Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 39

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Linking "Nationality"

Would anyone object linking the "Nationality" field name to Nationality to clarify this field is for a legal status and not an ethnicity, and so people can hopefully be more educated about the difference between legal nationality and legal citizenship? -- Beland (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

That's a MOS:FORCELINK clarification. Most readers will anyways not click such a basic term—in an infobox header no less—and dictionaries anyhow have alternative definitions like an ethnic group constituting one element of a larger unit (such as a nation)[1] Still, readers will know Wikipedia's convention for the field, if it is consistent. If editors are the target, Template:Infobox person/doc already states that ethnicity does not belong in this field. —Bagumba (talk) 03:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Bagumba: I'm not sure which part of MOS:FORCELINK you are referring to, exactly, or what you're taking away from it? The advice there seems more applicable to article prose; in an infobox, we can't replace the link with an explanation of the meaning or an alternative term (as far as I know, this is the correct term for what it is). It's true the vast majority of readers will not click on the link, but readers who are confused about the meaning or who get angry about it and are about to write us an angry letter are a lot more likely to do so. I'm afraid readers will actually not be familiar with the meaning of this field, because for most biographies, it's omitted per MOS:INFONAT. -- Beland (talk) 03:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. My point is that readers already have some idea of what Nationality means, even if it's differnent from WP's ibx conventions, and the nuance will not be conveyed merely by linking Nationality. I understand it's a loaded term. If a distinction truly needs to be addressed (no current opinion), perhaps an explanatory footnote is a compromise. —Bagumba (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Hmm, I was being cautious about not making too intrusive a change, but you're probably right a link is perhaps too small a change to clarify that this is not an ethnicity. A footnote is a good idea, but it might take a fair amount of work to make it show up in the right place across all the affected articles. We could change the field name itself, to something like "Legal nationality" or "Nationality (legal)"? I still think a link would be helpful for the curious, and it doesn't sound like it would have a down side? -- Beland (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

As it doesn't address the original stated issue, adding a link is extraneous. Every reader has access to the search box, so the curious few can enter "Nationality". There's also the guideline MOS:LEADLINK—Too many links can make the lead hard to read, or at least devalues the more essential links. —Bagumba (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Bagumba: This is for an infobox, not the lead. The lead is written in prose, whereas the infobox is in a key-value format, where I think links on the keys are actually generally helpful because there's usually no room to put anything other than the key name.

In any case, since you want more than just a link to address the original problem, what about "Nationality (legal)" without a link? -- Beland (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Beland: The infobox is an element of the lead (MOS:LEADELEMENTS). In any case, since you want more than just a link to address the original problem: I have not stated that. I've only said that the proposed link doesn't resolve the concern. As for "(legal)", I don't think it would be an improvement to invite editors to highlight additional nationalites that some people technically have, but which are not part of their notability. —Bagumba (talk) 04:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Presumably folks with Wikipedia biographies are notable for something other than their nationality? Isn't that what this field is for, to document legal nationalities that are unexpected, since the guidelines say if it's obvious from the birth country not to list it? -- Beland (talk) 05:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

An example would be someone born on a U.S. military base in Germany, who is notable only as an American, but also acquired Italian citizenship by descent through their grandparents in their later life. —Bagumba (talk) 05:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like an interesting fact which would be neat to add to an infobox. If we're worried about people abusing the field, it seems like it would be much more likely for people to put ethnicity here, given that's what most people think nationality means if it doesn't mean citizenship. -- Beland (talk) 07:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Update: After going through thousands of biography infoboxes, it appears that editors regularly put ethnicity into the "nationality" field, in violation of WP:INFONAT. I've started a discussion on abolishing or disfavoring or changing this field. Please add your thoughts at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Abolishing or disfavoring the "nationality" field. -- Beland (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Add "burial date" parameter

