Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 15

Alma mater parameter

IP user broke parameter in new article to grammatically correct but dysfunctional "almae matres", which seems like a very intelligent good faith edit on the surface. Is it possible to soup up the template to recognize multiple almae matres in the parameter, create multiple alma mater parameters, or offer a suggestion which will correct how I may have misused the template at Rosemarie Esber? ClaudeReigns (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the template is correctly formatted as of your latest edit to the article.

The plural problem may have only impractical solutions. Like you said, an extra parameter for the plural could theoretically be added, but I for one don't like that approach since it leads to "functionality creep", i.e. bloated and unwieldy templates.

The only way to automate recognition of multiple almae matres would be a dedicated bot, but that would also be overkill imho.

Most people have a single alma mater, and as for the other cases, the average reader will likely understand that the infobox is basically a simple form and uses only the singular form for simplicity and usability. I can't imagine that anyone would be confused or otherwise inconvenienced by the singular parameter even when it names more than one alma mater. --78.35.245.52 (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

So what would be a good methodical approach in applying the current template and avoiding a grammatical error? Should it be listed entirely under 'education'? I see your point about functionality creep, and perhaps a separate template for doctors of philosophy which creates this option and discards many options not usually ascribed to academics may also fulfill your hopes. ClaudeReigns (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

There's {{Infobox scientist}}, which currently uses the same setup for the Alma mater parameter as this template. I believe this is the result of a simple cost-benefit equation: sacrificing a bit of grammatical correctness (in other words, 100% of it... :D) in favor of ease of use.

Consider other parameters: The Parents parameter obviously uses plural. But so does the Children parameter, which faces the same (imho very minor) grammatical problem as the Alma mater parameter. The Spouse parameter (which I'm hoping we'll get rid of, see above) is the only one which uses a facultative formulation ("Spouse(s)"), which also makes sense (although I can't help but chuckle a bit at the cultural bias of using plural for "Children", facultative plural for "Spouse(s)", but singular for Alma mater).

I don't believe any of the potential solutions warrants the effort and/or they would lead to overcomplication over what most readers and editors would probably regard as a very minor error of the type that anyone who fills in standard forms on a regular basis has come to expect. --78.35.245.52 (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Effort isn't a problem for me if the outcome shows an improvement. I am currently throwing around another template idea to help clarify questions of WP:DUE and could use the practice in creating functional templates. ClaudeReigns (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure, go for it. I'd start out with a userspace subpage "faux template" to get it ready before moving it to template space. Testing in template space can be done from a template sandbox. --78.35.245.52 (talk) 19:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! ClaudeReigns (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Request

I would like to propose the addition of a "colleague(s)" or "associates" parameter, similar to the "associated_acts" parameter in {{infobox musical artist}}. Using Mark Zuckerburg as an example, his colleagues/associates would be Marc Andreessen, Don Graham, and Sean Parker. He has a significant professional relationship with all of these individuals. Consensus on what acts are appropriate to include in the associated_acts parameter came about as a result of a very long discussion here. Should this request be granted, I think the same guidance and mission statement should be used for this template. However, because this template is for people who are not musical artists, I suggest the wording in the guidance/mission statement be adjusted as such:

"This field is for professional relationships with other [people] or [groups] that are significant and notable to this [person's] career.

This field can include, for example, any of the following:

• For individuals: groups of which he or she has been a member
• Other [individuals] with which this [person] has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on [a project], or toured with as a single collaboration [speaking] together
• [For groups:] groups which have spun off from this group
• A group from which this group has spun off

Separate multiple entries with commas.

