Template talk:Infobox person

For pending merger proposals (2009 to date) see Template talk:Infobox person/Mergers

Placement of "Sir"

Currently the parameters mandate that the title "Sir" be placed in the honorific_prefix field. I am not a fan of this. It leads to, for example, Keir Starmer being described as "the Right Honourable Sir", which just sounds silly. "Sir" should go alongside the individual's name, just as "Lord" does in the infoboxes of peers (e.g. Lord Byron). Zacwill (talk) 11:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

The Keir Starmer article doesn't use this template. Most of the peers appear to have their title instead of their name in the template header. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

And there's nothing "silly" about grouping the titles/prefixes together. Just because you would casually refer to this person, in person, as "Sir Keir" doesn't mean that every mention of their name on Wikipedia has to be fused to a "Sir" prefix.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I think you've landed on the reason why these prefixes should be treated differently. "Sir" is widely used even in colloquial speech, whereas "the Rt Hon." and similar honorifics never appear outside of the most formal circumstances. Zacwill (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

WP isn't written in informal speech. And there are other things used informally to formally, such as "Dr[.]", "Prof.", "Rev./Revd", etc., which we do not treat as "magically attached" to the name. I really don't understand what the obsession is with treating "Sir/Dame" as uniquely calling for special handling. There's nothing particularly special about it, and all this special pleading is tiresome (years and years of tiresome, without ever consensus going in the direction of giving those titles unique treament).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

This "obsession" is reflective of normal British usage. The 19th-century scholar Henry Yule, for instance, was a professor, a doctor, a colonel, and a knight; his ODNB article identifies him as Yule, Sir Henry, treating the "Sir" as part of the name but ignoring the academic and military titles. To be clear, I am not arguing for Starmer to be referred to as "Sir Keir" in every context in which his name appears; I'd simply like to see his title displayed properly in the infobox. He is not "the Right Honourable Sir ... Keir Starmer", he is "the Right Honourable ... Sir Keir Starmer". Zacwill (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

"Normal British usage" in a running sentence has nothing to do with what infobox line a datum is put on in an infobox. In a normal British English sentence, all of the titles someone could have and which were used in the sentence would be put on one line, so there is no special exception to be made here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth I agree with Zacwill. A discussion on this subject is taking place here Talk:Ben_Key. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 22:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree. It looks ridiculous. We bold the title in the first line, so why not in the infobox? The honorific_prefix field should be used for honorifics such as The (Right) Honourable and for ranks, not for titles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:01, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

See Template:Infobox saint/testcases. On Wikipedia, we bold the title/prefix "Saint" in the first line (as per MOS:BOLDSYN), but not in the infobox. It is counterintuitive, but well-established as an infobox-related practice on Wikipedia. Prefixes in the main body and prefixes in the infobox do not have to look the same. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's at all "well-established". It's merely liked by a few editors. It's illogical, inconsistent, looks weird and makes no sense. In any case, we're not talking about saints here. That's an honorific that is only applied in a religious context and is not always used (e.g. Thomas More is usually referred to as Sir Thomas More and not St Thomas More, except in a Catholic religious sense). "Sir" and "Dame" are titles that are always applied. Once John Smith is knighted he is always Sir John Smith in the future unless he chooses not to use it (which is rare) and reputable media outlets commonly use it to refer to him. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

'"Sir" and "Dame" are titles that are always applied' is just patently false, though. They're commonly and traditionally applied in British writing, less commonly applied in other Commonwealth writing, and almost entirely eschewed otherwise. And several subjects to whom they pertain disdain them in their professional life, while various others (whatever their personal preferences) are usually referred to without them, even in material that post-dates the knighthood/damehood (as just one example, Emma Thompson; see GNews search which starts with newer material at the top, and includes British publications – some of them eventually use Dame in the article body but are not using it in the headlines). "I like to use them" or "the materials I mostly read like to use them" doesn't quite to "they are always applied".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

They're commonly and traditionally applied in British writing... Generally, we're talking about Britain here, since the vast majority of knights and dames are British. And most British publications use them. Very few people who have them do not use their titles. Actors are not usually credited using them on screen, but they are usually referred to using them by the British media. As an example, obituaries of Sir Michael Gambon: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. "I don't approve of titles" and "America doesn't use them so Wikipedia shouldn't" (which appear to be the two basic arguments against their use if we boil things down) are not really valid arguments. The fact is, in the country with which they are most associated, they are pretty much always used. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The key words here are "most", "few", "not usually credited", "usually". And the fact that you can find an example of British press being deferential in a particular obit is meaningless; we already know that the British press is mostly defferential when it comes to titles of this source, but they do not dictate how to write an encyclopedia for a global audience, and even they are not uniform about it (even within the same publication, much less across all of British publishing).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Deference has nothing to do with it. It is not "defferential" (sic) to display a person's name and titles correctly. Zacwill (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Your views on the British journalism industry are of no relevance here. Atchom (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I also completely agree with Zacwill. "Sir" should go alongside the individual's name. It looks particularly inappropiate, when separated out, if "Sir" is the only item on the preceeding line. Dormskirk (talk) 13:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Are those in favour of this stupid documentation clause really unable to see how ridiculous this looks? Or is it just pure dogma? And given the clear lack of enthusiasm for it in this discussion, does Omnipaedista really have any mandate (other than aforesaid dogma) to go around changing all these infoboxes? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

If you mean this version of the article and its infobox, it looks eminently, 100% sensible to me, with the actual name clearly separated from all of the both pre- and post-nominal titles of all sorts, exactly as it should be. If you move "Sir" to the same line as "William Horwood" it looks like his birth name was "surname: Horwood; first name: Sir; middle name: William". While not many native English speakers would be confused into thinking that, especially about a British subject, "Sir" is actually an uncommon given name (e.g. in the American South where a lot of people are given riculous "title names" like this; I had an uncle in Mississippi literally named Prince John Campbell, I kid you not), and a string that simple is virtually guaranteed to be a valid given name in a variety of non-English languages.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The changes by Omnipaedista look premature to me: this has not been concluded yet. Dormskirk (talk) 14:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

They were entirely compliant with the template documentation. "Someone isn't doing what I wish would be done if my proposal to change things actually had consensus" doesn't make someone complying with how it is actually done now "wrong" or "premature". The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate a WP-wide consensus to do what you want to do instead. No one should do what is not the current norm just because you want to engender a new norm that diverges from it. You seem to have the idea that if you don't like something then everyone has to stop doing what you don't like. WP doesn't work that way. If you want to make a WP-wide change in how this template is documented and used and what parameters it has, for what purposes, then you should open a proposal at WP:VPPRO to implement a change. That would be the appropriate venue, since such a change would affected many thousands of article across all sorts of topics, and is in spirit entirely contrary to the advice to MOS:HONORIFICS to avoid undue use of or attention toward such titles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

