Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 20

Influences/influenced parameters

I realize that there was an RfC on this issue a few months ago (though it seems to have been closed earlier than usual), but it has been quite disturbing to see helpful parameters being removed from articles. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] The influences/influenced names are often important to place the figure intellectually. Does it not make more sense simply to leave the parameters empty if they're going to be problematic, rather than removing them so that they're unavailable even when obviously useful? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

As stated in the RFC the names are not useful without a) sourcing and b) context. The sections, all to often, became a long list of names and a list of names is just a list. Further the names in these sections will not have influences/ed people in the same way and need nuanced descriptions. A proper discussion of the names in the body of the article gives readers useful info. A list of names does not. Furthermore if the parameters are there they will be filled and there is absolutely no way to stop that, thus, the need for their removal. MarnetteD | Talk 19:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

A list of names isn't just a list, though, that's the point; it can be very informative, placing people within a certain intellectual tradition. (That is the context – I don't know what other context would be needed – and I disagree about the need for nuance: the point of an infobox is to be a broad brushstroke.) I've started using a generic box to maintain those parameters, but having to do that from now on is going to be quite a nuisance. I understand that some people were misusing the parameters and that film articles were badly affected, but there are other ways of dealing with misuse. The box could have an invisible note, for example, saying that names must be sourced or that if someone objects they must be discussed rather than restored. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Who, what, where, when and how did they influence the person? Ditto to how they influenced someone else. Your statements do not convince me that they need to be returned to the infobox. All too often (and not just in articles connected to film) a name would appear in the infobox but would be entirely absent from the article. One would think that adding the names to the articles with sources and context would be much more useful way to spend a persons editing time. MarnetteD | Talk 21:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Required context to make any sense of an "Influences/Influences" section:

1. Who is claiming the connection?
   • The subject? A biographer? A Wikipedia editor?
2. What kind of connection is it?
   • Was Alice a personal student of Bob throughout her time in university? Did Carol read a single book written by Dan and mention it in an interview? Did Frank claim to like a painter, or claim to be influenced by that painter? Did a biographer notice a corresponding artistic technique, or vocabulary usage, or musical motif?

Eg. I'm reading Ascending Peculiarity at the moment, a book of interviews with, and articles about, Edward Gorey. The list of names he's mentioned as "influences" extends far into the dozens - some are musical, some written, some artistic, some are friends or old roommates. The authors of these interviews/articles each add their own lists to that (people they compare him to, or suggest as his obvious stylistic predecessors), which would double the quantity. Do you really want a list of 50 names, without any context at all, added to the infobox? (Note: the current list in there contains 11 names with no context or reference. The only names Gorey mentions consistently in interviews are Jane Austen and 19th century engravings, plus William James whom he "hates more than tongue can tell." none of which are in there.)

I adore web-of-connection datasets, eg http://www.music-map.com/ but it's not really very useful without additional context. http://www.literature-map.com/edward+gorey.html ... –Quiddity (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

As I said, the point of the parameters (on certain articles) was to place people within a particular intellectual tradition. I don't know how to express it more clearly than that; obviously it's not about having read one book that someone wrote. Yes, there are articles on which it becomes absurd. All current philosophers, for example, have been influenced by Wittgenstein, so in cases like that you stick with influences only. But the entries in most articles were sensible and helpful. If I knew nothing about Martha Nussbaum, reading that her influences were John Rawls, Amartya Sen and Bernard Williams tells me a lot; it gives me an intellectual snapshot, which is what infoboxes are for. Even if you don't know the names, you can do research and learn what those names mean, which is the point of Wikipedia (and education). So I'm just wondering if we threw the baby out with the bathwater.

Were the problems with these parameters mostly on BLPs? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I enumerated the problems very precisely above!

BLP has nothing to do with it, afaik. You're the first person to mention it here. (Gorey died in 2000, fwiw.)

In your example, who claims that John Rawls was an influence on Martha Nussbaum? (Did she? Did a biographer? Did a Wikipedian make a deduction based on overlapping ideas?)

and what kind of influence was it? (A particular topic? A particular book? An introduction to her favourite hobby thereafter? Did she model her life on his?)

Without those sort of details, the statement that he was an "influence" on her is next-to-useless. It's utterly ambiguous.

Yes, it's potentially useful information, and should be moved into the prose of the article where it can be fleshed out with the necessary details.

