Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 32

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

RFC: "resting place" parameter

The RfC has been open for less than 30 days, however, no substantive comments have been added in nearly a week and - observing this point as per WP:RFCEND - the nominator has registered a request for closure.

By value of argumentation, both the "Keep" and "Retain" sides in this discussion advance largely editorial and personal preference perspectives that don't, in a substantial way, invoke any of our policies. The most frequently advanced argument is one of imprecision, that is the parameter can't be invoked in cases where there is no resting place, while the rebuttal offered is that filling out every parameter is never a requirement; this rebuttal seemed to lack a sur-rebuttal. An argument was also advanced that "it's in the Bible", however, again I have to characterize this as a personal preference argument as the Bible has not been merged into our WP:POLICY and a discussion as to whether it should be needs to occur in a dedicated forum rather than this RfC. Ultimately, I find that there is a roughly equal value to the argumentation of both sides.
By breadth of support, 14 editors want to Keep the "resting place" field (including 3 who want it renamed) and 12 editors want to Remove the "resting place" field.

There is not a consensus to remove the "resting place" field, and there is also not a consensus to retain it. However, the practical implication of a closure with no consensus will be that it is retained pending the occurrence of a consensus to remove it in a future discussion. I should also note there seems to be an evolving interest (but far from what one could characterize as a consensus) to rename this field and a dedicated discussion on that point may be the most fruitful next step. DarjeelingTea (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Should the "resting place" parameter be retained or removed? clpo13_(talk) 19:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Remove - Having the death place shown in the infobox, suffices. Burial place or cremation, etc, can be shown in the article content. GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Retain - The argument for "resting place" is far stronger than the argument against. Life is characterized by motion; death is characterized by stillness. It is this quality of stillness that is captured in the phrase "resting place". This is not a euphemism but a reference of wide ranging applicability which zeros in on the stillness that characterizes all modalities of treatment as concerns the physical body that remains behind after all life has drained out of it. We should stop recoiling from the accurate description of death. "Resting place" is anything but euphemism. Bus stop (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Remove - There is no need to use a single weak word to try being suitable for all cases. burial_place already exists, is much more clear, and should be used most of the time. In the few cases where that's not appropriate, instead of an ambiguous watered down word, have a single new parameter that can be used for other methods of disposal. For example: |disposal_method=Ashes scattered |disposal_place=[[George Carlin Institute of Political Correctness]] --193.111.141.114 (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
It's two words. I think many readers would not expect to see burial or scattering of ashes described as "disposal", even in an encyclopedia. Burial place isn't "clearer" if nothing is buried. But I agree, it could be used most of the time. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The disposal word doesn't need to be shown to anyone but people editing Wikipedia, not unlike many other parameters used behind the scenes. The infobox code would just check if those parameters exist and then show their values. --193.111.141.114 (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I think many editors would not expect to see burial or scattering of ashes described as "disposal", even in they were editing an encyclopedia. But seems quite an efficient suggestion. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Could be, it's just the word used in Template:Death. --193.111.141.114 (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The "political correctness" being invoked is more applicable to the suggested replacement terminology. "Resting place" is standard English. It enjoys widespread use. We should not be engaging in activism and we are not here to right great wrongs. Bus stop (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Don't try bundling all eventualities into a single field. Using wishy washy words to avoid offending someone conveys less information than saying what actually happened to the person's body. People are not resting anywhere when they're cremated, buried at sea and decomposed, dissolved, purposely frozen and disintegrated, etc. All of these words are more widely used for the methods alternative to burial, or especially for the alternative methods, even if there's also some use of diluted language. --193.111.141.114 (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
"Bundling all eventualities into a single field" is not a problem. That is the utility of using standard English rather than concocted English. You say "using wishy washy words to avoid offending someone conveys less information than saying what actually happened to the person's body". No one is trying to "avoid offending" anyone. Certainly I am not trying to "avoid offending" anyone. As concerns "saying what actually happened to the person's body", that is accomplished when the field is filled in. No one is going to mistake "cremation" for "burial at sea". They are two different things. The reader merely wants to know what happened to the biological remains of the person after death. "Resting place" adequately suffices for introducing details about the eventuality of the person's biological remains. Bus stop (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
What makes you think you speak on behalf of the reader, Bus stop? CassiantoTalk 23:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I will try to make myself more clearly understood. The reader is interested in knowing the means by which the biological remains were treated as well as their eventual location, if known. Bus stop (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Again, what makes you think you can speak on behalf of "the reader"? CassiantoTalk 09:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
The reader is interested in knowing the means of disposal, if known, and eventual location, if known, of the remains of the deceased. This is a working assumption that we have in this RfC. But maybe I misunderstand this RfC. If you feel that an alternative understanding of this RfC is preferable, please present your understanding of the discussion. Bus stop (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps you could point me in the way of the discussion or survey that confirms what "readers" prefer. If not, then I'll just assume you're talking bollocks. CassiantoTalk 19:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
If you want to have a constructive conversation, please say something substantive. And by the way I haven't said anything about readers preferences. Bus stop (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Yep, talking bollocks. CassiantoTalk 19:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Can you be more descriptive and more specific? What bollocks are you referring to? Or is it your intention simply to carp about anything I say? Bus stop (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
The reader merely wants to know what happened to the biological remains of the person after death. [...] Bus stop (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC). The reader is interested in knowing the means of disposal, if known, and eventual location, if known, of the remains of the deceased. [...] Bus stop (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC). Cassianto asked if you had any evidence that what you assert the reader wants, is in fact what the reader wants. You responded that you hadn't said anything about what readers prefer, which appears to be incorrect (unless of course you're now being too literal with language?). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Retain – The main purpose of this field is for people who want to visit someone's final resting place, which is not necessarily the same as a burial place. Agreed it sounds like a euphemism but there is no other term that I can think of. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Retain per discussion above and every prior discussion. Simply saying "it can be mentioned in the body of the article" completely overlooks the several purposes and benefits of an infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Remove -- Liberal, politically correct nonsense, which caters for the Snowflake generation. Cassianto ^Talk 21:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