The following uses of this field should be avoided:

• Association of groups with [group]members' solo careers
• Groups with only one [group]member in common
• Association of [agents], managers, etc. with other [people] (unless the [person/group] essentially belongs to the [manager], as in the case of a [think tank or association] formed by and working exclusively with a [manager])
• One-time collaboration for [an event], or [at] a single [event]
• [People] that are merely similar"

I am proposing this because I would like to add this parameter to the Tabitha and Napoleon D'umo article that I'm working on. They have had long term, on-going, significant professional relationships with Jabbawockeez, Jamie King, Nigel Lythgoe, and Cirque Du Soleil. I would like to use the infobox to acknowledge this. Although this article was the catalyst for my request, I believe this change would be useful for multiple articles. //Gbern3 (talk) 18:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess this means the answer is "no". Oh well. //Gbern3 (talk) 09:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with that being added. If it's just one article you're concerned about at the moment, you can always use the generic box at Template:Infobox#Examples, and copy all this box's parameters into it, then add your own. I've customized boxes a few times that way, and they end up looking identical, plus the extra parameter. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

That might give a comparable visual presentation, but has none of the metadata benefits of a more specific infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Resting place

I would like to see "resting place" and "resting place coordinates" changed to "grave" and "grave coordinates" in the same way we say "died" and not "passed away". We tell it like it is on WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

"Resting place" is not a euphemism; and covers more types than just graves. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Military experience

I just checked the archives and found there has been some discussion about including some details of military service in this infobox. Yet up to now, nothing has come of those discussions. What I'd like to propose is that a small subset of {{Infobox military person}} be included in {{Infobox person}}, with that subset perhaps limited to the following:
 |branch=
 |serviceyears=
 |rank=
 |battles=

(Perhaps call the 4th parameter "wars"; its called "battles" in Infobox military person/Infobox officeholder but documented to also be used for wars, which is the use I suspect applies if it were to be added.)

I suggest this subset because there are significant number of bios, such as those of the Greatest Generation, for whom their military service is significant (and perhaps notable) enough to be in the infobox, even if they didn't make the military their career. I just worked on Jean Edward Smith, and earlier contributors had included details on his military service.

Note also that {{Infobox officeholder}} accommodates the inclusion of military details through a subset of parameters. I think {{Infobox person}} should do so as well. 67.100.127.182 (talk) 08:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Twitter section

With scads of celebrities creating Twitters, what about adding a "Twitter" section to the infobox and having that be a link to their Twitter? --WTRiker (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. We only use their primary website in the infobox for a reason: to keep numerous URLs from cluttering the box. If the twitter account is particularly notable in itself, include it in the external links section. Otherwise, just leave it out. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hm, but Jamie has one, above... Rich Farmbrough, 11:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC).

So? He has one in a test showing of a template? Also oppose having it in an infobox. If important, put it in the external links section. Garion96 (talk) 13:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think perhaps it is time to revisit this discussion (from Archives 7). Twitter accounts are more significant now than they used to be, and are often lost in the External Links section. In some case they are a more useful way to access a person than a personal web site. Thoughts? jhawkinson (talk) 10:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Height field error (bug?)

In the article for Saffron Burrows, the height field is expressed not as "Height    [value]" but as "    height = [value]". Is this universal, and if so, would someone please be kind enough to fix it?—DocWatson42 (talk) 05:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixed! DrKiernan (talk) 08:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! ^_^—DocWatson42 (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox person

Template:Citation was created to cover citation templates such as cite book, web, news, etc. Any chance Template:Infobox person can be expanded to get the template to cover other Category:People infobox templates? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC: country of birth

1. Should the place of birth field indicate the country to which the place of birth belonged at the time of birth, or the country to which it belongs now, or both (which one small/in parentheses)?
2. What if the country stayed principally the same, but changed its form of government (and official name) or was a colony, protectorate or occupied territory that has become independent since?
3. What about people who were born before 19th century when in many parts of the world sovereign national states did not exist? (third question added later) --RJFF (talk) 14:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Examples for question 2:

• German Empire, Nazi Germany, West Germany/East Germany vs. Germany
• First Spanish Republic, Second Spanish Republic, Francoist Spain vs. Spain
• Kingdom of Italy vs. Italy
• Irish Free State vs. Ireland
• Hungarian Democratic Republic, Kingdom of Hungary, People's Republic of Hungary vs. Hungary
• Eyalet of Tunis, Beylik of Tunis, French protectorate of Tunisia vs. Tunisia

--RJFF (talk) 14:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: this applies equally to place of death. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

