Template talk:Infobox philosopher/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Box width

I am removing this, if there is a problem with a neighboring sidebar, then the sidebar should be fixed. Frietjes (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

School

The label "School" in this infobox is confusing. It should be changed to "School of philosophy", IMO, so that it is clear what it is referring to. Kaldari (talk) 06:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Image not working

I just updated Muhammad Iqbal with this template but some how image is not showing. Can you please check why? Sheriff (report) 19:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• Update I went ahead and fixed the bug at Template:Infobox philosopher/doc, image parameter was listed twice making template not generate the image. Sheriff (report) 19:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Doctoral thesis/ doctoral students

I see Infobox scientist has these properties:

• | thesis_title = (or | thesis1_title = and | thesis2_title = )
• | thesis_url = (or | thesis1_url = and | thesis2_url = )
• | thesis_year = (or | thesis1_year = and | thesis2_year = )
• | doctoral_advisor = (or | doctoral_advisors = )
• | academic_advisors =
• | doctoral_students =
• | notable_students =

but this philosopher infobox doesn't. It doesn't make sense to me that scientists but not philosophers can be listed with these properties. How can I add these properties to the philosopher infobox? MartinPoulter (talk) 12:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

MartinPoulter, since there were no objections, now added. Frietjes (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Frietjes! MartinPoulter (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Sequence

Another issue that strikes me as important to the usefulness of this parameter (if this is retained): should the list be sequenced according to importance, chronologically, alphabetically, or randomly? Clean Copy^talk 07:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus seems to be to not deprecate the fields "influences" and "influenced". There also seems to be consensus to remove material that is not cited either in the infobox itself or the article at large. This, although, should probably be formally established in another RfC.

The main arguments in support of deprecating the two fields are that most of the additions are unsourced POV pushing, and that virtually all well-known philosophers influenced other philosophers. The argument in opposition are that who influenced who is very important in philosophy. Also, it is argued that requiring sources for influences should help keep away those who want to add supposed "influences". Finally, it is argued that the documentation of the influences and influenced of philosophers is of higher quality than professions whose infoboxes don't support such fields. Overall, it seems that the consensus is in favour of not deprecating the fields "influences" and "influenced". It should be noted, although, that this RfC received low participation, and that a better consensus may be reached by contacting WikiProject Philosophy. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 21:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

---

Should the template "Infobox philosophers" deprecate the fields "influences" and "influenced"? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Yes - These fields have been deprecated at Template:Infobox person and Template:infobox comedian, for instance, for the reason they are problematic here: They are a catchall for every uncited POV opinion of who influenced whom. While the template instructions say, "Entries in influences, influenced, and notable ideas should be explained in the main text of one of the articles. Those that are not mentioned in the main text may be deleted," this is virtually never enforced. As a result, these fields are filled with questionable entries — one anon IP over the last few days has gone around adding the Marquis de Sade as an influence for a host of philosophers in articles that never mention him!

I would note that infoboxes for other disciplines in which influence is a tradition, such as Template:Infobox architect, Template:Infobox artist, do not include these fields. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• No - The mark of a great philosopher is the impression he (or she) leaves on the world. The common man might not recognize that mark, but it can be seen by who was influenced by the philosopher and if others carry on his work after his passing. Nearly anyone you ask can identify Plato or Socrates although they might not be able to say how they know them. These fields act as a specific "See also" for other philosophers. Granted, they may draw flies, but you have all seen the type of vandalism that happens. I've seen an apparently totally sincere individual going around to all the amusement park ride infoboxes changing the status to something not supported. We have the history of each article to work with, and if needs must, we have AN/I. Honestly, I don't understand why these fields were removed from the infoboxes mentioned by Tenebrae. We should be arguing for the reinstatement of these fields. I would love to see who influenced Andy Warhol.  — Myk Streja ^(beep) 12:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Clarification: We're not talking about removing cited mentions of influence from the article — solely from the infobox. Few people add influences to the article without citation. Many people add them to the infobox without citation.