400 years is quite a lot of snow? Martinevans123 (talk)
Good god. You're a prolific, productive contributor and I respect that, but your frequent inflammatory comments are pathetic. Tired of people that make everything political. κατάστασ η 19:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Keep it and rename it "Remains". Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The word "Remains" refers to human biological remains when used in a sentence providing context which implies that. As an isolated term not used in surrounding context to provide meaning, the term "Resting place" is eminently clear. "Resting place", without any context, is a reference to the eventuality of biological remains. Bus stop (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep for those who use it, even if I am not one of them. Offer other options, besides "Burial place" that we have already. I'd not use "disposal" or "remains". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Remove since, as has been pointed out by others, the dead are not literally "resting" -- they're dead. The remains have been dealt with in one way or another. If one believes in a life after this one, then I don't think it would be typical to view the remains as defining the location of the non-corporeal component of the person (though there might be some groups or individuals who do hold that view -- I don't know). And if one does *not* believe in a life after this one, there too, the person is certainly not "resting" in his/her remains. I know not everyone agrees that this is a euphemism; to me it clearly is, but further, it's an inaccurate one. If a better term can't be found for this purpose, then it's best omitted from the infobox than improperly (IMHO) labeled. Omnedon (talk) 05:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Omnedon—the word "rest" means "not moving". When people die they stop moving. This is axiomatic. Their heart stops pumping. Their limbs stop moving. "Resting place" refers to this obvious fact. In physics we learn that "a body at rest will remain at rest unless an outside force acts on it". The "body" being referred-to there is not a human body. The reference is to anything having mass. The word "rest" does not mean "taking a nap". It means "not moving". We are not tasked with inventing new language. Dead human beings are said to have a "resting place". This is standard terminology in the English-speaking world. Its utility is that it is widely understood. Bus stop (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

No, "resting place" is a euphemism for "location of the remains of a dead body"; it does not mean "not moving" in this context. If one throws a rock, one doesn't refer to the place where it hits the ground and stops moving as its "resting place". Please don't try to involve physics in this when it's not about physics; the term "resting place" has a clear connotation here that is apart from physics. I don't doubt that it is commonly used, and euphemisms have their place; but for an encyclopedia this term is inappropriate. Omnedon (talk) 02:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

You say that this term is inappropriate. Which term would be more appropriate? Bus stop (talk) 03:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Remove This is an example of an info-box being unable to completely and accurately summarise the article - one size does not fit all. If people are interested in such details, then they can always read it in the text of the article. Giano (talk) 11:13, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Giano—you say "This is an example of an info-box being unable to completely and accurately summarise the article". Please be more specific. In what way does the field "Resting place" fail to summarize the article? You say also "If people are interested in such details, then they can always read it in the text of the article". This is true of every field in the Infobox. How is this a criticism specifically of the "Resting place" parameter? Bus stop (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

You really do ask the most ridiculous questions; it is obvious that resting place cannoy cover most means of modern body disposal. Secondly, people are given a Wiki-bio for the importance and notability of their achievements in life, not for what happens to their remains after death - that really is pretty unimportant and it matters not one jot if it's not recorded in the info-box Giano (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. See, e.g. Burials and memorials in Westminster Abbey, etc., etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Two questions are being discussed at once. One question concerns whether or not the term "Resting place" is the appropriate term to introduce information pertaining to the disposition of the biological remains of a human after death. The other question concerns whether or not the Infobox should contain information pertaining to the disposition of the biological remains of a human after death. I think we should be clear that these are two separate questions. Bus stop (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, really? Most people have given a single response. What do you understand "remove" to mean in this survey? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I was not clear. Two unrelated factors are being weighed. One is a language factor, or at least I contend it is a language factor. The other is a factor pertaining to what should or should not be in the Infobox, with some such as myself arguing for a more full use of the Infobox to include material pertaining to that which takes place after death concerning biological remains, and others arguing that such material should not be found in the Infobox and should only be found in the body of the article. Language question and Infobox-use question. The net result may be the same, but it is two different questions that are being weighed. The whole "euphemism" thing is a language question. Bus stop (talk) 11:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The RfC is quite clear: "Should the "resting place" parameter be retained or removed?" This is what people have responded to. I had assumed the RfC was about this choice of words and that to remove the parameter altogther would require a separate new RfC. It seems I was mistaken. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

No, you weren't mistaken—a separate RfC should be required if we are to gauge support for removing the parameter altogether. Bus stop (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Remove - The term "rest" means, as Omnedon noted, "not moving" but I would also argue that it implies "not moving" in order to "recover". In this case, of course the body is not recovering. I can't seem to narrow it down to a word that would be accurate here so we should keep it out of the infobox for the time being. Meatsgains (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Remove per Giano. Better omitted than imprecise. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 17:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Rivertorch—what problem do you see with imprecision? When the Infobox reads "Resting place: cremation, and then ashes scattered at sea", obviously there is imprecision. My fundamental argument is that that imprecision doesn't matter. Is the reader going to be bothered by the mismatch between the implication of there being a "resting place" and the fact of the scattering of ashes in constantly moving ocean currents? Not at all. The term "resting place" merely serves as a catchall phrase to introduce information pertaining to the disposal of the deceased. That is all it is. Why all the handwringing over standard English? Are we, as Wikipedians, going to rewrite the English language too? It is enough of a task writing an encyclopedia. Who cares if a parameter in an Infobox fails to match up precisely with all possible material for inclusion in that parameter? Do you seriously think the reader can't handle that imprecision? Countless sources show us the widespread functionality in English of the term "resting place". Bus stop (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Wow, you're really bothered by this, I guess. I actually don't think it's terribly important, but I'll answer the first—and possibly the only non-rhetorical—of your six questions. The problem I see with imprecision is that it's imprecise. And encyclopedias shouldn't be imprecise if it can possibly be avoided. Great harm wouldn't be done by this specific example of imprecision, but I weighed that against the harm that would be done by encouraging the reader to scroll down the page and, you know, read...and I concluded there's less harm in the latter. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 17:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Bus stop you seem to e incapable of realsing that a "resting place" is anything fro a bedroom to a park bench to a diner on the highway. It is also completely imaterial to a person's notability where they are buried. The info-box is for important facts only; and as for giving the co-ordinates of a grave - words fail me. Giano (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