Please add a "burial date" parameter, since there is a "burial place" parameter. 2606:8700:A:2:8136:3331:CEB:FD6C (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the death date is sufficient. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 17:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Just sounds like trivia and clutter to me. The infobox is only meant to summarise the most important facts of someone's life. Edwardx (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

|interment= would be far from trivial for the individuals whose dates of death are unknown due to being kidnapped and murdered, lost, or held hostage. For those people and their families do you think they consider the date of interment “trivia” or the only thing they have? Think before you write something so ignorant. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 09:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

|Interment= would be a very nice addition to the infobox parameters! :) I think that what a lot of people on here who think date of death is sufficient don’t understand is that some people aren’t so lucky to know the date their loved one died. If we have parameters for when someone went missing.. I think haven’t a parameter for interment would be a very nice addition that would validate the experiences of many people. Would you be alright with me starting an official discussion on this for editors to take a vote? 4theloveofallthings (talk) 09:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@4theloveofallthings, if I may, this is an encyclopedia, not a memorial service. We reflect the aspects of topics as presented in the body of reliable sources, and we don't make presentation changes based on what we personally think would be redemptive or endearing.Remsense诉 09:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

If I may, you are misunderstanding me. I am not saying we have a duty to make the subjects families feel seen. I am saying that those who have been through similar situations and had family members meet similar fates to that of notable subjects would see the interment parameter and it would feel wildly more accurate and in line with what had happened — that perhaps as a side effect they may feel seen. We certainly shouldn’t make it our aim to do things to make people feel seen, but when the inclusion of something as important as someone’s interment just so happens to validate the real life experiences of others, that’s always nice.

You know, as opposed to calling it trivia just because you live your life through your lens and your lens alone. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

But we don't write Wikipedia articles for the benefit of surviving relatives? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

sigh Please read what I wrote again. I said my initial comment was saying that it would be a nice side effect of including a parameter that would be factually accurate. Forget about the happy feelings of the living now, as it was just a comment. For the subjects of the articles that would use this parameter, don’t you think that their date of interment is a wildly important fact about them? Being the very last thing that happened to them in their life? On a level of importance it’s up there with their birth. Don’t you think? 4theloveofallthings (talk) 10:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, we're concerned with reflecting what sources have to say, not putting forth what we have to say. No, I do not think it is as important as birth or date of death most of the time. Remsense诉 10:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

No, sorry, I don't think that. I think date of funeral/memorial event is far more significant. What on earth do you mean "the very last thing that happened to them in their life"?? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Some would consider the interment of a human being to the earth to be the very last thing that happens to them in their life, meaning before eternal life. For Christian denominations, the Christian burial is considered sacred. In MANY cultures, the interment of a human body to the earth is sacred and important. Just because it is not to you does not mean it is not to others. Your profound oversight on that point is jarring to me. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 10:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles need to accommodate all faiths and none. Not sure that your comment about my "profound oversight" is useful here. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I think most Christians believe that the transition from mortal life to eternal life is instantaneous and that there is no "limbo period" which is terminated only by burial. That's not to say that Christian burial is not also seen as a sacred act. Other faiths seem to put much more emphasis in ensuring that burial occurs within a given time after death. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Could you take a shot at explaining the lack of this information in comparably prominent positions in the layout of biographies within other encyclopedias? Remsense诉 13:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Would one need to assess the relative importance of date of burial between those of different religious faiths? Would this, in turn, necessitate some kind of assessment, on the part of the editor, of the religious beliefs of the deceased at the time of death? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I am an atheist for the record. I am just capable of seeing things from outside of my world view. :) 4theloveofallthings (talk) 10:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Is a date of burial equally significant to atheists as to Christians? How can you tell? Or does its significance transcend matters of religious faith? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

As OP pointed out, there is a burial place parameter but no burial date parameter. It’s just pointlessly excluded. We have birthplace and date of birth. We have death date and place of death. Why burial location without the date of burial? The argumentagainst it is what seems pointless to me, not the inclusion of a burial date. Hah 4theloveofallthings (talk) 10:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I didn't call it trivia, I just don't think it's usually reflected prominently enough in sources about a subject to have a parameter added for the infobox. Obviously it's very relevant for some subjects, but I can't think of any class of subjects large enough to make this a net positive addition, where the benefit outweighs the misuse of it where it would be trivia or worse. There's a whole rest of the article for us to include such things, you know. Remsense诉 10:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Edwardxdid in a reply before but I don’t see him getting chastised in the same way that I am for simply agreeing with OP that the inclusion of |interment= would be nice. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 10:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