Your first example [6] already mentions the 2 names that were removed from the infobox, within the article, giving those crucial clarifying details. –Quiddity (talk) 02:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

if an "intellectual tradition" is notable, viable information, surely it'd make more sense to have articles on said traditions and reference [name]'s role in them in the prose? For "mere" influences, MarnetteD's point seems a good one. Ironholds (talk) 02:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Slim I have great admiration for your intellect but your understanding of the names mentioned is unique to you and a few select group of others. Very "in universe" as a matter of fact. But as an "out of universe" reader (and, while I don't have empirical evidence, I would suggest that many readers are in the same boat) John Rawls, Amartya Sen and Bernard Williams mean nothing to me and, until I read about them in the body of the article they will just be a list of names. I should note that during the previous discussion I would find names in the influenced section that were a) not sourced b) not covered by any info in the body of the article and c) when I clicked on the link and went the article for that person I would, more often than not, find no info about them having been influenced by the person from the first article. These fields attracted all manner of names but, as constituted gave little to no useful information to the reader. MarnetteD | Talk 03:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

That's actually an excellent way of looking at it (I speak as someone who has read both Rawls' and Sen's works deeply, although I agree with some of Cohen's critiques of the former) - we have an interest in serving the general reader. If I were to use a complex piece of in-universe legal terminology in an article, I would (quite rightly) be told to explain it in-line at GAN or FAC. The same would be the case here. When we are discussing structural elements, such as infoboxes, we should use them to direct users towards the expected or best-case outcome. Ironholds (talk) 05:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

There are people who argue that we should never link to Google Books pages because not everyone in the world can see them. But there are always going to be people who can't access or understand something. The influences/influenced names are signposts, and you can follow those signposts across WP and beyond and learn a lot from them. If they're being filled in badly, can we not write an essay on how to do it well, rather than removing the parameters from everyone? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no comparison between the Google Books, which are External Link situation, and the internal links we are discussing. As to the signpost item I will simply restate that when we had these names in the infobox that at (most in many situation) times a) they were not sourced b) they were not covered by any info in the body of the article and c) when the linked name was clicked on and one went to the article for that person, more often than not, one could find no info about them having influenced or been influenced by the person from the first article. As to our essays if one out of 50 named editors and/or IPs read them I would be surprised. To that you can add to the fact that essays are not considered policies or guidelines. Again it is hard to understand why improving our articles by explaining these items in prose in the body of the article is not the way to go. MarnetteD | Talk 18:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm also slightly confused as to how explaining the intellectual tradition in the article, or linking to it, or providing actual context, is not something that can be learnt from and that can act as a signpost. Ironholds (talk) 04:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I'm late to the party, as I was serving out yet another block because someone didn't like what I said to them. Now that I'm back, I must agree with SlimVirgin and anyone else who believes these parameters are important. Virtually every major expert biographical source refers to people who were influential in the lives of the subject. Usually, there are no more than three people mentioned. In the biography that I'm currently working on, there are just two, and they are both famous and important to the overall understanding of the subject. Imagine my surprise to find these parameters deprecated because a few foolish people misused them and didn't use references or mention them in the body of the article. One would think that the solution would be to 1) require people to mention these influences in the body and to 2) cite sources. Instead I find that throwing the baby out with the bath water is the fashion of the day. Giving the reader the intellectual and historical context of influences allows the reader to fully appreciate the subject. If I was a conspiracy theorist, I would think that infobox parameters were being slowly deprecated one at a time, so that eventually there won't be infoboxes left to use at all. Viriditas (talk) 04:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

No one has thrown out the baby or the bath water. This discussion and the previous one was about removing the parameters from "the infobox" where they were just a list of names with no context, not from the articles. Indeed, the recommendation was to mention them in the article which is actually akin to cold, chilly countertop and adding it to the warm soapy bathwater. It most certainly wasn't a "few" people or articles that had a problem. The articles that I found rarely had any mention in the article of the list of names in the infobox nor did the articles linked to have any mention of the person in the original article. I completely agree with your statement "Giving the reader the intellectual and historical context of influences allows the reader to fully appreciate the subject" the list of names that used to reside in the infobox did not - and could not - accomplish that since they gave no context whatsoever. MarnetteD | Talk 05:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed; can we at least agree that everyone here is arguing that intellectual traditions are important to explain and discuss? One side feels that this is best done by noting it in the infobox, the other by noting it in prose.