You are making two unrelated arguments. The only thing tying together your arguments is your opposition to inclusion of "Resting place" in the Infobox. Your one argument is that the reader is not interested in the eventual disposal of the biological remains of the notable individual. I can understand that argument. You notice I do not attempt to refute that argument. But the other argument, which is the notion that the terminology "resting place" is somehow faulty for the purposes of introducing and indicating information pertaining eventual disposal of human remains, is without merit. We are here to use English. It is not our job to reinvent or reject English. Bus stop (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Very well, I am glad you agree that the resting place is superfluous. As for English: in England (the home of English) "resting place" is a lower middle class euphemism for grave, which is avoided by all educated people. Giano (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

So, you are saying this is an American English/British English misunderstanding? Bus stop (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Perish the thought that Americans can possibly be lower middle class. I am saying that "resting place" is a coy and ridiculous euphemism used by the pretentiously uneducated wherever they may live. Giano (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

But we apparently don't see it that way, in America. "Pop icon Prince cremated, resting place to remain a secret". Bus stop (talk) 18:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't suppose you do. However, isn't a wall about to be built around America to keep you all in and protect the rest of us. Giano (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I thought we were discussing the "resting place" parameter. Your argument (not that above, but found elsewhere, in other of your responses) is that "resting place" is too religious-sounding for your sensibilities. Yet that language enjoys widespread use. So if we follow your admonishments we should restrict the conveyance of information or we should sanitize the language used to convey that information. Bus stop (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Too religious? I have never said anything at all about religion.(Personal attack removed). I cannot engage with you further. Giano (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

My mistake. I mistook "Biblical and grand" as a reference to religion. Bus stop (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

"resting place: cremation" goes beyond "imprecise", it's ridiculous. Even if the parameter is kept, any instances of that should be removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. I think "Resting place: cremation" is not problematic. Language and mathematics are two different things. In language there is flexibility. Mathematics, by contrast, does not (generally) allow for such flexibility. We are using language, the English language, precisely. It allows for expression using commonly understood terminology. The term "cremation" answers the question raised by the term "resting place". You are placing too much emphasis on the literal meaning of the phrase "resting place". Bus stop (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

And you too little. While language is flexible, that's bending it into something recognizable to very few people, and so makes it practically useless. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

If I am placing too little emphasis on the literal meaning of "resting place" then also most reliable sources are placing too little emphasis on the literal meaning of "resting place", because this is the language in widespread use by sources. Bus stop (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you have examples of reliable sources that call "cremation" a "Resting place"? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

"Pop icon Prince cremated, resting place to remain a secret". Bus stop (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

And aside from cremation, burial uses that term. "Fairfield cemetery to be Moore’s resting place". She (Mary Tyler Moore) isn't known as a religious person. "Resting place" is simply the language used. Bus stop (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

The terminology is even used for that which is non-human and non-biological: "Will Texas become final resting place for high-level nuclear waste?". This terminology is firmly entrenched in our language. Bus stop (talk) 19:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

"The timing was perfect. Grant was planning to go to the Dec. 26 game against the Lions and could deliver the ashes to their final resting place then." In this instance the reference is to the "final resting place" of the ashes of cremation. Bus stop (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

All of those refer to the location of ashes or other materials, not to the process itself. Also, we're an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "There is no need to make a hurried decision with regard the final resting place of the remains with most crematoria having a facility to hold the remains until a decision is made." This is a British source making reference to the "resting place" of the remains of cremation. You point out that we are an encyclopedia. But shouldn't we be using language similar to that used in sources? Bus stop (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

As you say, "the resting place of the remains of cremation" - not "Resting place: cremation". I don't think you're quite grasping the difference. And no, we shouldn't be using language similar to that used in newspapers, because we are not a newspaper. We have our own policies and style guidelines for a reason. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I grasp the difference. I don't know that it matters. I think the requirement of the parameter is that it indicate information pertinent to the disposal of the human remains. Endless permutations can be applicable. The person can die on Mount Everest and be undisturbed for years. Cremation can then follow bringing the body down from Everest after ten years. Another ten years can elapse before the ashes are scattered at sea or in the air. Why are we agonizing over finding language with which to label an Infobox parameter? Don't we have anything better to do? If you know of language with greater currency than "Resting place", then suggest it. Bus stop (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

keep |burial_place=, we can always add other alternative labels if needed. but the most useful are the cases where there are coordinates associated with the place of burial. Frietjes (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Keep parameter, hash out the most suitable labels in a separate RFC which doesn't estrange respondents by offering the option of removing the parameter. If it is to be decided here, I offer "Entombed at:" as possibly the best label for the place where the subject's bodily remains are located. It's tone does not imply an under earth burial as strongly as some terms do, nor does it precluded such. It also does not preclude locations like the USS Arizona where corpses became entombed where they fell. Regards.--John Cline (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I had thought of that too - quite Biblical and grand. I also though of "Commemoration place" but it seems rather arrogant and preposterous to claim the Atlantic Ocean as one's own just because one's ashes were thrown into it. Giano (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Rename Burial does not cover everything, or even most "disposals" in more modern societies. Have something like

<code>
disposal name  = Ashes interred
disposal place = Sussex downs
</code>

where {{{disposal name}}} defaults to burial.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC).