The Warhol article talks about his influences, including Jean-Michel Basquiat, who was "influential for his later work." --Tenebrae (talk) 14:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• No - I do think that the influences upon a philosopher, and those s/he influenced, are more objectively documented than they are for comedians or persons generally. It would make sense to add a comment to the infobox template requiring that any added names be either documented in the article or cited within the template. This would substantially reduce spurious entries. It would not eliminate vandalism, of course, but nothing will do that. Clean Copy^talk 08:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I just looked at a few philosophers' lists to get a concrete sense. Some of them are really long; it would be helpful to restrict these to primary influences (for A. J. Ayer, Plato was a pretty minor influence, and indeed, he is not listed as one on Ayer's page, which has appropriately-trimmed lists) and influenced. But even when longer, the lists are frequently interesting; through Kierkegaard's listed influences, I discovered that Shakespeare played a major role for him, which led me to a fascinating article describing this relationship. Clean Copy^talk 16:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• No: Any content added to these fields should be shown a fair amount of scrutiny as to whether it faithfully corresponds to due WP:WEIGHT considerations. But where these connections are abundantly supported by the sources and played a significant role in the development of various philosophical traditions, that's entirely entirely appropriate (and indeed, highly useful) contextualizing information. The OP's argument is a bit of a non-sequitur to me: the fact that people sometimes don't apply a the baseline demands of WP:DUE with regard to a parameter is not argument for or against that parameter's utility in itself. It means you need to address the faulty DUE arguments used to introduce the specific unverified/unbalanced content into that parameter. If we were to change the context here, from a parameter to just about any other circumstance where we add content, we would see the issue quite quickly. For example, we don't avoid captions for photos because the content added to them is occasionally not reflective of content in the rest of the article, or is sometimes POV. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Again, no one is saying not to include influences/influenced in the article. This is solely about the infobox, where real-life history shows that editors routinely fill it with uncited, sometimes ludicrous claims since it's so easy to do so. Unlike the article space, where lack of citation and context is easy to spot and remove, false infobox claims are rampant and can remain for years. Keeping those fields in the infobox creates long-running falsehoods, and if they have not been policed in the past, they will not be policed in the future. If influences/influenced are in the article body, there is no need to have these fields in the infobox where they perpetuate falsehoods. None of us want to see falsehoods perpetuated, and leaving these fields in the infobox does just that. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Again, policy and community consensus provide no reason for throwing the baby out with the bath water here, in the fashion you suggest. Yes, of course "false" information (or, more appropriate to our work on this project, unverified information) shouldn't be retained. Insofar as you keep bringing the discussion around to focus on that point, I believe you are employing a straw man argument: literally nobody is disagreeing with that point. Where you lose me (and apparently most everyone else responding here) is when you insist that the only way to accomplish this goal is by removing a parameter which, in and of itself, is not the source of the policy conflict. You want to cure an ingrown toenail by hacking off the toe, and that's just not the prescribed approach here--nor a remotely pragmatic one, in my opinion. By all means, find a mechanism to make sure that any item introduced to this field (in a given infobox, on a given article) corresponds to WP:DUE weight and the content in the main prose of the article. If it doesn't, then get WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to remove it. But the proposal--to remove the parameter from the infobox altogether because (in your idiosyncratic experience impressionistic view, which you've put forward with no other concrete evidence) the parameter becomes home to unverified content in some infoboxes, on some articles--is in my opinion both overkill and not particularly rational. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Just to put further emphasis on my point here: I imagine that in many, many particular cases I would probably support not using the parameter in articles about particular philosophers. If we were having this discussion about the use of the parameter for a particular article where you've seen the field misused, I suspect there's a decent chance I'd be supporting your position. And not just in cases where the sourcing was poor or non-existent; I imagine there are also many cases where the nature of the relationships are simply better discussed in the full context of prose, with explicit attribution. But I can't get beyond removing the parameter for all articles relating to philosophers when it is clearly useful for many such articles, and not per se problematic in itself. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I would contend that arguments such as "clearly useful for many such articles" are equivalent to "idiosyncratic experience impressionistic view, which you've put forward with no other concrete evidence", since neither "side" has done an analysis of how many articles use the parameter appropriately or inappropriately. FWIW my impression is closer to Tenebrae's than yours. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm not the one proposing removal of a parameter from a widely-used infobox on the basis of a utility argument, which change will delete/break a field in potentially hundreds of articles, when there is nothing wrong with the parameter itself but rather the manner in which it has been (purportedly) used by local editors at some articles. We don't ever really use a "just cut off the limb" approach on this project (or at least, we do it extremely rarely), and if someone wants to make such a drastic change (which also amounts to imposing the judgment of this one small RfC over the consensus formed on each of those many articles), they had better have a really good argument and showing for their claims. With all respect to the both of you, I don't think you're even in the same solar system of the point where you meet that burden. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually we do use a "cut of the limb" approach when needed, and indeed have done so for this very parameter in other more-widely-used templates. Many of the arguments from that RfC also apply here, including that there is something wrong with the parameter itself: it is the wrong venue to present the issue of influence as there is no room for context. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I was just adding something that somewhat converges with your first observation there (appears below now). You and Tenebrae are not barred from forwaridng this argument, in any sense. You still have an uphill task in proving the necessity though. The arguments for infobox person and infobox philosopher will, of course, be very different (as I'm sure you recognize) as will be the facts. I'm not saying that you couldn't, under any circumstances, convince me (or others) in such a discussion; I'm just saying that I feel the proposed solution in this case is overbroad and doesn't barely begin to pass muster for a mass-deletion of content across hundreds of articles, on the basis of a utilitarian argument. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, though I certainly don't wish to imply a bad-faith mentality, this whole exercise nevertheless strikes me as an attempt to do a rear manuever on the local consensus discussions which Tenebrae ought to be having if they object so stridently to the way the parameter has been used on certain articles. Or rather, from the tenor of their comments, I suspect that they have had such discussions and either have had mixed luck with getting their view to prevail in individual cases or have just grown tired of the effort, and now wish to just mass litigate the matter out of existence by stealing the floor out from under the entire debate, for all potentially relevant articles. Of course, that does happen from time to time on template talk pages, but, again, you better come armed with a better argument/evidence than I am seeing here. Because the purported issue is not with the parameter itself but rather with how certain editors are using it on certain articles, I would need to see that it was being misapplied on the overwhelming majority of relevant articles before I could support Tenebrae's proposal of cutting out all the good content (across a huge number of articles) along with the content that frustrates them. Otherwise, following general community consensus on such matters (and, I believe, common sense), I have to oppose, while still encouraging Tenebrae to correct for WP:V/WP:WEIGHT on particular articles. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for not assuming bad faith. I have never before suggested any changes to this infobox. There is no "rear manuever," whatever you mean by that. These fields has been removed from the more global infobox:person and from at least infobox:comedian and possibly others, since they become a repository for complete POV additions that get snuck in largely unnoticed. Two points: First, the argument being made for why philosophers should have the influence fields — that philosophers are special and deserve special treatment —is identical to one made unsuccessfully for that field in infobox:comedians, and it's what partisans for any discipline or profession could say. Second,, no one whatsoever is arguing not to include influences in the article. Quite the opposite. For many disciplines, knowing about influences is important for understanding the subject. This is strictly about the infobox, where this project is filled with falsehoods and misinformation that is not being addressed. None of us wants that. And trying to police infoboxes for this has not worked — or do we believe the Marquis de Sade has influenced seemingly half of all subsequent philosophers, because he sure is all over their infoboxes despite not a word about him in their articles. If one is OK with that as the cost of including these infobox fields, I suppose there's nothing I can say to convince anyone otherwise.--Tenebrae (talk) 14:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