Viriditas: in regards to requiring people to do X, Y and Z, we've got tens of thousands of contributors, millions of articles, and frankly probably millions of bytes of policy and guidelines, these days. If you want to enforce something like this, there are two options - social enforcement (in which case, can you imagine reaching all the people you'd need to reach?) and policy-based enforcement (subject to precisely the same problem, but also generating Yet Anothing Thing people have to read). Neither is likely to work. If users are doing something wrong, the best way forward is to increase the barrier to doing that wrong thing. It's not throwing the baby out with the bath water from my POV, because it doesn't actually prevent users who know what they're doing from explaining intellectual traditions - it just means that they have to do it in prose (a form that provides space for more context and more explanation than infobox entries). Ironholds (talk) 10:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Please fix Website line

The "website" line needs to be fixed. The header and data should be on the same line. Please rename "data72" to "data71". See discussion about another template that was fixed a few months ago. Template_talk:Infobox_recurring_event#Website_line • Sbmeirow • Talk • 06:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

No, it should not, because many URLs are long, and this allows them the maximum space before forcing the infobox itself to widen. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Wrong, it isn't a bad idea. Use square brackets to make a link to it plus some shorter text that you want to show up on the screen! This has always been the simple solution for long links! Infoboxes for ten's of thousands of cities / schools / technical articles do it the other way and they don't have a problem with it. Also, go back and restore Template:Infobox_recurring_event while you are at it, because you didn't wait for discussion! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Existing templates that don't put the URL on another line:

Example 1 : New York City using Template:Infobox settlement, 400672 articles use this template.

Example 2 : Nirvana using Template:Infobox musical artist, 77196 articles use this template.

Example 3 : Apple Inc. using Template:Infobox company, 50758 articles use this template.

Example 4 : Denver School of the Arts using Template:Infobox school, 21702 articles use this template.

Example 5 : Harvard University using Template:Infobox university, 17943 articles use this template.

Example 6 : iPhone 5 using Template:Infobox mobile phone, 999 articles use this template.

I agree that this template needs to be adjusted. Would it be best to start an RfC since this is a commonly-used template? ElKevbo (talk) 15:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Please replace the line

| label27    = Years active

with

| label27    = Years active

as this label often seems to be the only one that's linewrapped.

Thank you, 213.246.93.15 (talk) 13:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

seems uncontroversial, so done! Frietjes (talk) 17:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Another one

Please replace the line

| label25    = ''[[Alma mater]]''

with

| label25    = ''[[Alma mater|Alma mater]]''

as this label is another one I've seen as the only one linewrapped.

Thank you, 213.246.83.192 (talk) 13:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox person

I was wondering if the parameters shown are the only ones you can use. For example i've seen some usages of the template adapting to the parameter "family" and others even though it does not appear on the blank parameter box.Pass a Method talk 21:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Could you please provide examples of this. You may have seen infoboxes that other projects developed that contain that field. A look at the parameters for this infobox does not show it as exisiting and I cannot remember if it ever did. MarnetteD | Talk 21:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

There is background to this at User talk:Redrose64#Template:Infobox person but I have no idea why I was first choice. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Barkhad Abdi for example. Pass a Method talk 23:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Multiple titles

How do we add additional titles to someone who has had more than one extremely notable title? For instance, James Cellan Jones, who has been Head of Plays at BBC Television, Chairman of BAFTA, and Chairman of the Directors Guild of Great Britain. To single out only one of them for the infobox is grossly misleading. Softlavender (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit request - Spouse/Partner

If possible, please replace the line

| label55 = Spouse(s)

with

| label55 = <nowrap>Spouse(s)</nowrap>

and replace

| label56 = Partner(s)

with

| label56 = <nowrap>Partner(s)</nowrap>

or whatever coding will stop it breaking like this:

Spouse

(s)

Looks ugly, right? Cheers. nagualdesign (talk) 06:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

fixed. there were other (s) lines which were nowrapped, so I made them all nowrapped for consistency. Frietjes (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Board membership

Organisations are commonly formed around a board of directors comprised of individuals, which often have a seat on multiple boards in various organizations. Template:Infobox_organization has recently added a "board of directors" field, and it would be interesting to do the same thing for individuals - to show which individuals are seated on which boards. This would allow for a better view of organisational structures in companies, organizations etc. Thoughts? Zambelo (talk) 06:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 31 December 2013

(Via Template:Infobox criminal.)

Please replace the lines

| label1     = Native name

| label21    = Other names

| label36    = Home town

| label38    = Net worth

with

| label1     = Native name

| label21    = Other names

| label36    = Home town

| label38    = Net worth

so that unsightly linewraps may be avoided;

and the lines

| label15     = Cause of death

| label16     = Body discovered

| label17     = Resting place

| label46     = Political party

| label47     = Political movement

| label49     = Board member of

| label52     = Criminal charge

| label53     = Criminal penalty

| label54     = Criminal status

with

| label15     = {{longitem|Cause of death}}

| label16     = {{longitem|Body discovered}}

| label17     = {{longitem|Resting place}}

| label46     = {{longitem|Political party}}

| label47     = {{longitem|Political movement}}

| label49     = {{longitem|Board member of}}

| label52     = {{longitem|Criminal charge}}

| label53     = {{longitem|Criminal penalty}}

| label54     = {{longitem|Criminal status}}

so that if these labels' words are linewrapped, there isn't a wide (vertical) gap between them.