I suggest the default condition for a parameter left blank ought instead be no output at all. All the best to you as well.--John Cline (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Remove per Bus Stop's comment of 20:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC). I'm less certain about retaining "burial place" - I think it can be useful but is very overused at present - but "resting place" as a label is open to too much interpretation to be useful as a data-value pair. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

"Too much interpretation"? Please explain. Bus stop (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

You did, above. The convoluted applications suggested are not reasonable, IMO. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Why wouldn't reliable sources serve as the template for how we introduce information about disposal of bodily remains? Reliable sources speak about the "resting place" of deceased individuals even if they are cremated. This is a language question. This is not a religion question, or even a logic question. We as Wikipedians are not tasked with reinventing the English language. You write that "'resting place' as a label is open to too much interpretation to be useful as a data-value pair." If I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that the reader has to interpret what our Infobox means when it says "Resting place", because the cremated person is not "resting", and furthermore the phrase "resting place" is an example of a euphemism, therefore the reader has to interpret its meaning in order to reach the correct understanding that the deceased person is probably not taking a nap. Do I understand you correctly? If I misunderstand you perhaps you can explain how "'resting place' as a label is open to too much interpretation to be useful as a data-value pair." Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I haven't said anything about religion or whether dead people are "resting". What I have said is, first, we have our own style guidelines and policies; second, that "resting place" is not appropriate to describe method of disposition; and third, that your post above convincingly demonstrated the interpretation needed to understand the content of this field, as opposed to "burial place" which is at least concrete in what it represents. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

How about "Disposition of remains"? It is wordy but it covers all possibilities. It could replace "Resting place" and "Burial place". No "interpretation" would be called for. Bus stop (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

That assumes we want to cover all possibilities in data format rather than in prose. The broader the parameter, first the more overused it is, and second the less value it actually has as data. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

"The broader the parameter, first the more overused it is, and second the less value it actually has as data"? I don't understand this. Also, what is the argument against "cover[ing] all possibilities in data format rather than in prose"? Bus stop (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you mean for instance that "Disposition of remains: burial in Arlington National Cemetery" would be somehow problematic? I thought we were here for the purpose of conveying information. Bus stop (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Infoboxes and prose convey information in different ways. Your proposal would combine two datapoints into a single parameter: the manner of disposition of the body (buried, cremated, whatever) and the location. The first of those two is rarely significant; the second sometimes is. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Of course "Infoboxes and prose convey information in different ways". I could not agree more. And I agree that my "proposal would combine two datapoints into a single parameter: the manner of disposition of the body (buried, cremated, whatever) and the location". Why be troubled with that? Consider this article, for instance. The Infobox reads "Buried at: Arlington National Cemetery". We learn "two datapoints" from that locution as well. I am not sure what you are objecting to. "Burial" and "cremation" are two different things. And other possible "disposition of remains" exist as well. This RfC is contemplating ruling out the term "resting place". In addressing the question of the RfC I have to ask: why rule out the Infobox locution that includes "resting place"? Bus stop (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm well aware that burial and cremation are different things; I don't agree that either of those need be represented as a value in the template. Really at this point your replies are only convincing me that |resting place= shouldn't be kept no matter what you call it, and if it is it will need more careful curation and documentation. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

You say "I'm well aware that burial and cremation are different things; I don't agree that either of those need be represented as a value in the template." Why should we not apprise the reader in the Infobox that burial has taken place? Alternatively, why should we not apprise the reader in the Infobox that cremation has taken place? Bus stop (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep - "death place" and "burial site" are potentially quite different. Mike Peel (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC) copied this WP:NOTVOTE here from the discussion-area, ping Mike_Peel if this is not what you wanted please revert 47.222.203.135 (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Retain but limit to notable places Basically if they are interned in a famous place, such as Arlington, list it. If they are at a random cemetery no one has heard of, don't. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

But you are happy that "Resting place" should be be used for all these notable places, regardless of the type of remains or type of storage? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Be aware that cremated remains are also buried. "Due at least partly to the lack of space at the cemetery for ground burial, standards for inurnment (burial of cremated remains) in the columbarium are currently much less restrictive than for ground burial at the Cemetery.". Bus stop (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

... yes, I was aware, as I've already mentioned it, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Remove and consolidate. I think "Resting place" is valid English, but for other-than-burial is likely insufficient, and "Burial place" is better to read and comprehend if the location is actually coordinates or the name of a cemetery. I suggest dropping |resting_place= and |resting place coordinates=. Keep |burial place= and |burial place coordinates= and add an optional |burial place label= that can be used for the cases where the label needs changing (similar to Rich Farmbrough's suggestion above). It defaults to "Burial place" and can have examples like "Ashes interred", "Ashes scattered", "body cryogenically frozen and stored" in the documentation. When a bot goes through to rename |resting place= and |resting place coordinates= to the burial equivalents, the edit summary should include something like "if the term burial is inappropriate, see parameter burial_place_label". This means we only have one set of parameters for a single concept, instead of two sets. --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Remove. Per Giano etc. Better covered in article prose. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Why is disposal of remains better covered in article prose? Or conversely, why would it be a bad idea to to cover disposal of remains in the Infobox? Bus stop (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Remove per Giano and as he so succinctly states: "resting place" is a lower middle class euphemism for grave, which is avoided by all educated people. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

We avoid terminology that derives from the "lower middle class"? Bus stop (talk) 12:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

"Bus Stop you are becoming increasingly tedious in your frequent ejaculations here, you are now hectoring anyone who fails to see your point of view. Yes, we do avoid and reject any terminologies which prudishly or coyly avoid an inevitable fact of life. Please don't reply to this because what I have stated is a fact of life and I won't be arguing the toss with you over it. Giano (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Please read the entire comment - the keyword is euphemism. Do you intend to badger everyone who comments? Never mind, I will not be responding further here anyway. SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Remove entirely and do not replace with anything. Seriously, who cares where someone is buried? It's trivia, even in cases like Chopin. If it's important, it will be mentioned in the "Personal Life" or "Death" or "Final illness and death" section of an article, or in one of those Find-A-Grave external links. No one looks at an infobox to find out where someone is buried. Softlavender (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