How many examples would you need? [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13].... Nikkimaria (talk) 21:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Enough to be sure that you aren't selecting for confirmation bias (which is not 13 diffs when we are talking about an infobox employed in, as it turns out, well more than 2,000 articles!) Also, just posting diffs of contributions that presumably have their supporters doesn't prove anything. So, no, to answer the question implicit in your explicit one, I don't think those links are sufficient to prove that the parameter is misused in an overwhelming majority of cases, such that I would support removing the parameter entirely from an infobox transcluded on to 2219 pages. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

How about my explicit one: how many examples, and in what form, would convince you that the parameter should be removed? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, see here's the thing if we're going to look at this empirically; I've already said that I would need to see that the significant majority of articles would have to be compromised in the manner which you claim they are (utterly unrescuable through WP:WEIGHT discussion of what should and should not appear there, to the point that we should scrap the whole parameter, including hundreds if not thousands of articles which may use it reasonably. So either you'd have to analyze most all of the articles, or, more feasibly, a statistically significant number of articles. But the threshold for what I would say would be proof of your assertion in this case would depend upon the methodology of your analysis and the nature of your arguments, more than a static number of stacked diffs without context or discussion. It just feels like you and the OP may not appreciate the magnitude of the ask you are making here; we are essentially talking about overriding the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS decisions of more than two thousand groups of editors as to whether or not to adopt that parameter in a given article. I can't construct your argument for you by sketching out exact figures--I'm just telling you that what is here is so far away from where it would need to be for me to support the proposal (as it's been stated) you'd have to measure it in AUs. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

My claim is that the majority of uses of this parameter are problematic in some way - whether weight, lack of sourcing, etc. Looking at the first 250 articles in this list and excluding those I edited on 3 September, there are 47 where all influences/influenced are either sourced or discussed in the article (12 articles from this set do not use either parameter). So that's a pretty low success rate even before considering issues like DUE. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

That provides an interesting starting point for a slightly different conversation. I would guess that everyone here could agree that these parameters are in real need of cleanup in a good many--indeed, probably in the majority of--articles. If this agreement is indeed there, we could discuss how to approach this. Solutions then might be discussed. I imagine these would include: a) a full-on cleanup project; b) deprecating the fields; c) requiring sourcing for every entry (can this be done? I'm thinking of having parameters like influence1, influence1source, ... and only showing influence1 if influence1source is also present) d) ...(fill in your idea) I think there would be real advantages from starting with the problem instead of the (or rather, a) solution. Clean Copy^talk 23:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

You'd need a pretty much continuous cleanup drive to keep on top of the problem. Many of the diffs I posted above are repeat edits: for example, I pared down the list at Sartre in 2016 and 2014, and both times it grew back. The question then becomes, is that feasible - and part of the reason the parameters were removed from {{infobox person}} is that another project tried it and found that their time would be better spent on a less Sisyphean task. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Did you just delete the content and expect it go away permanently? Because if so, I'd say the issue here is with your general approach to content you don't agree with on particular articles. If you really think the material in question should stay out, you should be discussing the matter on the talk page, and gaining WP:LOCALCONSENSUS for that change. Since you just cited Sartre as an example of a particularly problematic article in this respect, can you post us a diff of you discussing the matter on the talk page? Can you post us a single example of any article for which this infobox is used where you tried to discuss these issues with other editors on the talk page, rather than just edit warring the content in and out? Because if not, it looks to me that you are missing the gist of the comments of the other respondents here.

Look, of course it's a lot of work to keep articles clear of unsourced/poorly weighted content. That's Wikipedia in a nutshell--a lot of work! But again, we don't throw out the baby with the bathwater just because you've had push back on some of those articles. Each of the 2000+ articles that uses this infobox has its own collection of editors working to address those issues and make their own calls on what content is WP:DUE for inclusion in that, or any number of other fields. You want impose an action that overrides all of their collective editorial decisions on whether or not to use the parameter in question, and what to put in it--just because you personally have had pushback on content that you tried to remove.