When this issue was raised at Talk:Ben Key you said that it should be discussed here, and now that it's being discussed here, you're saying that it should be discussed somewhere else. Make up your mind please. Zacwill (talk) 06:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I specifically said "and advertise it at WT:MOSBIO and WT:BIO and WT:BLP where the biography-focused editors, not template editors, are", but no one did that, so this discussion is not going to have sufficient WP:CONLEVEL to make a change that could impact many thousands of articles, with only a tiny handful of people commenting, and it mostly being the same handful of people pushing for special treatment of "Sir" who always do, and the same handful of people who oppose them. This is a long-term circular discussion, which has not WP:TALKFORKed over to WT:MOSBIO and turned into another circular debate. This is never going to be resolved until it's put up for a site-wide RfC that people in large numbers actually see and participate in. In the interim, the consensus has not changed MOS:BIO says what it says and the template documentation says what it says.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why a relatively minor change to a template's documentation would necessitate altering MOS:BIO. From the way you're hueing and crying, you'd think that we were arguing over something a lot more significant than where exactly a word should go. "Sir" already appears in infoboxes – we just want to display it in a more logical way. Zacwill (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

But only a tiny, tiny number of people so far, who have been beating this dead horse for years against overwhelming ooposition, think that what you want to do is "a more logical way". There is nothing logical about having a parameter for pre-nominal honorifics and a parameter for the name yet moving one of the pre-nominal honorifics into the name parameter. That is illogical by definition. And such a change would affect thousands of articles across innumberable categories, as well as inspire doing the same thing with other titles, so yes this abosolutely should be a prominent RfC and not a WP:FALSECONSENSUS attempt at a talk page virtually no one watchlists. Or the stick should just finally be dropped.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be unaware that the header in the infobox lists the name by which the individual is commonly known, not their full name or birth name. The birth name is further down. So the header name has nothing to do with birth name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not unaware of any such thing. |name= is for their name, not their name with pre- and post-nominal titles glommed onto it. These parameters are really, really, really obviously separate for a reason and mean what their names say they are and what the documentation says they are used for. No amount of "I wish the template was different because it doesn't suit my personal preferences" is going to change that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Your reply would have more force if you did not mistake "hon suffix" for "name". Atchom (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you also get confused when you see, for example, Margaret Thatcher referred to as "Baroness Thatcher" in her infobox? Does this give you the impression that her Christian name is "Baroness"? Zacwill (talk) 16:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Not me personally, but it could easily confuse non-native English speakers. "Baroness" and other pre-nominal titles belong in |honorific_prefix=. It is quite literally why the parameter exists. That article's infobox usage is clearly against both the template's documentation and MOS:HONORIFICS and the very purpose of the infobox's |name= parameter whis is to give their WP:COMMONNAME and agree with the article title. It's an outright abuse.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

You have a very low opinion of non-native speakers' intelligence. I don't think this could "easily" confuse them at all. Also, every single infobox pertaining to a peer is structured like Lady Thatcher's. Are you going to impose your idea of what an infobox should look like on all of them? Zacwill (talk) 06:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with intelligence. Beginning to intermediate ESL people not deeply exposed to the British titles system are not apt to recognize the string "baroness" (not a common word), and it will simply look like another Western given name. This is complicated by the fact that outside of Britain there actually are people with names like "Baroness" and "Duchess" and "Duke" and "Princess" and so on. Actually even within Britain for that matter; Sacha Baron Cohen is English and is not a baron. It's real and fairly common (especially among certain communities, like African Americans in the US South). I had a real-life uncle (now deceased) named Prince John Campbell. See also King Vidor. But this is largely beside the point. The |name= parameter is for giving the name (the common one, the article title) in the infobox, it is not for ginning up honorific forms of address that are not used by virtually any sources anywhere to refer to the subject. The Thatcher infobox and the one at Christopher Guest are farcical trainwrecks.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

As I said, every single infobox pertaining to a peer is structured this way. See David Cameron, Benjamin Disraeli, Bertrand Russell, Lord Tennyson, John Buchan, Betty Boothroyd, etc. etc. This has been the consensus way of doing things for a long time. Zacwill (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Just a patently false statement. The very first peer that popped into my mind, Sean Connery, has his pre-nominal "Sir" title in the parameter for pre-nominal titles, exactly where it belongs, and there are plenty of other cases. The fact that a small number of editors are going around on a WP:FAITACCOMPLI spree of trying to push Sir/Dame out of the parameter that exists for it and wrongly into the name parameter to establish a WP:FALSECONSENSUS for their deferential preference, against both the documentation of the template, against the obvious purpose of the parameters, against the meaning and spirit of MOS:HONORIFICS, and against the basic principle that the infobox name and the article title should not confusingly mismatch, is the very reason that a site-wide RfC needs to address the question. This has become both a content and behavioral dispute at this point.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The fact that you think Sean Connery is a peer makes me wonder if you should be engaging in this kind of discussion at all. Zacwill (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Just a momentary terminological brainfart. My central point is that using a "slow-editwar" fait accompli approach to abuse the template parameters for a group of these people based on their social-status classification (peers in the case you actually brought up) is not how actual consensus is established. We do not do this parameter abuse for knights (except where some of the Fr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) pushers have recently being doing it there, to make them more like peers), and we do not do it for royalty. There is no reason to do it for the peers class in between them, except as a PoV-pushing wedge to eventually also do it to knights and royalty. The only reason the British peers articles mostly are abusing |name= to give titles instead of names is that a small number of editors have obsessively forced them to be this way without an actual site-wide consensus to do this at all, and against the documentation of the templates, and against MOS:HONORIFICS saying not to use them, though they can be mentioned somewhere in the article. It's very telling that pages like List of life peerages (2010–present), etc., are built in tables that have columns reading "Name" and "Title", and there is no confusion between them; the titles are where they belong, in the Title column. The only place where this confusion occurs on the entire system is in peer (and a few knight) infoboxes, all because of the "to hell with the guidelines and the documentation, I'm going to treat this like my personal blog and do whatever I like" behavior of a tiny handful of single-minded users.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The slow edit war comes from users such as Omnipaedista who have been systematically changing the infoboxes then claiming that this was how it was meant to be all along. MOS is clear: "Sir" and "Dame" are treated as part of the name and bolded in the lede with the person's name. The infobox "name" field explicitly refers to it being common name. Atchom (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The topic was "MOS:SIR, Knighthoods & Damehoods are name changing titles, much the same as peerages, should the MOS be updated to reflect this?" The answer was clearly no. --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The lack of consensus on the MOS proposal does not mean that your position commands support. It's not hard. Atchom (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