Thank you, 213.246.118.136 (talk) 11:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• Not done for now: I've had some bad experiences with this sort of seemingly simple request causing line overflows and other issues. Could you please place your proposed changes in the /sandbox and give a good set of /testcases that shows your request working as you expect with no side effects please? Thank you Technical 13 (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay, I've made the changes in the version currently in the sandbox (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_person/sandbox&oldid=590171135) plus two further amendments reducing the gaps between lines in the "Website" entry and the image caption. All looks okay on the (purged) testcases page. 213.246.82.200 (talk) 03:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Done I've also removed the italics and link from alma mater per the discussion on the other talk page and MOS. Technical 13 (talk) 05:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Sound and video

What about adding sound and video parameters? For instance, the BBC voice project on Commons provides audio files from BBC interviews of famous people, which would certainly enrich the infobox. The same goes for videos. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Sound was previously discussed at Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 17#Parameters for voice files. The module parameter could also be used to embed video, but perhaps videos can also be placed instead of a still image? DrKiernan (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Correction

I would appreciate edit rights to this page so I can make a correction/improvement. gidonb (talk) 09:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The page is protected, and I have no idea who has the righte to edit it - I know I don't. I assume that this is because it is used by over 130,000 other pages, hence a small mistake would have a large impact.

I suggest that you test out the change that you want to make as described at the top of Template:Infobox_person and when you can show the change working, that you describe what needs to be done as has been done for a number of other changes above, e.g. here, here and here.

FerdinandFrog (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

This page is showing up too narrow on my screen now, and I have to scroll back and forth to see the code. Can this be fixed? Djembayz (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Ethnicity

I might understand that "ethnicity" could have a relevance on Wikidata for statistical reasons and maybe to highlight the necessity of efforts in rebalancing the biographies we have on Wikipedia. this info can be hidden. But having an infobox line with "ethnicity" recalls some of our worst world history, or positive discrimination (which is politically correct only in countries where it is politically requested or applied, i.e. US and South Africa). I strongly disagree in having a visibile infobox line with such a statement. It has a specific impact of what Wikipedia is as an enciclopedia, and it can have tremendous unhealthy consequences on a lot of people we document (just imagine to apply it to Rwanda). I is not a neutral simple data. --Iopensa (talk) 08:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Parents/relatives

When everything else in the infobox is only for 'notable' uses (ie: height, children, awards, etc) then why isn't there a "notable only" for the parents and relatives field? Because then you're going to get users who are going to put non-notable relatives like the person's aunt and uncle and siblings and their parents that aren't notable that nobody has heard of. It only makes sense to have notable parents and relatives in the infobox as it is a short summary of the article. If they have "John and Jane Smith" who's not notable, whats the point of having it in there? If they want to see non-notable parents, they can look at the 'Early life' section. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that the parameters had been "if notable" for years before SlimVirgin removed it without consensus here and refuses to answer any question about it from other users. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I've restored it. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Nikkimaria restored that relatives have to be notable, but they don't, so I've removed it again. Lots of infoboxes contain close relatives' names (usually parents, spouses), sometimes as a way of keeping clutter out of the text. They only have to be sourced, not notable (except for children of living persons). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Slim, the three of us above seem to agree that they should be notable, and I'm not seeing any discussion prior to your removal of that bit from the documentation. Do you have a pointer to a discussion elsewhere that reached that conclusion? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't, but I edit lots of articles and see lots of parents' and spouses' names in infoboxes, so following the "descriptive, not prescriptive" rule, those people don't have to be notable. It would be quite a significant change to require that, I think. Ditto in the body of the text; people don't have to be notable there either, obviously. I can't see any reason to approach infoboxes differently, except that they're shorter, but that's where we hope common sense kicks in. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The infobox isn't only "a short summary of the article"; not at all in some respects such as {{infobox writer}} signature and website fields.

At the same time I disagree strongly with "keeping clutter out of the text" as a justification for completing children/parents/relatives/spouse fields (or for providing those fields in the template design, of course). "Andrea Brown was born in Canberra to Donald Brown, a grocer, and Evaline Fisher, the heiress." "Her daughter Heather was born in 1997." Where is the biography wherein such presentations of human relationships in prose "clutter the text"? Has that interpretation been discussed here or elsewhere?

--P64 (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes people will put names in infoboxes instead of in the text, or as well as in the text, or in the text and not in the infobox. These are local decisions. I can't see the advantage of trying to control things centrally. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Infobox presenter

Further to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 February 14#Template:Infobox presenter, how should {{Infobox presenter}} (which currently has 495 transclusions) be merged into this template? By adding the parameters here, or by making it a sub-module or wrapper for this template? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)