But that's not the way this works--you're not going to get support for going scorched earth and completely destroying the contested area (thus prevailing in every one of those content disputes where someone re-added content you wanted removed), just because someone reverted edits that you think are "obviously" for the better in those individual articles, and it didn't occur to you that you could (and should) just seek a consensus solution to those individual cases. The solution that you and the OP suggest here is both an insane overreaction to the problem presented and a complete subversion of the normal Wikipedia consensus solution for resolving these issues, which you don't seem to be employing at all, from your description of the experiences that led you to your conclusion that we should just blow the parameter up. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: You're the one missing the gist of comments here - I'm not talking about edit-warring over content at all, and that's not the issue I'm suggesting needs to be addressed by the proposed change. The regrowth I'm referring to didn't result from regular editors on that page disagreeing with removal, but rather edits like these over time: [14][15][16][17][18][19]. Those type of edits are not limited to that article, or to articles that Tenebrae or I have edited, and cannot be addressed effectively in the manner you suggest. Available solutions include long-term patrolling of all articles using this parameter, or removing the parameter. Given my analysis above, I support the latter solution. You're welcome to disagree, but please don't suggest that the problem is solely behavioral on the part of those advocating removal, because that simply isn't a fair assessment. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't mean to suggest anything bad faith in your approach. But you are side-stepping my point in it's entirety: it doesn't seem you've made a single effort to ever talk out any of these differences in editorial opinion, which you now tell the community cannot be solved by any other means. You want us to enforce a nuclear option here (and across more than 200 articles, no less), when you haven't even tried the most baseline efforts at communication or consensus seeking. And no, we wouldn't need "long-term patrolling of all articles using this parameter", because each of those articles already has its own editors who have already employed the parameter as they see fit and who will continue to make that determination between themselves--nevermind that some of them may come to editorial conclusions which you may find counter-intuitive. They are allowed to work these things out between themselves, just as you should do next time someone adds a name to one of those fields that you feel doesn't satisfy WP:WEIGHT. And once you've established that consensus, you might find that they don't fluctuate quite so often. But even if they do...well, welcome to Wikipedia; sometimes certain matters take a long while to get settled.

But for the record, I don't see any behavioural problems here and didn't seek to suggest as much; I do think your solution is out-of-proportion, an overreach, and counter-intuitive, but I see nothing but a good-faith attitude with regard to your motives. And actually, since I think I've more or less hit the limit on what I can say on the matter, I'll take the convenient moment to thank you for the spirited and civil discussion, not withstanding the gulf between our perspectives. Ciao! Snow ^{let's rap} 09:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

This will be my final reply as well then: there are literally hundreds of articles that use this parameter in ways incompatible with our content policies, many of which don't have a regular group of editors monitoring them or deciding on what should or should not be included. Of course it would be ideal if they did, but they don't, and article-by-article talk-page discussion isn't the best forum to address "drive-by" additions of the type that plague this parameter - that's why WikiProject Film was so supportive of removing it at the other RfC. Given that history and other examples where the community has opted to remove frequently-problematic parameters from templates, and my analysis above which shows that the vast majority of uses are problematic, I don't think removing is at all out of proportion. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yes. Mostly per Tenebrae, but also per Myk and Snow Rise. Nearly anyone you ask can identify Plato, absolutely, and nearly every philosopher you think of has been influenced by Plato in some way; the abundance of possible entries dilutes the value of the field. Similarly, identifying connections that "played a significant role" is all well and good, but there's a lot more room in the article text to clarify how significant exactly that role was and to allow the reader to judge whether it was truly significant. At the moment, more articles misuse the parameter in some way than not, and it's clear that documentation has thus far been insufficient to address that problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• No - The mentor/student dynamic within philosophy is one of the fields most enduring traits. This field captures that and expands upon it by concisely connecting philosophers in a sort of "family tree" of knowledge transfer, field of study, etc. -- Netoholic @ 20:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• No (Summoned by bot) Important material. Coretheapple (talk) 23:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Again, no one is saying not to include influences/influenced in the article. This is solely about the infobox, where real-life history shows that editors routinely fill it with uncited, sometimes ludicrous claims since it's so easy to do so. Debate is important, and we all need to be debating about the same thing.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could we add a "module" section to embed other infoboxes?

Many infoboxes include a "module" section at the end that allows you to be able to embed other infoboxes inside of a main one (to merge to infoboxes). It would be nice, for example, if the entry on Rawls could have the military person infobox embedded at the end of his philosopher infobox in order to include Rawls' military service. What do people think? - Atfyfe (talk) 17:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing as {{listen}} looks rather silly on its own underneath an infobox. There being no objection, I'll put in a request. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

 Already done This template already has |module=. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see it in the documentation, so I assumed it still wasn't there. Thanks. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 04:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, there seems to be an error with its implementation, as it tries to use the same parameter of {{Infobox person}} for both the specialized philosopher fields as well as the additional module(s). I've corrected the code in the sandbox. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 04:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC) Pinging JJMC89. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 04:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I have also created a test case to show some of the issues with the current implementation. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Infobox person

It strikes me that profession specific infoboxes should be subsets of infobox person, and therefore should acept all fields from the latter, plus profession specific fields.