"Bolded in the lede" does not mean "bolded in the infobox." The template documentation still says what it says. --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

"template documentation pages, and essays have not gone through the policy and guideline proposal process and may or may not represent a broad community consensus" Atchom (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

As I just said: the topic was "MOS:SIR, Knighthoods & Damehoods are name changing titles, much the same as peerages, should the MOS be updated to reflect this?" The answer was clearly no. So the template documentation of Infobox person has already been discussed. What has never been discussed is your edit here. --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

We are supposed to be a global encyclopedia. Pandering to the subset of people from one particular country who desire to offer extra deference to some other people who, by accident of birth, donations to a political cause, or getting to be famous for singing, acting or sports is not how a global encyclopedia should operate. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

There is a parallel discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Honorifics in infobox_headings. --Omnipaedista (talk) 04:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Bastun's comment that we are supposed to be a global encyclopedia. --Omnipaedista (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

After far too long in searching and asking for it, I have not found the discussion where consensus was reached that established the documentation in the first instance. The argument that the documentation must be mindlessly adhered too, and can't be changed is a WP:FAITACCOMPLI style argument. Such a global policy surely has receipts? Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 04:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The documentation of the relevant template (Infobox person) has been indicating that |honorific_prefix= is to be used for these titles since at least November 2017‎. For the past 6 years, no one seems to have changed this bit of the documentation. This is the deafening silence of consensus (WP:SILENCE). You are invited to open an RfC at WP:VPPOL in case you think otherwise. --Omnipaedista (talk) 05:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The documentation in question was added on 12 June 2007, here: [6], and appears to come from thin air. The fact that this same/very similar topic of conversation keeps coming up suggests that Wikipedia:Silence and consensus isn't a valid argument. Surely the receipts exist, otherwise the whole suggestion that this is community wide consensus is itself baseless. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 05:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Nford24 see here and here. For what it's worth I think "Sir" should be part of the name in the infobox and would vote accordingly if there was another RfC, but unfortunately it was a pretty clearcut result. ITBF (talk) 09:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The 2022 RfC had no consensus; but the long-standing usage before Omnipaedista began his attritional warfare was for "Sir" and "Dame" to go into the "Name" field. That is the status quo and Omnipaedista's mass-edits does not override that. Atchom (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@Omnipaedista: I beg to differ regarding your claim of a "deafening silence of consensus". I would suggest the fact that you have recently systematically gone through hundreds of New Zealand biographical articles and moved "Sir" or "Dame" from the subject's name to the honorific_prefix parameter of the infobox shows that the longstanding practice for editors of New Zealand articles is that "Sir" or "Dame" is part of the name field in the infobox, just as they are placed in bold as part of the subject's name in the lede. I wholeheartedly agree with those contributors to this discussion who have contended that honorifics such as "The Right Honourable", "The Honourable", "Her Excellency", etc., belong in the honorific_prefix parameter, but "Sir" and "Dame" do not, and concur with their explanations for this. It was suggested above that this is a single country issue, but clearly it is not. Indeed, it would be impossible to find a country further from the United Kingdom than New Zealand. It is unfortunate that earlier RfCs on this issue were not alerted to Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Article alerts. Paora (talk) 11:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I do not think that the editors proposing a change to the longstanding template documentation have demonstrated a change in *wikiwide* consensus. If these editors think they can change consensus, they are invited to open an RfC at WP:VPPOL as suggested above. Local consensus (WP:LOCALCONSENSUS) cannot override community consensus. —Omnipaedista (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

See this example of local-consensus enforcement: [7] --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The correct place to have a discussion about Infobox person is here at Template talk:Infobox person, not at Village Pump. If all proposed changes to templates etc took place at Village Pump, it would be completely overwhelmed. It is quite clear from the discussion above that there is no consensus on this issue. Dormskirk (talk) 14:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

But it was through the Village Pump that we got rid of the controversial |ethnicity= and |religion= infobox parameters. --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

You were literally the user who reverted that change. You can't do an edit and rely on it as evidence of third-party enforcement. That is absurd. Atchom (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

What is absurd is that you just proposed different placement for the honorific prefixes for the Infobox you are interested in while disregarding what the documentation of all other infoboxes (including the parent infobox, Infobox person) has been saying for the past six years. --Omnipaedista (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

By the way, the main reason why there was no documentation change after the previous discussion ("MOS:SIR, Knighthoods & Damehoods are name changing titles, much the same as peerages, should the MOS be updated to reflect this?") is that the proposal did not clarify why 'Sir' is not to be treated as an honorific prefix. Even the Wikipedia article Sir says it is a honorific prefix; where is the rational rebuttal of the claim made in the current documentation and our own article about the matter? --Omnipaedista (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

It is getting clear that this is about a specific Wikiproject defying the wikiwide guideline's intent and documentation. This is a borderline conduct issue. If a guideline has been defied without any compelling rationale by a small group of editors (see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS), I would like to think that ArbCom should issue remedies to fix that. The irony is that the people who wrote the documentation of this infobox (by the way, I am not included in them) more than six years ago are being accused of abusing consensus levels. The Infobox person template (effectively, the model for all other biographical templates) is being used on hundreds of thousands of pages and is intensely watchlisted. How can a local consensus be formed regarding Infobox person? --Omnipaedista (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't know which Wikiproject you are talking about and I am almost certain I am not a member of it. You have repeatedly failed to show the consensus you claim exists. You have abusively changed thousands of pages to create new facts on the ground. Half of your arguments don't make any sense, such as when you cited your own actions as evidence of consensus enforcement. Atchom (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

For once I agree with Omnipaedista, there seems to be a conduct issue. Old mate is trying to now gatekeep us (as in clearly more than one editor) from even discussing this topic now. I'd love for you to elaborate on which Wikiproject "defying the wikiwide guideline's".