“This is an encyclopedia not a memorial service!” Lol okay.. explain this. I’ll wait. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

That is a Wikipedia: space page, which is not part of the encyclopedia. The changes you are proposing are to mainspace, which is part of the encyclopedia. TSP (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I apologize that I was apparently uncivil enough to make you feel it was worth posting an inane "gotcha" regarding the little candle i put on my user page for my dead friend. Remsense诉 04:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC) Struck in appreciation for the apology below. Remsense诉 07:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@4theloveofallthings, I can see the possibility of some value, when date of death was not known. How would |Interment= fit with "funeral" or "cremation"? Which is the more significant event? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The reason why |interment= would be better than |burial= as OP suggested is that interment can cover both burial and the spreading of one’s ashes. It could also be used to refer to sky and tree burials. It just means the returning of one’s remains to nature and the earth. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 10:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

There is also a difference between spreading of ashes and interment of ashes. I suspect that, for many people, the dates of these events are never made public, unlike those for cremation/ funeral. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Editors on here act as if adding a parameter takes up precious space. Parameters don’t take up any space and are only visible when explicitly type in by an editor writing an article. There is no dropdown selection of parameters that will now become cluttered with the inclusion of a new parameter, and in case you weren’t aware Wikipedia does not have finite space. You all just love to argue. Well you have fun! Haha 4theloveofallthings (talk) 10:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

It's just us other editors who "love to argue", yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Certainly not, dear Martinevans123! Lots of people love to argue. However, yes, I am referring to editors on Wikipedia because it would seem a bit irrelevant to mention the tendencies of others when speaking about arguments pertaining to Wikipedia edits, don’t you agree? Lmao. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Hope your ass recovers. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

This is not true: the existence of a parameter in itself makes editors like to use it, and blank templates are often pasted on to new pages, incentivizing other editors to come along and fill in the gaps. You asked whether it would be a good idea, and we're telling you why we don't think it is. Good grief. Remsense诉 10:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I guess the template advice might say something like: "Do not use if date of death is known"? But yes, you're right, some editors are wholly unware of template advice and will just try to fill up all the parameters. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Have any of you who are making pointless arguments against the parameter even taken the time to look at OP’s contributions? They were editing the article for Georgiy Gongadze, a “Georgian-Ukrainian journalist and film director who was kidnapped and murdered in 2000 near Kyiv”. Now take a step back and reevaluate OP’s intentions as opposed to your own. OP’s seem very genuine and sincere, providing invaluable insight into an oversight on the part of template editors. Now, take a moment to consider YOUR intentions. Do you just love to argue and be right? If so, good for you! Enjoy asserting your perceived moral and intellectual authority over individuals trying to contribute to Wikipedia, and then don’t forget to question why the rate of new editors is on a rapid decline - threatening the very site you hold your imagined authority over. Because your inability to connect those dots is incredible to me, and I love to witness a good display of idiocy. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

So your arguments here are good ones, and everyone else's are "pointless", yes? Because we are idiots? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@4theloveofallthings: as it happens I agree with you on the overall point, but you are very far from helping your cause here. Please avoid personal attacks, assume good faith, take a deep breath, stick to encyclopedic arguments in your comments, and maybe step away from this subject for a bit if you are struggling to be involved unemotionally. Wikipedia:Beware of the tigers may be relevant here. TSP (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@TSP you’re right. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 07:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123I do apologize sincerely for being a hothead.

I am so sorry.. but I feel the overwhelming urge to respond, that it is quite possible for one to put on a display of idiocy without being an idiot... but that was entirely unnecessary to add to this thread.