No one?? I use it habitually. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Retain param... I do not much care what specific terminology is used but make room for |coordinates=, this is as Softlavender points out pretty much 'trivia' in most cases for most BLP articles. Who cares, outside of close friends and immediate family on Memorial Day, what the geocoords of the headstone are, so as to look up the driving directions thereto? But there is most definitively reader interest in resting-place / burial-place / geocoordinates-of-commemorative-entombment / where-the-atoms-were-disposed-because-wikipedians-must-not-recognize-religions-as-existing / etc. Consider Napolean's Tomb (geocoords only at Les Invalides however), U.S.S. Arizona (geocoords only at USS Arizona Memorial however), et cetera: such bluelinks prove that the *place* of such 'earthly remains / nonsentient biophysical leftovers' quite often receives so much in-depth independent significant coverage by reliable sources, that dedicated articles are easily written therefrom. (And as a terminology-suggestion the infobox of shipwrecks that have become memorials uses |fate= and |coordinates= in the case of the Arizona, which might be repurposed as |bodily_fate= and |bodily_geocoords= params for the WP:BDP infobox-family.) If you look at the National Register of Historic Places or at Tourism, you will further discover that places where dead humans are gathered, tend to be half the list including Civil War battlegrounds, national or provincial organized-cemetary-things, Native American burial locations, churches with attached burial plot of Fascinating Headstones of the 1800s, et cetera. But more pragmatically, look at the pageviews for Deaths_in_2017 and previous iterations thereof. (Contains 'trivia' such as this: "Étienne Tshisekedi, 84, Congolese politician, Prime Minister (1991, 1992–1993, 1997), pulmonary embolism." There is no mention of geocoordinates of the gravesite/cremationUrn/scientificChemicalDisposalSiteOfFormerlySentientBiohazmat/earthlyRemains, which means that in the opinion of the wikipedians who are most active in forcing consistency at entries in the Deaths in YYYY list-icles, the 'burial site' is not considered 'interesting' to the readership, to the same extent that the obit-hyperlink, name, age at death, country, occupation, main job-title (and parenthetical job-timespan), and proximate medical cause of death. But I'm not using what *those* wikipedians think is 'non-trivia' here in this RfC, I'm using the pageviews of that page, to show that in a very quantifiable way, The Readership is quite interested in deaths, and death-related factoids. Coupled with the evidence that *tourists* are interested in visiting famous and not-so-famous 'resting places' and that WP:SOURCES often cover famous and not-so-famous 'burial locations' it is patently absurd that folks would argue "oh we have no idea what the readership truly wants so we can just delete the infobox param". I call bullshit :-) Keep the factoid, call it something neutral that is not a euphemism ('bodily fate' seems omnidirectionally-respectful and terse but I don't care what the final consensus terminology ends up being), allow the readership to easily convert the geocoordinates of said location -- whatever consensus demands it be called -- with one tap on their smartphones into driving-directions unto previously-referenced GPS location, plus furthermore allow wikipedia to attract NEW editors that are interested in broader topics like geneaology/history/ancestry/etc and will be tempted to click 'edit' when they see an infobox entry for 'BDP_bodily_fate_geocoords = unknown'. *That* is the real reason to have such 'trivia' in every single one of the million-plus BLP-soon-to-be-BDP articles enWiki currently has: because it will tempt folks to become wikipedians, when the geocoordinates are blank. And as my pageview/tourism/bluelink evidence above suggests, there are A LOT of exactly that sort of potential future wikipedian, out there in the off-wiki-verse. Readership does care about this stuff,[1] more than one might expect in fact, and WP:Readers_first applies. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 15:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Remove: Trivia, rarely significaly relevant to a biography. κατάστασ η 19:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Keep: It's in the Bible - Matthew 11:28-29 (NIV) "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest for your souls". Inlinetext (talk) 09:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

You think Jesus was offering peace of mind to his followers by offering to kill them? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Also that seems to be talking about "rest for your souls". I think, if I understand the objections raised in this RfC to the phrase "resting place", it is objection to the notion that the dead person is merely napping. I feel that the absence of snoring should allay the concern that the euphemistic term is being given a second life, so-to-speak. Bus stop (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

"Blessed are the cheese-makers". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Rename to something else as "resting" seems to me as a WP:EUPHEMISM. One article I wrote that uses this is Henry Trigg (testator), because his unusual "resing place" is part of his notability, though it isn't a notable place in itself, it isn't a burial and isn't even his final resting place. I think it should only be used for notable places and this kind of example. I like the disposal name = idea. anemone projectors 13:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

An interesting and unusual case. "Carcass disposal" wouldn't be a euphemism, would it? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Martinevans123—wouldn't it be "a euphemism" as opposed to "an euphemism"? Bus stop (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Rename, possibly to "burial place" or "burial site". Wikipedia isn't the place for euphemisms, which "resting place" is a blatant instance of. Let's not pretend otherwise. If it can't be renamed or merged, then I'd say remove. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Those terms not always appropriate for ashes? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS—is Funeral home a euphemism? Our article reads "A funeral home, funeral parlor or mortuary, is a business..." So, why don't we change the name of the article to "funeral parlor" or "mortuary"? In what sense is it a "home"? Do the dead live there? Do the dead cook light snacks and make their beds in the morning? The question pivots on the commonness of usage in the English language. Euphemism or not, these places are commonly called "funeral homes". It is a similar situation concerning the term "resting place". The commonness of usage matters. We reflect the language. We should not be taking maverick positions on the usage of language. Bus stop (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

That article could be worth renaming, but it's not the focus here either way. As for ashes, no parameter should be used because cremation isn't a burial. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

That seems somehow unfair, or at least inconsistent. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Query - @Cassianto: How is "resting place" even remotely related to politics, liberal or otherwise? Breitbart uses the phrase [2][3]. Fox News uses it.[4][5] Telegraph uses it.[6] The Sun uses it.[7] "Burial place" doesn't adequately describe where cremated remains are stored or scattered. Are you at all willing to propose a more descriptive phrasing for the parameter? Or do you still think it should be removed on the (as now proven to be incorrect) basis that it's a liberal phrasing? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Fascinating. Cassianto ^Talk 22:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