We also have the right to question anything written on the documentation, Wikipedia:Consensus literally comes with note stating they're not perfect, "template documentation pages, and essays have not gone through the policy and guideline proposal process and may or may not represent a broad community consensus"Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 07:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

For everyone's convenience, I flag that Omnipaedista has been carrying on his editing rampage across Wikipedia. Editors may wish to escalate this. Atchom (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

(outdent) No, please check again. I cited your actions. In any case, 1 person’s opinion is not sufficient to change long-standing common practices wiki-wide supported by both discussion on the parent template’s talk page, and by larger conversations and guidelines wiki-wide. --Omnipaedista (talk) 00:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
These two are your edits and they are in defiance of the parent template's documentation: [8] & [9]. --Omnipaedista (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The above thread and various reverts indicate that many editors disagree with your interpretation, Omnipaedista. There is clearly no established or agreed consensus, and claiming that one exists on the basis of an infobox parameter – a parameter that wasn't exactly in widespread use until your recent edits – is disingenuous at best. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Of course there was widespread use before my edits. The earliest such edit I can remember is by MarnetteD back in April 2015 (the article was "Alec Guinness", an intensely watchlisted article). Within the next couple of years after that edit, most of the articles about knighted celebrities had been changed accordingly and the new common practice was eventually documented in Infobox person's documentation. I only started editing that parameter in late 2020 when I noticed that certain Wikiprojects such as WikiProject Military history and WikiProject New Zealand just defied the general guideline. --Omnipaedista (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

The fact that certain editors have only now discovered (through some of my recent edits) what has been common Wikipedia practice for the past 8 years actually bolsters my argument about a specific Wikiproject ignoring/defying the wikiwide guideline's intent and documentation. --Omnipaedista (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

If it was common practice in 2015 you wouldn't have had to manually edit thousands of pages to make them conform to your scheme in 2023. Atchom (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Ah, so it was added by SMcCandlish, who as we can all see from the discussion above is a vociferous advocate of it. Interesting. Frankly, I can see no actual consensus to add anything of the sort or for your edits. The "new common practice" appears to merely be that favoured by a tiny handful of editors who have enforced their views on Wikipedia, not "common practice" at all. As Atchom points out, there was no common practice at all until you started your editing spree. The fact that only celebrities had in general had their titles listed in your favoured way is actually more an endorsement of Atchom's statement than yours. Generally, only people the self-appointed "enforcers" noticed had their styles altered. Most of those infoboxes created by those of us who work on British biography in general rather than only on celebrities used the other style. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you realize that there was an actual vote involved? --Omnipaedista (talk) 05:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

An RfC by general use is not a vote, if it was, then it was 7-12, however, an RfC uses the weight of argument, and the opposing side really had no clear opposition to the change. The most common point was the lack of understanding that Sir/Dame is a name changing title, but they also had responses like "Argument not strong enough, Don't see a reason to change." which carry little to no 'weight'. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 05:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The bottom line was that your side did not win the argument and that the RfC did not effect any changes, so the template documentation still says what it says. --Omnipaedista (talk) 10:14, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Template documentation is explicitly not evidence of consensus, so having conceded the last point you've no leg to stand on. Atchom (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

(outdent) Atchom just made the following edits: [10]. --Omnipaedista (talk) 09:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

The 2022 RfC is clearly a consensus (at a much higher WP:CONLEVEL venue and with many more participants) against jamming Sir/Dame into the name field, and it is in no way magically overturned by some refuted kvetching on this talk page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The consensus of that discussion was that 'Sir' and 'Dame' are high-grade (as opposed to routine) honorifics, not actual names, and have no place in the "Names" part of the infobox. --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The "RfC" (although it doesn't appear to have actually been a formal one) was never closed and therefore cannot really be used as some form of consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:RFCEND. Please also note that consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity as per WP:CONS. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I am quoting: "If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable." --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The UK government does consider knighthoods/damehoods to be name changing titles, which is often overlooked or just ignored. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 21:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Your argument has not been ignored; it has been refuted in the RfC above. A report issued by a Public Administration Committee does not hold any legal authority in the United Kingdom. Furthermore, it is even more preposterous to suggest that such a report may be used to dictate Wikipedia's policy regarding style. --Omnipaedista (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

It was never refuted at all actually, and is a perfectly acceptable reference. The report literally states "We found that few people have any grasp of the difference between a CB and a CBE, or why some people become GBEs, some KBEs and some are simply Knights Bachelor. Name-changing honours are especially baffling, and carry connotations of social divisiveness." is a direct representation where the last RfC failed, most no respondents don't grasp the fact its a name changing title in the exact same fashion as peerages. Putting Sir/Dame where it belongs would not create any special policy, merely properly fall into line with existing policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nford24 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. The "you are saying a select committee report is legally binding" thing is a strawman and should be treated as such since literally no one is saying that. But it is very good first hand evidence of the relevant body of practice. Atchom (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

If "Sir" is truly a name-changing title in practice then how come encyclopedias like Britannica simply say Alec Guiness or Winston Churchill as opposed to Lord Byron? "Lord" is name-changing in practice; "Sir" is not. I do not think you know what editors are looking for as a reference when drafting the documentation of an infobox. --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh we're deferring to random Britannical entries now? When Wikipedia has our own conventions? The far more authoritative Oxford Dictionary of National Biography includes Sir in the title, but of course that undermines your argument so you don't mention it. Atchom (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Actually it’s a good thing Omnipaedista mentioned the Britanica entries, as both the Alec Guiness & Winston Churchill entires mention “name in full: Sir…” in their version of the info box. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 06:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Yet "Sir" is not part of the title of the article which I would argue is the real equivalent of the name parameter of our infobox. I also think that your are inconsistent here. Britannica editors have "George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron" in the full name parameter of their infobox, but I do not think you want us to have "George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron" in the name parameter of our infobox (instead of Lord Byron). --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The use of the title ‘Lord’ is the informal way to address both a Peer and more specifically a Baron. EB’s article naming policies are definitely whack, however I’m not sure what you’re trying to drive at? Are you now suggesting we want ‘Sir’ added to WP article names? WP’s article naming policy gives preference to the commonly known name of the individual, as it should. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 21:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Let me spell out what I said. What Wikipedia does is this: we use the name parameter of our infoboxes the same way that Britannica uses the name parameter (their article titles) of their infoboxes ("Alec Guinness", "Lord Byron"); but in the lead of our articles, we boldface all the components of what Britannica calls "full name" (so we boldface Sir in the lead of Alec Guiness; we boldface "George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron" in the lead of Lord Byron). I now realize this correspondence has not been spelled out in this thread before; in any case, Wikipedia practice reflects Britannica practice. --Omnipaedista (talk) 10:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

[Citation needed]. Atchom (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Just open the Britannica links I cited above. --Omnipaedista (talk) 10:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

That theory of yours doesn't appear to be accurate. There are several thousand articles listed on Britannica with 'Sir' in the article name - britannica.com/search?query=sir&page=6 Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 05:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Most of those appear to be about people born before the 20th century. As I said above Alec Guiness and Winston Churchill do not include 'Sir' in the article name. The discrepancy in the article names seems to imply that Britannica editors do not follow a consistent policy. Including it or not is a matter of style preference. The relevant Wikipedia RfC has chosen the style you do not like. --Omnipaedista (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Above in an extremely rude and belittling manner you bluntly said that Wikipedia follows the Britannicas style, now you’re saying it only follows the style adopted by a handful of articles out of thousands. The list also includes people born after Churchill & Guinness just so you know. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 21:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

It's almost as @Omnipaedista is making it up as they go along! Atchom (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

What was rude and belittling was Nford24's sentence "The most common point was the lack of understanding that Sir/Dame is a name changing title." --Omnipaedista (talk) 09:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

That statement came from a referenceable government report. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 09:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

You are missing the point of the other side though. Wikipedia-style policy is not governed by government reports. Infobox parameters are just the layout of infobox, not information provided for readers. We could argue for years over whether "Sir" is name-changing or not. The key question is whether specific honorific prefixes go in the honorific-prefix field in the infobox or the name field in the infobox. To settle that we need to cite style guides and other encyclopedias, not government reports. Other editors did not ignore your source in the latest RfC, they just found it irrelevant and you were explicitly told so.