There is a statement in the documentation that "Any field from {{Infobox person}} can work so long as it is added to this template first" without explaining how that might be achieved. Can't all remaining infobox person fields just be added now? --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 16:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

What would also be useful would be to add this to Category:Biographical templates usable as a module after appropriate modification as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes/embed --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 21:06, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

However a partial solution is to embed this template into Infobox person using |module. For example, see Hannah Arendt --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 02:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 2 November 2018

For those figures with long-term unmarried partners (e.g., Judith Butler), would we be able to add the partner parameter from {{Infobox person}}? Thanks, 142.160.89.97 (talk) 06:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Language

This was brought up by User:JimWae in 2013, without any replies, and I'm trying it again: Is there a reason why there is no "language" parameter? There is such a parameter for writers, and can be useful here, too. It is used in some other languages. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I've mocked this up in the sandbox. Difference is viewable in /testcases. -- Netoholic @ 20:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Looks good. Thank you Netoholic! --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 10:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Good idea. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

So, can it be done? Netoholic, I see no objections. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Home town

Could the home town parameter of {{Infobox person}} be added for cases where the subject's home town differs from their birth place? This would be in line with, e.g., {{Infobox academic}}. Thanks, 142.160.131.220 (talk) 07:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Residence

Residence appears to no longer be a recognized parameter for infobox person. Entering a value for it returns an error: Warning: Page using Template:Infobox person with unknown parameter "residence". Jazzcowboy (talk) 09:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Ditto. May have been removed from Template:Infobox person due to privacy concerns. May be still okay for Template:Infobox philosopher? – ░▒▓ №∶72.234.220.38 (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC) ▓▒░

Infobox person params not working for Infobox philosopher?

Many parameters which are listed in infobox person aren't working in infobox philosopher even though this is a wrapper template. See hidden Category:Pages_using_infobox_philosopher_with_unknown_parameters. For instance, the param relatives is not working for Christopher Hitchens and the param children is not working for E. P. Thompson. - Harsh 05:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC) @Paine Ellsworth:. - Harsh 05:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

To editor Harsh: it appears that over time, editors have decided to exclude some parameters that can still be used by embedding {{Infobox philosopher}} within {{Infobox person}}. I have done so in the Christopher Hitchens article. Let me know if you need help with the Thompson article. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 16:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth:. Oh ok I get it. Thank you. - Harsh 18:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

It's my pleasure! Paine  20:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Add occupation

This is another template missing |occupation= - it is not obvious the person is a philosopher by looking at just the infobox, especially short ones like Michel Weber. Frietjes? MB 15:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

okay. Frietjes (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Children and Family parameters

Resolved

Could someone with access to editing add Children and Family parameters? I'd like to include Alexandra Kropotkin and Kropotkin family within Peter Kropotkin's infobox but it's currently undoable. SMiki55 (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Jonesey95, I just started cleaning up category:Pages using infobox philosopher with unknown parameters and there seem to be a lot of these that are using |children=. I don't see a good reason to go to the trouble of using infobox person and embedding this one (as suggested above) just to be able to use children which is a standard parameter for bios. Can you add it? MB 01:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I have added |children=, |relatives=, and |family=. You are correct that these parameters are much easier to use in the main template than within a child template. If editors object to their use in specific articles, that objection can be addressed at the article's talk page. Please copy the relevant documentation from {{Infobox person}} to the documentation for this template so that the parameters are less likely to be misused. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Adding Philosophies that influenced him/her or philosophies that he/she was intimate with ?

I think that philosophies that influenced him/her or philosophies that he was intimate with would be a good addition to the current parameter influences because currently, you need to know the philosophies of each to get similar content, in addition, a philosopher could be influenced by one philosopher but that doesn't imply that he was influenced/intimate by/with his school of philosophy. Jmcs96 (talk) 00:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Deprecated params

Jonesey95, this still has residence. Caught in Bryan Reynolds (scholar). MB 19:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed. Keep 'em coming. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)