That is fascinating, as I see Fidel gets only a lowly comradely spot, rather than an aspirational capitalistic place. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The question doesn't seem sufficient. There were a number of suggestions to rename the parameter, to restrict its use in particular ways, and to broaden the function of the death parameter to include methods/locations. These are all somewhere between (or in addition to -- in the sense of being in some way interdependent) removing or retaining... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Which question doesn't seem sufficient? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Ah, sorry. The RfC question (retain or remove). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Its actually easier in a situation like this to get the basic 'stay or go' question asked first. As RFC's with multiple outcomes tend to get long and convoluted. Its largely pointless discussing in detail potential alternative names if the consensus is to remove completely. (As it stands it looks like it will end as no consensus) A second RFC to narrow down alternatives can be run after the 'remove completely' option is off the table. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep - "death place" and "burial site" are potentially quite different. Mike Peel (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Your 'keep' post, should be placed in the 'survey' section. GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I copied this WP:NOTVOTE to the proper place for the closer. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Query (summoned by bot) How about a guy who was buried, dug up and his skull sent for display in a museum, reburied (neck-down portion), then dug up again and reburied in a mass grave somewhere else? E Eng 05:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Trust you to ask such an incendiary question. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Solution: a new parameter, |disposal_of_remains_smh_it's_complicated= where you get into that convoluted mess and bloat up the infobox, or just [[#Section|See below]]. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
The infobox is supposed to be a simplified thing. WP:SOURCES concentrate on Gage's status as a scientific artifact, whereas wikipedians have decided to mush the BDP Phineas Gage in with the *distinct* topic, the science of Phineas Gage. The first article would have geocoordinates of the below-the-neck portion where the body of the BDP is currently located (Cypress Lawn Memorial Park). The second article would have the geocoordinates of the above-the-neck portion where the scientific artifact is located (Warren Anatomical Museum). It is also permissible, though not ideal, to have Phineas Gage cover both of the overlapping topics in combo-fashion, which is currently what we are doing. Thus we have Phineas Gage#Background and also Phineas Gage#Subsequent life and travels which are the BDP-specific sections, and the rest of the article is about the painstakingly-reconstructed details of the accident and the exhumations of the skull (alluded unto above) and the neurological/psychological/anatomical analysis of the ramifications of the accident -- all of which screams WP:COATRACK methinks. But if we keep both the life-of-P.Gage and also scientific-specimen-P.Gage topics in the same article, then we absolutely need to have both the torso and the skull, listed in the infobox at the correct parameter (whatever it ends up getting named). Which we do. So there is no problem here, except that perhaps the Phineas Gage article is a coatrack that needs to be WP:SPINOFF into a new subsidiary-article science of Phineas Gage, for the non-BLP medical stuff. Then there would be a hatnote saying {{for}} the biography of the person see Phineas Gage, and over in the BDP article there would be a section-hatnote in the Phineas Gage#Accident sections {{main}} article on the accident and aftermath is at science of Phineas Gage. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment It seems that "resting place" has different connotations deriving from different dialects of English. Sometimes it is a euphemism, sometimes it is the correct term. If there is a universal English way of avoiding the term, then we should use it instead of incessant disputes of whether it is a euphemism to be avoided or the appropriate term that is broader than burial. Sometimes the situation is too complex to fit succintly in an infobox. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Proposal I'm not in the mood to read all of the discussions at the top of this RfC so I'll propose this, at the risk that it's already been proposed. I know that it may also be beyond the scope of this RFC, but whatevs. Why do we need two parameters, one for burial and one for resting_place? Why not create a general parameter like |remains= or if that's too euphemistic, |corpse=, and then create a template to be used in this field that would render the appropriate language in the infobox?

|corpse = {{Disposal|type=Cremation|2017|01|31|df=y|method=Scattered|location=Cyphoidbomb's backyard|ref1=}}

Yes? No? I should mind my own business? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cyphoidbomb—I proposed "Disposition of remains". It is wordy, but I think that is its only drawback. Bus stop (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Bus stop: That sounds reasonable. I guess I'll have to wait for the next RfC... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

We mustn't allow fear of death to play a role in continued usage of 'resting place' in the infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

At WP:FearOfDeath we find "Do not be unduly influenced by fear of death." Bus stop (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Keep the parameter itself is not a wiki invention, its been the tradition and parts of our culture since long time, to mention where a person was buried. Dan Koehl (talk) 11:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Even if |resting_place= was removed, there would still be |burial_place= which is not directly the subject of this discussion. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Or to put it another way, this is an RfC specifically on the language of "resting place"—its propriety or impropriety. There are apparently pros and cons involved in using the terminology "resting place". Our RfC asks: should the term "resting place" be retained as one possible means of introducing material pertaining to the disposition of the remains of a deceased individual? Bus stop (talk) 20:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed it is, and a great example of how to deal with the delicacies of body disposal can be seen at Karl I, where the body was not buried and other organs where disposed of elsewhere, but the whole thing is accurately described and dealt with under "burial." This should be the standard for all similar info boxes. Giano (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

And of course many are just stored, not buried and may be on permanent display. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Personally I find use word delicacies unsettling when used in conjunction with the topic of body disposal. E Eng 22:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Karl doesn't have infobox person but royalty, - they seem to get a simple "Burial". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I should hope that he does a have a Royal box. No royal or imperial personage would ever have anything so common and middle-class as a "resting place". The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 10:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Can we now close the RFC and change "resting place" for "burial (with odd bits in brackets)"? Having now established that "resting place" is undesirable - it seems that, even on Wikipedia, such places of depository are only given to common people - Royalty, we now know, are given decent burials. Therefore, it's now time to become egalitarian and give all our subjects a decent send off and bury them. Giano (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Giano—"resting place" is not euphemistic any more than funeral home is euphemistic. We should not contrive to replace concrete terms with euphemisms, but when the standard terms are soft (euphemistic) we should not contrive to favor the elimination of that softness from our language. "Resting place" and "funeral home" are widely used terms in standard English, and we should continue using those terms, in addition to other terms as indicated by consensus at individual articles. Bus stop (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

"Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your urns; I come to bury remains, not to praise them"? But what are the "odd bits"? Especially if they're not buried. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I suggested above

Drop |resting_place=
Drop |resting place coordinates=
Keep |burial place= and |burial place coordinates=
Add an optional |burial place label= that can be used for the cases where the label needs changing
Add examples to the documentation for the label like "Ashes interred", "Ashes scattered", "body cryogenically frozen and stored"
When a bot goes through to rename |resting place= and |resting place coordinates= to the burial equivalents, the edit summary could include something like "if the term burial is inappropriate, see parameter burial_place_label".