And I just noticed another issue with your style preference. If you were completely consistent with your own view, you would go for the suggestion to include just "Sir" + "First Name" in the name parameter as per Cambridge Dictionary: "Sir": used as the title of a knight (= a man who has been given a rank of honour by a British king or queen), with a first name or with both first and family names, but never with just the family name. Now, what the template documentation says is in accordance to the latest RfC result. Namely, we don't go neither for "Sir First Name" (which is unheard of on Wikipedia), nor for "Sir First Name + Last Name" (because jamming Sir/Dame into the name field is not explicitly dictated by any of the style guides that have so far been invoked by the parties involved), but we separate a stand-alone, high-grade prefix from both the first and the last name.

I never claimed that template documentation is set in stone. I merely claimed that an RfC discussion is necessary when it comes to controversial matters, an RfC did indeed occur, and that RfC concluded with the view that your style preference has not been properly backed up by convincing style-related arguments. --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

"Other editors did not ignore your source in the latest RfC, they just found it irrelevant and you were explicitly told so." Only one respondent to the RfC even made comment on the reference, "the second, more absurd, premise is that UK law or convention governs Wikipedia style policy." For which Cambial made a strange remark given the reference in no way made an attempt to force policy, something you've been told repeatedly, but seems to constantly fall on deaf ears.

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue with the Cambridge Dictionary reference, I don't believe anyone has suggested 'Sir Churchill' be placed into any infoboxes that I've seen. If anything the dictionary reference should be used with a grain on salt given that the definition above suggests 'Dear Sirs' is the correct form of address to multiple men when 'Messrs' is actually the correct title.messrs Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form)

Ralbegen also commented on your source, and the comment was: I don't see why a UK Parliament's select committee report saying that knighthoods are confusing and different people have different preferences about what to be called should bear on Wikipedia style.

Cambridge Dictionary has a style guide for Sir (used as the title of a knight, with a first name or with both first and family names, but never with just the family name). It would be more consistent if your side suggested we use "Sir Winston" in the name parameter of Winston Churchill so that we adhere to referenceable style-guide prescriptions. --Omnipaedista (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Your own source says it's issued with both first and family name. Ralbegen's response I left out because it failed to directly address the point of the reference in that it says 'Sir' is a name changing title, and only responded the my point that most people don't understand how the titles work. Of all the respondents, no one actually declared the reference irrelevant, and If even one person had, there are six people in this thread that consider it relevant. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 21:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Actually, "consistent" was not what I meant, "convincing" is a better word. My point is that most editors can understand why the prefix "Lord" can be included in the name parameter in Lord Giddens because one cannot easily parse "Lord Giddens" if "Lord" (a style for certain ranks of nobility) is visually separated from "Giddens"; in the same vein, most editors could understand why the prefix "Sir" could be included in the name parameter if we went for simply "Sir Winston" (Option A) because one cannot easily parse "Sir Winston" if "Sir" is format-wise separated from "Winston". But since we go for "Sir Winston Churchill" (Option B), we can expect our readers to be able to parse the name even if Sir and "Winston Churchill" are format-wise separated (actually most RfC contributors pointed out that separating "Sir" from "First Name + Last Name" is more helpful to our international readers). I stress "format-wise" because the whole thing is a matter of presentation, not a statement about how important specific prefixes are (that's why I said earlier that this issue is not about knighthood-related "information provided for readers").

Now, you seem to be claiming that we can resolve this debate about style by having a debate about the importance of the relevant titles; that's a category mistake. In any case, the relevant RfC ran for 1 month and 15 days (RfCs nominally run for 30 days) and for whatever reason the outcome was that the 2017 version of the template documentation did not need to be changed. (By the way, WP:RFCEND says, "If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable.") Since you find this outcome unfair, why don't you either open a new RfC (since you want to change the current documentation) or escalate to ArbCom? What we've been doing here for the past few weeks is merely interpreting a past RfC. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

(outdent) Where is my fishing net? I am in need of some trout... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I just notified the editors of two relevant templates: Template talk:Infobox officeholder and Template talk:Infobox military person. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Atchom has been edit-warring on the template documentation pages Template:Infobox officeholder/doc and Template:Infobox military person/doc (without discussing changes in the respective talk pages even though there are relevant threads there now) and simply ignoring what Template:Infobox person/doc currently says. --Omnipaedista (talk) 10:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

It's been 135 days since this topic was created. Could someone briefly summarize the discussion? From what I understand, until this discussion turns into a site-wide RfC that a sizable number of people participate in, the issue will never be resolved. --Omnipaedista (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The topic of this discussion is something I've taken a side interest in through my own editing, but I've only just come across and read through it. Not having participated thus far, I'll take a stab at summarising:

As far as I can see (although please correct me if needed), we're simply re-litigating the subject of this "informal"(?) RfC on whether "Sir" or "Dame" should go in |honorific-prefix= or |name=. From what I've noticed, placing it in |honorific-prefix= is the prevailing convention for British biographical infoboxes, and by extension for most knights and dames on Wikipedia.

As for myself, I don't have a strong opinion as to which is objectively preferable, but I agree that we should ideally have consistency across all knights/dames regardless of nationality. There would however be an argument that this is not significant enough a change such that we should ideally just stick with the most common form in use. Pending a wider RfC or other discussion that allows us to decide on one form, I suggest that we stop edit-warring on this issue. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 16:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, only knighthoods (and by extension damehoods) awarded by the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, Belize, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Tuvalu and the Solomon Islands (all Commonwealth countries) carry the Sir/Dame prefix. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 05:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Baronets. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Baronets are also purely a Commonwealth thing. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 23:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Death cause parameter

There is a little bit of an edit war going on at Brad Renfro about weather the death cause parameter should be used. His death clearly falls somewhere in between of the two sets of examples given in the template documentation. Is it possible to make the guidance more explicit about how to handle cases in the middle. I note that this parameter is used on both River Phoenix and Elvis Presley so is consensus that this parameter should be used in these kind of circumstances?