But I did it anyway! /lh

Sorry again about the hotheadedness. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 07:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, 4theloveofallthings, for apologizing, which remains a rarity across Wikipedia. It's easy to get carried away when one feels passionate about something. Time to move on, perhaps. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that not everyone chooses burial, I don't see why anything like this belongs in an infobox. The article body allows information to be added with flexibility available to fit the particular person/situation. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Should burial_date be added as a parameter?

With the |birth_place= parameter having the corresponding |birth_date= parameter and the |death_place= parameter having the corresponding |death_date= parameter, do you agree to have the |burial_place= parameter given the corresponding |burial_date= parameter? 4theloveofallthings (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• Yes - because without it there is a lack of uniformity. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
• No. This is an interesting, well-meaning idea, but information in the infobox should reflect lead-level weighting. The day a person died is significantly more important than the day they were buried, which can be covered in the death section of the body. |burial_place= is significant because it's where people would go to see the grave, but the burial date has only historical significance, and just not enough of it to justify infobox bloat. Sdkb ^talk 16:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  I would go further, and say that, except in very rare cases, the burial place is not a lead-level fact. — HTGS (talk) 03:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  Karl Marx. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe that other Russian guy? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  Technically inaccurate as neither of them was, but point taken. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• Question: is there a policy for everything in the infobox should be lead-level weighting or is that an opinion? It's not what I see in practice. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 11:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  Education and Alma mater don't usually appear in lead sections, do they? And place of death is often not included? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  @FieldMarine, see the link in my comment above. It's part of the guideline. Sdkb ^talk 03:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  It is a dominant practice, when adding infoboxes, to fill every field... like a farmer before crop rotation. That doesn't mean it's a good practice. Because so many people act this way, the response from others in discussions like this is to remove fields if they could appear too tempting. In cases like this, where it is difficult to even imagine a bio needing burial date, that is probably the appropriate response. — HTGS (talk) 05:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• Yes for consistency with parameters for related information. Whether it should be used or not is an editorial decision to be made on each article, not one that should be forced by a centralized coding decision. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
• Not as proposed. The date of burial does not have the same relation to place of burial as birth date and place have. Furthermore, the asymmetry is amplified by the cultural jingoism of a burial date as opposed to a generic internment date. The only reason why such a date would be germane is in the case of a person whose date of death is unknown. If we had an internment_date= parameter that only functioned when death_date= was unspecified, there might be an argument worth supporting there. But burial_date is just not up to snuff neither as a parameter name nor as an unconditionally displayed value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanisaac (talk • contribs) 18:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
• Cautious yes though with some caution on exact format. This is useful where we don't have a death date - both cases like murders, and historical cultures where burial dates rather than death dates were recorded (e.g. I'm pretty sure we don't actually know Cervantes' date of death - it's been inferred from his burial date, which was what was put on Spanish gravestones of the time). Should it be a more general term? perhaps, but I struggle to think of one. I'm not sure I'm as convinced as some that 'interment' is a generic - OED defines interment as "The action of interring or burying in the earth; burial." (internment is something else again.) TSP (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  @TSP I believe the only undeniable argument is that of uniformity. Please disregard my previous comments that lacked solid logic and unnecessarily insulted editors engaged in discussion. There is no excuse for my behavior, but I was having a pretty rough morning and inappropriately vented my frustrations in an insulting manner. (That is for Martinevans123.)

  My personal stance is that since the burial location parameter already exists, my argument about interment was pointless. I think that striving for uniformity is very valuable for editors, especially when aiming to create a platform that is encyclopedic.