Hopefully that would address the "odd bits" adequately. --Scott Davis ^Talk 21:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

"But that the Scot on his unfurnish'd kingdom, Came pouring, like the tide into a breach"? But a pretty good suggestion, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

If you create an optional |burial place label=, editors will simply fill it in with |burial place label=Resting place - how will you police that? What values would you expect to be given for |burial place= when the labels are "Ashes interred", "Ashes scattered", and "Body cryogenically frozen and stored"? I don't agree that giving editors a free hand to create whatever labels they want is a good idea. Who is going to run the bot that does the renaming of parameters when |resting_place= is dropped? --RexxS (talk) 12:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Scott Davis we can do as you suggest: good idea. The odd bits are all organs/appendages put elsewhere which aren't required for the after life, see Karl I and most of his Hapsburg relations Giano (talk) 10:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Upbringing/raising

This template has a "place of birth" parameter, but why is there no "place of upbringing" parameter? Isn't the area where someone is raised as important as (and, in most cases, actually, more important than) the place where someone was born? I often try to find this information quickly while looking at biographical articles and feel an inclusion in this infobox would be helpful for readers, which can tell you information about a given celebrity's background culturally, politically, linguistically, etc. Wolfdog (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

|hometown= is intended for that purpose. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, thank you! I almost never see this separate designation in use. Wolfdog (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Ethnicity

The ethnicity parameter is found in Template:Infobox writer, Template:Infobox philosopher, Template:Infobox model, but not here, which is strange. It should be added.--Zoupan 07:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe these should be at the top of this page? --RexxS (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Obituary

Any thought to adding in some way the obituaries of the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post, and other newspapers of record from around the world, as they are generally seen as helpful and definitive accounts of the person's life? --Flyguy33 (talk) 13:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Those should be used as sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Softlavender (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 March 2017

This edit request to Template:Infobox person has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hey. can you please add this code:

{{#if:{{{image|}}}|{{#if:{{#property:P18}}||[[[category:Pages to import images to wikidata]]}}}}

It will add all pages with an image in wikipedia but without one on wikidata to a category so we can import them all to wikidata. Mikey641 (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: Please create the category (probably capitalized as Category:Pages to import images to Wikidata) and then reactivate this request. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ahecht: created.--Mikey641 (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Done Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

honorific_suffix vs. education

Are post-nominal letters (e.g. Ph.D., M.A.) honorific suffixes? The previously-linked articles seem to indicate that they are, so my follow-up question is: do I essentially repeat the information in both the |honorific_suffix & |education fields? — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

No, PhD, MA, etc are earned degrees, not honors. The two articles linked talk about suffixes in general for "position, academic degree, accreditation, office, military decoration, or honour". Honorary degrees can be put in honorifics. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, okay. So you're saying to stick them in the |education field only? Follow-up question, for those in possession of a doctorate, should "Dr." go into |honorific_prefix? — fourthords | =Λ= | 20:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

No. And if the person has a doctorate often {{Infobox academic}}, {{Infobox scientist}}, etc. should be used. Listing honorifics seems to be a British thing. See Stephen Hawking vs Kip Thorne who is a fellow in all sorts of things, but Americans don't usually list those after their names when publishing.

You have an article about an academic in your sandbox. I have an essay on how to write one at User:StarryGrandma/Writing an article about a professor or researcher. He meets Wikipedia standards as a notable academic. As an external link use his faculty web page, not a profile from PhD tree. His curriculum vitae (CV, academic resume) is linked there. It will provide you with needed information and can be used as a reference. Add information about his work and how it developed over time. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Tracking category

I propose to get a tracking category created for pages using infobox person having no image of the person. Requesting for comments from others. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 16:37, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Disagree, for two reasons. First, in a technical sense, this would likely miss instances of missing images - for example, some articles use images of a person's gravestone because the editor's couldn't find an image of the person. Second, {{reqphoto}} can be used much more broadly. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I have two practical concerns with the utility of such a category:

There would be thousands of Wikipedia biographies about people who died before photography was widely available, and who never had portrait paintings or drawings done.
A tracking category cannot determine what the subject of the image is - is it the person, their headstone, an invention, the logo of a company they founded etc.

--Scott Davis ^Talk 10:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Notice of parameter deprecation?

Is there any value to adding at the top of the template some sort of obvious note that explains that |religion= and |ethnicity= were removed, along with links to the relevant RfCs? Might help with questions in general here, but it might also be helpful in the field for editors to be able to point this info out to well-meaning editors unfamiliar with the changes. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cyphoidbomb. I think the "information box" just above the TOC here Template talk:Infobox film with the link to the "sequels" discussion might be worth looking at. Even if it isn't exactly what you want it could be a place to start. Other editors will have ideas as well. MarnetteD|Talk 01:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Marnette. Yeah, I don't mean anything fancy, just something to slap on the top of the template to the effect of:

(Interested parties should double-check that I have the correct RfCs listed.) Looks like RexxS had a similar idea in March. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

For lack of objection, I'm going to add it. If it gets reverted, so be it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Where did religion go?

Where did the religion parameter go? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 19:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Please try "religion" in the Search archives box at the top first. Johnuniq (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

2016 happened. The case of one popular politician, and the irrelevance of his religion, got an elementary encyclopedic parameter wiped from all articles. -- Lestadii27 (talk) 04:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Like the problematic "Ethnicity" parameter, the Wikipedia community has long known the "Religion" parameter is anything but elementary; and is unsuitable to convey the often complicated and nuanced information about beliefs. The chronic problems with the field predate the edit wars over whether someone was religiously Jewish, or non-religious, or culturally Jewish, or atheist. They predate the edit wars over whether a politician is really a Sikh, or Christian, or both, or neither. The problems predate the revert wars over whether a presidential candidate's beliefs qualify as truly Christian or not. The problems predate the Infobox warring over whether a sitting president should be labeled a Christian, Muslim, Black Liberationist or the antichrist. Good riddance to the problematic field, although the field still exists in many templates for when religious beliefs are actually the reason an article subject is notable. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Xenophrenic—sources are the key here, not personal opinions. You say "The chronic problems with the field predate the edit wars over whether someone was religiously Jewish, or non-religious, or culturally Jewish, or atheist." Anyone editing Wikipedia is entitled to an opinion, but what matters here is what the sources say. Bus stop (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