The bit of the guidance that I'm struggling to understand is "should only be included when the cause of death has significance for the subject's notability." This sounds simple but I'm not sure how to apply it in these kind of cases. RicDod (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not the purpose or bailiwick of template documentation to set policy/guidelines. This has been left to editorial discretion on an article-by-article basis. If we think that has ended up being a bad idea, then it should instead probably be covered at MOS:BIO and discussed at WT:MOSBIO for addition there.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Functionally, infobox templates have become much more “guiding” than I think they used to be, and I would agree that a more central, more watched policy/guideline page would be better to set convention on these matters.

This specific question came up before, regarding Jim Henson. I personally agree that “significance for the subject's notability” is a particularly bad way to phrase guidance, but I remember there being resistance from another editor here when attempts to rephrase were made. — HTGS (talk) 09:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The template doc wording is definitely faulty, a copy-paste of "the subject's notability" wording out of WP:BLP. It can virtually never actually pertain to this parameter. Who, exactly, has ever been notable (i.e. worthy of having an encyclopedia article about them) simply because of the cause of their death? Rather, what it's trying to get at is something along the lines of what's being argued about for MOS:DEADNAME stuff: that the factoid should only be included if significantly covered in multiple, independent, reliable sources. That's roughly the proper way to word this. But it is not clear that the community wants any such restriction on death-cause information. That's something that needs to be an RfC matter, probably at WT:MOSBIO where it will be seen by more than a handful of template editors and infobox flamers.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Who exactly? Maybe Elaine Herzberg, although that's a death not a person? Have not yet checked through the whole of List of unusual deaths... In fact, all of the "Death of..." articles. They only exist because of their notable deaths? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

'Children' parameter

I propose that we include something like - "This parameter may be used for biological, adopted, foster, or step-children" - in the 'Explanation' column for the "|children=" parameter here, similar to that of "|parents=". - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Would we expect that the guidance remain that the number listed be all-inclusive (i.e., no breaking out the number of each type and only listing the names of those who are notable)? For example, would either of these be acceptable?

| children = 5, including 2 step-children

or

| children = 3, plus 2 step-children

or would we prefer just the total:

| children = 5

At this point, I am not lobbying one way or another. I am just asking a question.  — Archer (t·c) 17:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest that specifying one of those is probably more problematic than leaving it undefined. The reason is simply that the answer to the question of whether step-children should be mentioned and how should be should reflect sourcing, not whatever arbitrary parameter definition we say. Does the subject talk about their 5 children, then go on to talk about them making a distinction between bio and step-children? Then the "5, including 2 step" formulation would best reflect that. If sources quote them as saying I have three children and two step kids, then "3, plus 2 step" is best. If sources show that they don't make the distinction between their bio and step kids, then "5" is all you need. And if the sources show that they talk about their 3 children, even though they are married to someone with two additional kids, then the parameter should just say "3". Number of children is not an objective fact, it is a subjective interpretation where the most important perspective is the article subject's own characterization of their family as found in reliable sources. VanIsaac, GHTV ^cont_WpWS 07:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I've just arrived to check if the documentation had a view on this, after seeing an edit of an infobox children field from "2" to "2 (adopted)", by an editor who felt this was a factual correction. Would be good to see a clarification. Belbury (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Education and alma mater parameters

Hey, there. I've been wondering about something: does the "education" and/or the "alma mater" parameters apply to universities (for example, the Stephen Hillenburg article has the "alma mater" parameter for his universities, while the Hugh Jackman article has the "education" parameter for his universities)? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I guess I'm not sure what you're asking? It seems to me that the infobox documentation sufficiently explains the difference between the two params? The short answer is that either can be used. DonIago (talk) 02:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I see. According to this edit on the Tara Platt article by Therequiembellishere (talk · contribs), the editor's summary states "[the] alma mater [parameter] is deprecated". However, as indicated on Template:Infobox person#Parameters, the "alma mater" and the "education" parameters are included. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I see no evidence that the alma mater parameter is deprecated. Short of hearing from Therequiem, I would feel free to revert any non-constructive edits made based on that claim. DonIago (talk) 07:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Here's what the documentation says:

|education=

Education, e.g., degree, institution and graduation year, if relevant. If very little information is available or relevant, the |alma_mater= parameter may be more appropriate.

|alma mater=

Alma mater. This parameter is a more concise alternative to (not addition to) |education=, and will often consist of the linked name of the last-attended institution of higher education (not secondary schools). It is usually not relevant to include either parameter for non-graduates, but article talk page consensus may conclude otherwise, as perhaps at Bill Gates.

Generally, this is how I apply this guidance:

1. Use |alm mater= when listing the last higher-education institution from which the person earned a degree/was graduated.
2. Use |education= when listing more than one higher-education institution or when including details like degree, year, field of study, and/or location of the institution
3. Do not use both |education= and |alma mater= in the same article.
4. Include only higher-education institutions; no primary, secondary, K-12, sixth form, etc. Only post-secondary institutions, which could include trade schools, acting schools, etc.

Notes

 — Archer (t·c) 03:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I would use alma_mater for most actors and entertainers, and education where their profession is more academic in nature. In cases of both, if there's something notable and different like actor Ken Jeong having an MD, you can put that in education. Honorary degrees? Probably not for either. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 02:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

“Website” after “military career”

See the infobox for Neri Oxman. The placing of the website section makes it seem like the website is directly connected to the military service. This is particular so on mobile. Is there a good way to fix this? Thanks Brianga (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• You could switch the order of the modules, so her scientific career details come after military. But I wonder if having a dividing line between modules wouldn't be a good idea anyway. VanIsaac, GHTV ^cont_WpWS 04:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Autocomplete the template with wikidata

In the spanish version of Wikipedia, when I add the equivalent template, it automatically autocompletes with the data obtained from Wikidata (if there is any), but I'm trying to do the same in the english version, and It doesn't do it. Ivanmarribas (talk) 12:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

The page in that I'm trying to add the template is "Alain Deneault". His Wikidata entry. Ivanmarribas (talk) 12:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

The community rejected it some years ago. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you know where that discussion took place? I'm wondering if it wouldn't assuage those kinds of concerns to have a bot that autopopulates a template, but only on request. VanIsaac, GHTV ^cont_WpWS 20:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't. The problem centres around the verifiability policy in conjunction with the living persons policy - pretty much all information about a living person must be sourced in the article itself, which is not possible if some of the information is pulled from Wikidata. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