  However, we are all entitled to our opinions without being needlessly insulted. I would like to apologize again. That’s all I have to say on this matter. Thank you for continuing the conversation. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 07:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  It genuinely means a lot, apology fully accepted, and lesson learned to maybe choose less blunt words next time. Remsense诉 07:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• No. For one, zero articles have been presented where this would be an improvement. Per Sdkb, it is unlikely that such articles exist. —Kusma (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
• No per arguments in previous section. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
• No, per Sdkb. If examples can be given, where the burial date of a person is worth including in the lead, I would reconsider. — HTGS (talk) 03:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
• No, per the arguments above, especially Vanisaac and Kuzma. For the overwhelming majority of decedents, the date of burial or internment of their remains is a tangent and mere trivia which violates WP:NOT, specifically, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." It's important to maintain "big picture" perspective while keeping Wikipedia core policies in mind. For example, at the time Robin Williams died almost 10 years ago, we had quite a dispute in that article over how to cover the post-death treatment of his remains. I thought it was important to include the information that Marin County, despite its fame and wealth, didn't have and still doesn't have a county morgue for processing suspicious deaths. As a result, Williams's remains had to be driven about 40 miles to Napa County for an autopsy, where Marin rents space from Napa as needed, and then driven 40 miles back to Marin County for cremation and dispersal of his ashes over San Francisco Bay. But with time and maturity, I have come to recognize that such information is relatively minor trivia compared to the more important issue of why Williams died, and was properly excised as a tangent from the main topic of the article. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

No per sdkb. It’s crufty and infoboxes are already potentially quite large if all parameters are filled. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

No - infobox is for the most important facts, burial date is not one of those.--Staberinde (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

What happened to nationality in the Blank template with basic parameters

Recently, the nationality field disappeared from the Blank template with basic parameters yet it still appears in the Blank template with all parameters.

Several biographical / person articles utilize the Blank template with basic parameters and contain the nationality field.

Why was nationality removed? Should it be restored for consistency?

Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

It was removed because it was being used problematically to display ethnicity instead of nationality when included as a default parameter. And no, it should not be restored. There is a discussion above on this talk page, with a link to the broader conversation at MOS that would be the basis for its removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanisaac (talk • contribs) 01:19, 2024 June 17 (UTC)

Spouse text more left than other fields?

Resolved

 – Seems like this does not happen anymore, though I can't pinpoint where or what fix was made. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, looking at Lauren Ridloff and Ryan Condal, it looks like the text in "Spouse" is more to the left than other fields' text. Not sure if this is something that needs to be fixed? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@Erik: It was nothing to do with this template, but a global MediaWiki change that has since been rolled back. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Thursday 13 June style changes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Alma mater

The documentation for {{Infobox person}} states that |alma_mater= is a more concise alternative to (not addition to) |education=. However, it is very common to see both parameters used in a single infobox. Usually, in such cases, |education= is used for secondary education and |alma_mater= is used for tertiary education. At other times, |education= is used for the degree and |alma_mater= for the university that awarded it.

One possibility is to change the template so that |alma_mater= is not displayed if |education= is used. (Something similar has been done with |nationality= and |birth_place= for {{Infobox officeholder}}. It has been discussed here: Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 25#Has the "nationality" parameter disappeared?)

A second possibility is to abolish |alma_mater= altogether.

Does anyone else have an opinion on this matter? Is it worth starting an RfC? If I wanted to start an RfC, where would be the best place to do so? Khiikiat (talk) 07:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: sometimes a ref says a person’s alma mater is “x”, but they also attended other schools, with the alma mater being the first school attended. However, its use on the infobox does not appear uniform. Semper fi! FieldMarine (talk) 13:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Can we add net worth field to this template?

i think it is relevant especially for public figures or celebrities Gsgdd (talk) 03:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

This parameter previously existed and was removed per this discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• And a year later, I did the cleanup of all the instances that were left. But I did save the information that was removed if you wanted to go about putting that information into the prose of any articles I hit two years ago. VanIsaac, GHTV ^cont_WpWS 05:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Please add conviction_status parameter

I'm trying to add "| conviction_status = Incarcerated" and this template does not support it. Honestly makes editing way harder than it has to be if everything was streamline and centralized. Alexysun (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Does criminal_status and the related params not meet your needs? If not, why not? Please explain what you're trying to accomplish in greater detail. DonIago (talk) 00:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Native name parameter

