64 (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I see no reason why Persondata, which is invisible, needs to follow the "Manual of Style". However, it is addressed in the Archive 3 under "Year-only dates". In the past it was customary to link every date or part of a date in sight; more recently we've decided this was a very bad idea indeed. The Persondata documentation was revised to indicate the "Manual of Style" should be followed, which had the benefit of eliminating wikilinks to dates. Following British or American date format was a side-effect. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No templates should be in any persondata field. Remove them if you find them. Bgwhite (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)