And the problem of vandalism that does not show on watchlists unless enable stupefying large feed of Wikidata. Johnuniq (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

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)[11] 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)

template_name

can we fix it so that template_name isn't added to articles when visual editor is used? Frietjes (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Origin

Just like how the origin parameter is used in infoboxes for music performers, would anyone add the parameter on infobox person as it should the city/country/place where the person originated from (that is, the place where the individual started their career, and should not match their birth location.) 2600:6C40:5400:A0E:455D:BF12:9DC2:48C6 (talk) 08:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

It would be better to remove it there. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

No. That invites a whole host of unencyclopedic guessing. While music "scenes" can make that sort of parameter somewhat meaningful, and breakout hits for musical artists can even make it fairly objective, it is either completely meaningless, wildly subjective, or completely irrelevant for pretty much any other type of notability. If you manage to have a person who is associated with a particular origination that is notable, it belongs in article prose. VanIsaac, GHTV ^cont_WpWS 14:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Size default for signature

Is there a reason this is hardcoded to 150px, while the main image uses "frameless", which follows user preferences? Could we use "frameless" as default for the signature as well? —Kusma (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit request 10 March 2024

Description of suggested change: Disable bolding of |native_name= when |native_name_lang= uses a non-Latin script

At the very least for Chinese, per MOS:ZH. Hopefully it's alright if I don't fashion a diff for this one, but it's something I'm constantly having to readjust for with {{normal}} on dozens of articles. Remsense诉 10:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Change made to sandbox. Please check test cases — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I assume it was intentionally a blanket tweak—meaning, Latin scripts are affected too? I actually think that's preferable, just checking it was intentional.Remsense诉 12:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Well that's the simplest way to implement, and probably better for consistency. Unless anyone disagrees — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I recall some function somewhere that would return whether a given IETF code was Latin script or not. Remsense诉 13:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

{{lang}} italicizes Latin script automatically: either when that is the default encoding for the language or when it is triggered by a xx-Latn language code. It appears to go further in these examples with Serbian, which could use Latin or Cyrillic script:

• {{lang|sr-Cyrl|Народна скупштина}} → Народна скупштина – no italics Y
• {{lang|sr-Latn|Narodna skupština}} → Narodna skupština – italics Y
• {{lang|sr|Народна скупштина}} → Народна скупштина – no italics Y
• {{lang|sr|Narodna skupština}} → Narodna skupština – italics Y

So, the function or the logic/algorithm is used somewhere in {{lang}}'s module(s) and appears in some ambiguous cases to detect the script being used even if the editor did not specify the script.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 14:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done no further comments, so done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Do you support overturning the 2020 consensus to remove residence from the Infobox person template?

Should the 2020 consensus to remove |residence= from the Infobox person template be overturned? 4theloveofallthings (talk) 01:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

There was a 2020 consensus to remove |residence= from the Infobox person template, and I want to readdress it.

• Yes- I support overturning the consensus to remove the parameter. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 01:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
• Please create a brief, neutral statement of the question separate from your !vote - see WP:RFCOPEN.
  Then answer to your question on what other parameter covers that information is "none" - and that's by design. Not everything that is found in the article needs to be covered. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

  Name, location, age, occupation all seem like things that should be covered. Not all things need to be covered, but are we really considering someone’s residence to be one of the lesser important things to cover? That seems ridiculous to me. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• Yes - Why might the place of residence of someone not be important? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

  That’s exactly how I feel as well. It’s often included in the article anyway! It’s something that one would expect in a summary of a person’s biography, so I personally think it being removed as a parameter was an overkill. By the same arguments made in 2020 to remove it, we could argue |birth_place= should be removed as well. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with the No arguments, but perhaps I am missing something. What value specifically does including residence to the template add to the article? One point against including it is safety concerns for the person. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  Well, if their place of residence is cited in multiple reliable sources (doesn't have to be too specific, like just a city), then why not put it in the infobox? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  It already has to be in order for it to be included in the article. The narrative that in some way including it in a persons infobox would be doxxing the individual is ridiculous. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 01:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  Plus, if it’s template editors that are saying that just getting rid of the parameter altogether is the solution as opposed to developing a way in which only city-level residences are listed, then I think that’s just lazy. I even quickly just now threw together .. {{City_of_Residence|name=Kim Kardashian|city=Los Angeles}} → Kim Kardashian is a resident of Los Angeles USA

  I am no template editor! Just cannot wrap my mind around how those who handle the templates on Wikipedia would genuinely have seen removal of a useful parameter under the false illusion that it is used to dox subjects (despite there being not a single case of this ever having happened) as the solution over .. developing a solution instead. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 02:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• One issue I can see is that a residence might be outdated, showing residences of the past. It seems residence in the infobox should be something current, which might not be the case, which could be misleading to the reader. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• No, can't think of an article where an unqualified listing of a single residence in the infobox would be helpful. —Kusma (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

  Government Representatives. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  It makes sense to mention the official residence(s) at President of Germany, but why would we need to add them to the infobox of Frank-Walter Steinmeier? They are not even mentioned in the prose. (And apparently he doesn't even live there). —Kusma (talk) 11:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• No Completely non-educational unless you're some sort of celebrity stalker.Moxy🍁 21:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

  I agree, but what if one's place of residence is mentioned in multiple reliable sources? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

  In my view if it's something like Buckingham palace it'll be in a personal section anyways. Not seeing how listing Kim Kardashian's address is helpful to the average reader. Moxy🍁 22:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

  Listing someone’s address would go against Wikipedia guidelines. Kim Kardashian’s residence would be Los Angeles, California. If you’re going to make the argument against the parameter, at least make the argument without exaggerating the way it was used — as the parameter existed for nearly two decades prior to being randomly removed at the start of this decade. A better example would be congressional candidates. It is not required for a congressional candidate for a certain district to reside in the district they are running for. However, many people would be hesitant to vote for a candidate who does not reside in their district themselves. Congressional candidates only need to reside in the same state as the district they run for. Listing |residence= in this case could go to help voters be more informed about the candidates running in their district. Note that congressional candidates may have never held office before and thus would be using the Infobox person template.4theloveofallthings (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  Your purpose of "help[ing] voters be[come] more informed" is a fairly clear violation of WP:NOT. Please refresh your memory on Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a directory, or an indiscriminate collection of information. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  Coolcaesar That’s a good point. I have to respect that. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

  The information ends up in the article anyway? If the person seeking the information was a stalker, then they’re bound to read the entire article anyway. You’re shaping this in a way that makes it seem as though including information about a persons residence is not allowed on Wikipedia — when in fact it is. All that is curious to me is that while the information remains fair game for inclusion in a subjects article, why would it not be included in the infobox?