Is there a reason why the native name parameter appears in a bigger font than the name parameter on mobile? --Coconutyou3 (talk) 09:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2024

Please restore this version to include explanation of the Soviet union republics (e.g. Kyiv, Ukrainian SSR. Soviet Union) for infoboxes, that is recently discussed at Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 38#Adding "union republic" notion to the doc. 49.150.12.163 (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Remsense诉 22:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

There was no consensus established there, and I don't really think this requires its own explication in the documentation myself. Remsense诉 22:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note that I've rangeblocked the OP for block evasion.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Limit "criminal_charges" parameter to those that resulted in prosecutions (whether guilty or innocent), or ongoing investigations, only?

Would it be good to have clearer guidelines on the usage of the "criminal charges" parameter? Criminal charges appear to be much like wedding engagements. They are short-lived preludes to longterm events: Convictions or marriages (write your own joke :)

Considering charges can be dropped against someone, would making the guidelines clearer to limit charges to only those that actually resulted in criminal prosecution? (Whether acquitted or found guilty.) If not, what examples could there be of someone having a lead-level fact relating to a criminal charge that was dropped and didn't result in criminal proceedings (that are not currently ongoing)? 92.12.76.138 (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but please review WP:RFCTP. This is malformed, as the RfC is not being presented neutrally. I recommend either withdrawing or refactoring this, at which point I would be happy to offer an opinion. I'm also not sure why this is an RfC? Has this question been asked previously and was there any dispute about it? DonIago (talk) 02:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  Fixed! Thanks. 92.12.76.138 (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  Now I'm confused by what change you're proposing. The documentation for the infobox already states that that field should only be used in the case of convictions, which seems pretty unambiguous to me? DonIago (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose – I agree with DonIago above, but just in case: in order,

• I simply do not think it is confusing as described. People generally understand that charges may include convictions and acquittals, et al.
• I don't see how this is different from any impermanent aspect of one's biography. Listing one's employment isn't "being a newspaper".
• Why use language that more specifically gestures towards guilt? Again, people generally understand that charges are just that.
• Depends on the page.

Remsense诉 02:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Updated prop. Thanks. 92.12.76.138 (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, this is confusing. @Doniago is saying this is a redundant RfC because the guidelines already cover what is being proposed (criminal charges should only be listed for convictions), but you then say you oppose the proposals because you think charges should not including only convictions. So... which is it? WikiMane (TP2001) (talk) 13:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

The main guideline here is WP:BLPCRIME. If living people have not been convicted of a crime, the infobox must present them as innocent, i.e. not use the "criminal charges" parameter at all. —Kusma (talk) 12:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I noted this above, but in case you missed it, the infobox documentation already states that this field should only be used in the event of a conviction. I think the IP needs to clarify their concerns and proposal. DonIago (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

How do you explain pages like Dawood Ibrahim, an internationally wanted ganger, which list charges despite there being no conviction because he's currently wanted? WikiMane (TP2001) (talk) 13:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

It sounds to me like that article is using the parameter incorrectly. It happens. DonIago (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Discrepancy between visual editor instructions and Template:Infobox person

Hello,

Following this thread on spouses being removed when not notable from the infobox, User:Wozal noted that the visual editor uses the phrase "Spouse(s), if notable" to describe the spouse parameter. As far as I've ever seen for this template (and officeholder, which is also widely used), I've generally not seen non-notable spouses be excluded from the template; some examples: Larry King, Richard Pryor and Stephen A. Douglas. Is there a reason why this generic boilerplate text in the visual editor applies globally to all infoboxes, since some communities of infobox editors have their own niche reasons to include/exclude/limit/expand certain parameters, like spouse. --Engineerchange (talk) 03:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

That thread is referring to a different infobox, {{Infobox officeholder}}. Speaking strictly about the existing documentation, that "if notable" wording is encoded at Template:Infobox officeholder § TemplateData (click show). Each infobox template has its own respective documentation.—Bagumba (talk) 07:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the note of clarity. Will seek options on that page. --Engineerchange (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)