In general I would prefer for the infobox to simply list the state as it was at the time. In the article body it may be appropriate to provide additional context, but that shouldn't be necessary by rule in the infobox. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Would you like to answer questions #2 and #3 too? --RJFF (talk) 14:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure. As regards the use of political entities, in general I think it lends articles a little extra context and that it is a good thing, but we needn't go overboard with it if the geographical name alone suffices. As for #3, I would argue that even in the article body, it does not seem appropriate to me to use modern political entities to refer to the birth places of historical figures in general (there may be rare exceptions, but it is wholly inappropriate IMO to name specific modern European states when giving the birthplaces of subjects of the Roman Empire, for instance). We normally list both a town and a country, and the town will provide a geographical key even if the name of the nation-state doesn't ring any bells with inexpert readers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Use the name as it was at the time. Links (including, when necessary, piped links to "History" sections in more general articles on places) exist for a reason, and readers will figure out, if interested, that the Beylik of Tunis is now part of Tunisia. If someone was born in the Irish Free State we should say so, and not just say Ireland, since that (depending on the reader's attempts at interpretation) implies either a) editors so far are intentionally stating that the birth (or death, whatever) took place in the modern Republic of Ireland, or b) editors of the article so far have done insufficient research and don't know that it should be corrected to Irish Free State. Neither of these would be a correct interpretation. A general principle around here is that we do not do reader-unfriendly things, like confuse them on purpose just to be editorially lazy. I furthermore agree with the points that Thumperward has raised, regarding context, appropriateness and geographical keying by town/city. And as long as we have an article or article section to link to that explains that the place then named X is (or is part of) a place now named Y we needn't go into that in the biographical article unless the geopolitical transition is important to the biography (as it would be for Irish revolutionary Michael Collins, for example). — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 22:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• I would agree with SMcCandlish we need to use the name at the time of the event otherwise you can get George Washington being born in the United States which clearly didnt exist at the time. MilborneOne (talk) 13:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • What about SMcCandlish's example Michael Collins (Irish leader)? If we applied the rule consistently, we would have to write that he was born in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, which supposedly would be inacceptable for many Irish. --RJFF (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Some may not like it but that doesn't make it any less correct. Are we here to try to please everyone (which is impossible in any case) or to provide information?Rangoon11 (talk) 16:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Collins was born in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (political enttity) and Ireland (geographical entity). Both are indisputably true, which is the infobox supposed to reflect?GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure but we are not talking about a "geographical entity" field. And he was also born in the geographic entities of the British Isles, of Western Europe, of Europe, of the Northern Hemisphere and of the World. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Then try to change Collins' infobox. I wish you success, but I don't believe you will have it. This illustrates my point. While most modern sovereign states are usually considered nations, historic political entities are not always congruent with nations or countries. I think that Ireland has always been considered a country and a nation, even when it was not a sovereign state. Therefore we have to ask ourselves if it is really primary to know that the political entity to which Collins' birth place belonged in 1890 was the United Kingdom, when of course he was born in the country of Ireland. Is it primary to note that a German who was born in Berlin in 1944 was born in the Greater German Reich aka Nazi Germany? That a Tunisian born in Tunis before 1956 was born in the French protectorate of Tunisia? --RJFF (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Once we move away from the political entity, which will almost always be easily identified and objective, and move towards a "geographic entity" description, we open up a whole raft of subjective issues which will inevitably lead to both great inconsistency and edit warring on individual articles. A more pragmatic approach would in my mind be to always have the political entity, and leave open the option for article editors to also include after it narrower geographic or political description when appropriate.Rangoon11 (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• I would like to lead the discussion especially to the cases of countries like Italy or Germany that have existed in a geographical and cultural sense a long time before they were established as sovereign states. The concept of the nation state was only developed in the 19th century. It would be true to say that Galileo Galilei was born in Italy or that Albrecht Dürer was born in Germany, even though both countries did not exist as political entities at the lifetime of both persons. On the other hand you had political entities like the Habsburg Monarchy, whose territories were not contiguous and which did not have a common language or national culture, or the Holy Roman Empire which actually was only a very loose entity without a central authority or actual state character and cannot be considered a nation or a state. --RJFF (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
• I'm here from RFC. Personally I like the parenthetical modern nation, even though I know I'm in the minority. Andrew (talk) 01:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• It seems, perhaps, that we have two different situations here, and conflict arises from trying to find a single rule that fits both. First, we have people born in a sovereign nation that has since changed its borders, been annexed, become independent, or changed its name since that person was born. For those people, it makes sense to use the name of the country/nation/territory at the time. But second, we have people born in the days of city-states, loose confederations, and feudalism, for whom the concept of a "nation" is more amorphous than the modern nation-state. For these people, a more nuanced policy may be appropriate, allowing us to say, for instance, that Christopher Columbus was born in Genoa, Italy, without having to explain in an infobox the complex political history of the Italian peninsula. Two different situations may require two different approaches. Powers ^T 02:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds very reasonable. --RJFF (talk) 09:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• I mostly agree with Powers T opinion. In addition, an example: Considering people who where born during World War II in Germany as "place of birth: Nazi Germany", is kind of insulting. Even more important, it doesn't really serve the point, because people being born in this era spent most of their adult life in another era. Conclusion: If the birthplace nation/territory did not exisit long enough to span over a persons life, it should rather be neglegted. --Jesus Presley (talk) 04:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • The name of the country in the Nazi era was still "Germany", not "Nazi Germany". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Jesus Presley to a degree. In cases where the country changed when a person was a young child the mention of the former country is in most cases totally irrelevant to that person's life. This is a particular problem in BLPs of people from Eastern Europe where they were toddlers or even babies when the Soviet Union collapsed yet spent their formative years in the subsequent states.