  Just thought it deserved a second thought is all. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

• No I see no value in adding a person's residence to the infobox.Eddie Blick (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  What’s the value in adding a persons |birth_place= ? 4theloveofallthings (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  After thinking pretty hard about how to answer this—it is a non-trivial question—here's what I have, since I don't like to lean solely on previous consensus even when that may be the deciding factor in content discussions. It is much more reliably a representation of some aspect of the subject's biography. People moving from place to place is not reliably an interesting or informative thing. People live in LA for every reason, and most of them are meaningless for an encyclopedia. Whereas someone's birthplace inherently distills aspects of their early life, which is almost always important in some way for a biography whether they stuck around there or not. It's much more fixed in a more meaningful sense than "it would be annoying if we had to keep changing it". That's what I presently can think to answer, anyway. Remsense诉 17:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  The birthplace is also amazingly useful for further research, especially for finding dead Europeans in church registers. Similar for place of death. —Kusma (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• No per the 2020 discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• No per the 2020 discussion and for the reasons already discussed at length by others above. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• No – "seems like it should be" and "why not" are exactly the arguments they sound like. Verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion, and it certainly doesn't privilege inclusion in an infobox, which is meant to summarize key information about a topic, not merely parameterizable information about a topic. For no individuals can I really bring myself to consider this a key piece of information for their encyclopedia article—and 0% is much lower than the usefulness threshold required for a parameter's inclusion in my view. Remsense诉 16:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• No – Per all similar !votes - FlightTime (open channel) 16:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Weak support: I can see potential value in a |residence= parameter, but only if its scope could be extremely limited. If you run a search for pages using the parameter (hastemplate:"infobox person" insource:/residence *= *[A-Za-z\[]/), plenty come up,^{(see reply)} but I am inclined to say that inclusion criteria should resemble either: Only include actual buildings or grounds well known as the subject’s residence, as Carinhall is for Hermann Göring or at least the looser standard, Only include places strongly associated with the subject as their residence, as with Andre Agassi, who lives in Las Vegas; obviously both examples have flaws, but hopefully this prompts clearer debate. In either case, we would also reinforce that any place listed must be discussed in the article body, not merely cited, so perhaps for some, this could be a third, looser standard. Note that both examples there already have their residence listed because they use more field-specific infoboxes. At the end of this, I would prefer to see most person infoboxes aligned one way or the other; that may mean notifying more template talk pages now, or holding another mass-RfC after this one’s conclusion. — HTGS (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  It appears that most pages that include a residence now do so because they use specific templates that allow them, and the above search only returns those pages that use templates that reference this template. Most appear to be {{Infobox tennis biography}}, {{Infobox officeholder}}, which seems to have some merit, and {{Infobox gymnast}}. (There are likely others, but tennis and gymnast use height, which is part of person.) — HTGS (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  This is one of the practical flaws (limits?) of Wikipedia: it's very difficult to have something that's all three of "broadly visible to editors", "limited in intended scope", and "doesn't require constant maintenance to correct what we consider to be erroneous use". If we add this parameter back, nothing we can do will make its limited scope intuitive to most editors.

  That is to say, I disagree with your conclusion: I don't think it's best for most to be aligned one way or the other. I think it should be there if it's key information, which depends on the subject in question. Remsense诉 22:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  I can see the logic in listing a residence for officeholders (political offices often come with residences; eg, the White House), but do you really think that sportspeople should be treated differently to any other bio using infobox person? I think I’m a little less pessimistic than you (and everyone else) on our limitations here though. I believe people adding infoboxes are either copying them from the documentation samples, inserting via the Visual Editor, or copying them from similar articles. Only the third of those makes it hard for us to tell people “Do it like X, don’t do it like Y”, and if we create a clear standard, then removing erroneous entries from existing articles will slowly solve the whole problem. — HTGS (talk) 02:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  Reasonable minds can certainly differ, but to answer the concrete question:

  Do you really think that sportspeople should be treated differently to any other bio using infobox person?

  Certainly! Different biographies have different needs. Remsense诉 00:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  I can’t honestly see why {{Infobox Magic: The Gathering player}} players should all have their residence listed, but the generic person infobox should not have the parameter even with strict standard for its use. It seems to me that some great degree of standardisation is needed, and while I think most sportspersons do not need a residence parameter, I’m open to it being listed, but really some decent rationale and usage notes should really be given. — HTGS (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. This is exactly the kind of parameter that invites stupid edit wars at articles - there is basically no one who meets WP:GNG who doesn't have a definable residence at most given points in time, so anyone who writes an article on a person with this infobox is going to try to include it. But the vast majority of people will have several residences that could realistically be used. So unless a person has a job with a notable residence attached to it, e.g. the White House, that information is pretty much disjointed from a person's notability and is completely dependent on the time in a person's life without actually having to be dependent on their notability during that time. That's a bad combination for a general infobox parameter, especially one that is so widely implemented as this one. If the residence itself is notable for some reason - either as a building of historical interest, or as a constituency for a political office, that belongs in prose, and can be incorporated as a standalone {{infobox building}}, or as a module in this infobox under {{infobox officeholder}}. Now, if you wanted to argue about including this parameter into infobox officeholder, I'd be interested to hear the arguments on both sides of that one. VanIsaac, GHTV ^cont_WpWS 03:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  The removal of parameters based solely on the contention they cause among editors is a questionable rationale for making significant changes to major templates. If there's substantial division over the issue, it likely indicates that consensus on its removal is not universally accepted within the community. Decisions to remove key elements like those in a subject's infobox should require more than a simple majority. A two-thirds majority should be necessary, following multiple discussions across various spaces impacted by the change, such as the template's talk page and relevant WikiProjects. Although I understand the reasoning behind keeping it removed for now, the ease with which it was done concerns me. It sets a precedent that might prove problematic. But of course, that's just my opinion. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

  Well a) if you think that parameters with a penchant for arbitrary and meaningless values is just a mere matter of contention between editors, I think you need to gain significantly more perspective. And b) as far as I know, the only things on Wikipedia that are subject to any sort of majority is various administrative permissions and representation on boards of the Wikimedia foundation. Content is subject to WP:Consensus; not a majority, not a 2/3 majority, not a 99% majority. Consensus is oftentimes established via reference to Wikipedia:Policy. An arbitrary threshold for removing a problematic parameter does not seem consistent with any sort of Wikipedia policies I am familiar with, but given that my heaviest involvement in policy is a good decade old, maybe you could help me out here. VanIsaac, GHTV ^cont_WpWS 01:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)