We make a distinction between BLPs and historical bios. In the realm of the living, the place of birth is universally determined to be the country at the time of application, so passports, statistics bureaus and sporting bodies like the National Hockey League determine the place of birth as being the country at the time of the application, census or induction.

At the very least a BLP's place of birth should be determined as the country at the time that person achieved notability (which could be determined at the same time we assess notability) given the fact that a living person would carry an officially published document describing his formal place of birth as the country which existed at the time he/she applied for it. --Nug (talk) 09:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• We should be providing our readers with complete accuracy. If somebody was born in the Soviet Union, for example? then it should be mentioned. We must guard against revisionism. GoodDay (talk) 10:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Have to agree with most of the people above and GoodDay. We should be listing it as it was at the time of birth. Additional context can be added within the prose of the article to explain the difference. But it is inappropriate in an infobox. And outright removing it as GoodDay mentions would be an anachronism which would be a historical inaccuracy. -DJSasso (talk) 13:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Also agree that the template should act as it (seemingly) always has, in that it should indicate the place of birth, at the time of birth. If a country splits, grows, whatever, it doesn't change the birthplace. If a country changed then we would have to retroactively change everyone's bios to reflect the current, new country - which from an accuracy POV gives way to a lot of revisionism. I think the information on what country the locale is currently in can be addressed in the body, not the info box --Львівське (говорити) 15:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• RE: Question 2: I think the common use name should be used, and piped to the correct historical era of the country, ie France. --Львівське (говорити) 16:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• Birthplace as it existed when the person was born. This is a matter of historical fact, and changing to suit modern borders/names is anachronistic, therefore historically inaccurate. Resolute 17:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
• I think the examples show that we need to develop a comprehensive list of appropriate usage. Personally, I like to use X, XXX (then Y), when the XXX existed before and after Y had control of it. E.g. Narva, Estonia (then USSR) I like to use X, XXX (now Y), when the XXX existed temporarily, but an intervening country name exists. E.g. X, Bohemia-Moravia (now Czech Republic). But people don't seem to be willing to compromise. IMO, it's very frustrating and stupid. And is poor behaviour if we want to work together. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Narva, Estonia (then USSR) would work for somebody born after the demise of the USSR - which would of course make it redundant. Narva, Soviet Union (now Estonia) would fit the Komarov article. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Meta: formatting

I fixed the broken formatting of the above section (no content was changed). I've been reverted. Why? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Well I wasn't the one who actually reverted you. But I am guessing it was because you edited others comments. Some people choose to use bullets on purpose or to use colons. Unless it was a clear accident, you shouldn't be reformatting others comments. I myself didn't care, but obviously someone did. It did look like the change you made took formatting that wasn't really broken and made it into formatting that was so I can understand their concern. -DJSasso (talk) 13:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The formatting was - and is again - very much broken; see WP:LIST. Nor, pedantically, did I edit anybody's comment, merely the formatting that lays them out. Even so, it's sensible and allowable to fix broken formatting, not least to improve accessibility. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Andy, it was I that reverted your edit. Normally I don't have an issue with others re-formating, I do it myself on occasion. However your edit broke my comment. Do you see that my comment above (just below yours) comprises of three paragraphs, you placed a bullet point against each one breaking up my comment into three bulleted points. So I reverted it. I didn't see that you had also commented because of all those bullet points so I accidentally removed it. DJSasso fixed that up in the end. Please be more careful in future. --Nug (talk) 08:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Siblings

This infobox has |parents= and |relatives= parameters. The commonest use of the parameter, in my experience, is for brothers and sisters. I therefore propose that we add |siblings=, in order that we can record such information in a more granular, and thus more useful, way. A bot could scan existing implementations for cases like |relatives= [[Jane Bloggs]] (sister) and move them. Any thoughts, before I code the necessary changes in the sandbox? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Siblings are normally included as family using the family parameter. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no documented |family=; just |relatives=, as I note above. My proposal is that we should be more specific, as we are for |parents=. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

MrMcGoo
Family	Mable (sister)

That's true, it's not documented, but it does exist, as you well know,[1] and as is demonstrated by the example to the right of this text. Family more than sufficiently covers siblings. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The undocumented |family=, included only for compatibility with another template when that was merged here, does indeed cover siblings; equally as much as does the documented and preferred |relatives=, what the the two being synonymous and all. But to repeat myself once again: My proposal is that we should be more specific, in order that we can record such information in a more granular, and thus more useful, way. Pity your example was a snide personal attack. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It invites the addition of non-notable relatives into the infobox in a way that "relatives" does not. There is no need to list an individual's siblings in virtually all cases. DrKiernan (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

"It invites the addition of non-notable relatives into the infobox in a way that "relatives" does not." Evidence for that assertion please. "There is no need to list an individual's siblings in virtually all cases." Indeed. Who claimed there was, or proposed to so so? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason to explain the obvious. DrKiernan (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The reality is that any field invites non-notable content. It's up to responsible editors to weed out the crap. The |family= field is already being used to include siblings, so the problem already exists. Including a field for siblings won't make that worse and the argument that |relatives= does not invite the addition of non-notable relatives is specious at best. However, with the existence of |family=, I don't see the need for a specific |siblings= field. @ Pigsonthewing - Thanks for breaking my post. We've been over the issue of breaking things at my talk page and at Talk:Sydney Opera House. The example was not meant as a personal attack. It was to demonstrate to you that the field exists. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

That the |family= parameter exists was never disputed; as pointed out above, it is undocumented; and that is for the reason that only exists for compatibility with another template when that was merged here. it is irrelevant to the proposal at hand. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not irrelevant because it's an existing parameter that can quite adequately be used for the purpose of listing siblings. Why add a new parameter when there's already one in the template that can do the job? --AussieLegend (✉) 17:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

As I explained at the head of this section, " in order that we can record such information in a more granular, and thus more useful, way". The |family= parameter is not suited to that purpose. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Why isn't it? If we label the relationship, as we're supposed to and as shown in the example above, it serves the purpose of identifying siblings perfectly. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Both because there is no guarantee that people will label such entries; and because such entries do not allow unambiguous programmatic extraction. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Redux

{{Editprotected}}

There being no other comments, please sync from the sandbox, where I've added |siblings=. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

No comments indeed, but I also don't see consensus for this change so far. Garion96 (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Des anyone have a cogent objection? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)