And I never said or implied otherwise. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Xenophrenic—no source says Bernie Sanders (who you are linking to via a piped link) is not Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

And I never said or implied otherwise. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Xenophrenic—the man is Jewish—whether he is an atheist, religious, or non-religious. We are not a parochial rag. There is no harm done in identifying Bernie Sanders as Jewish, even in the Infobox. We are fundamentally not opposed to presenting information that receives adequate support in sources. Bus stop (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I recall a great many examples where people who were decidedly not self-proclaimed Jews were labeled "Jewish" and such labels were uniformly struck down upon discussion at WP:BLP/N. As we use WP:CONSENSUS here, the implicit claim that "of course XXX is JEWISH!" fails. Collect (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

You only need to self-proclaim your religion and not your ethnicity. Albert Einstein is Jewish ethnically but not a follower of Judaism. If this were not the case, we would remove every single category for African Americans unless we could provide a self-identification of someone as such (ditto for Latino-Americans...etc)[User:Patapsco913|Patapsco913]] (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Collect nailed it. A person's religious beliefs (and this goes for ethnicity too) is not a suitable subject for condensing down to a brief single word in a context-less Infobox field. We have a "great many examples" as to why. Such fields have also been weaponized to disparage article subjects, a problem not seen with acceptable fields like "date of birth". To paraphrase another editor above, there is no harm in properly covering, unambiguously and with context, such subjects in the body of the article, as we are fundamentally not opposed to presenting information that receives adequate support in sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

RFC: Religion as a nationality in Template:Infobox person

An RFC has been started as to whether to include religions such as "Jewish" in the Nationality field of Template:Infobox person. Please take part in the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RFC:_Religion_as_a_nationality_in_Template:Infobox_Person. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Note discussion of new "religious character" infobox

See Template_talk:Infobox_religious_biography#Character Jytdog (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Religion in other infoboxes

The April 2016 RfC resolved to remove the |religion= parameter from {{Infobox person}}. I cannot see significant discussion about related infoboxes and am concerned about Mamata Banerjee which I monitor in order to revert BLP violations. This diff changed "religion = Hinduism" to "religion = Secularism" in {{Infobox officeholder}} in that article. That edit may or may not be appropriate (although I cannot see a source), but why is the religion field present? I mentioned this question at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#Religion RfC but I am asking here due to the more general nature of my query. Johnuniq (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, "religion" regarding any person's personal beliefs, is generally disallowed in infoboxes at this point unless their primary notability is specifically due to and related to that particular religion. I suggest that Elizabeth II who appears to be involved in the Church of England does not have that fact in her infobox, and that it is reasonable to follow that lead. Collect (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Na, Liz is a special case. Infobox Royalty doesnt include religion because 99% of the time its largely irrelevant to their notability. Royalty is more than enough. QE2 due to a quirk of British history is the head of the Church of England, the highest representative of God on Earth for many Anglicans, akin to the Pope. Its one of the few royals around the world who would justify including religion in their infobox. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

As the closer of that RFC, I can confirm that my close was explicitly only applicable to {{infobox person}}, as the RFC was framed only in terms of that one box. While there was a clear and overwhelming consensus to deprecate the parameter from the main {{infobox person}}, I don't see any consensus there for deprecating the parameter across the board, and IMO such a decision would require a fresh RFC, since had it been an RFC about removing the religion= parameter from all biographical infoboxes, including such cases as {{infobox clergy}}, the result would likely have been different. ‑ Iridescent 14:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Interestingly Infobox royalty specifically states the religion parameter was depreciated as a result of that RFC. I am going to track down where it was implemented, but I dont think the royalty infobox ever had a discussion on it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Nope it didnt. Template docs were changed after the RFC at village pump for infobox person, but the parameter was still there and in use as Religion was included and visible on a number of monarchs (but not QE2). So back it goes. Also sorry Collect. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Apparantly DrKay thinks the RFC applied to every infobox with a religion parameter. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I think those should be rolled back. And by the way, I have no idea where this "relevant to their notability" argument comes from. It's neither part of the RfC closing comment nor does it make sense: Most infobox parameters have nothing to do with why the person is notable. No one is notable for being born on a certain date, being of a given nationality, their alma mater, etc. Indeed, the word "notability" should hardly be thrown around when discussing content at all (WP:NNC). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The "relevant to their notability" would at least come into play when the decision is made to use {{infobox clergy}}, either instead of or as a child template to {{infobox person}}, for example. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Finnusertop is correct that "most" infobox parameters have nothing to do with why the person is notable. However, Wikipedia has long made a special exception for these five highly sensitive parameters, which includes religion, and special handling is required for their use. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I've always thought about it more in WP:BLP terms. It seems overly courteous to remove religions from infoboxes of Antiquity figures. Anyhow, WP:CATGRS, and a handful of other guidelines I know, directly contradict WP:NNC, which is obviously not a good thing. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Finnusertop. I think we should be allowed to represent religion in Infoboxes in the cases in which adequate support is found in sources. I think sourcing is the key here. This would not apply in cases in which sourcing was weak or ambiguous. Bus stop (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

All information in Wikipedia needs to be properly sourced; that's a given, and really isn't a factor in this discussion. The focus here is whether Wikipedia should be trying to shoehorn something as complicated, nuanced (and often personal and/or controversial) into the tiny little restricted space like an Infobox field or Category box. These little fields are only for factoids which are self-explanatory, non-ambiguous and non-controversial -- and fields like Ethnicity and Religion have consistently shown that they are anything but. Wikipedia isn't censored, so this information can certainly be covered in the body of the article where there is ample room to convey that kind of information with context and detail. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The fields have not "shown that they are anything but." Edit disputes are anything but new. The fields are valid. The inclusion or omission of such fields should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Just as sources vary so too should the outcomes of such edit disputes vary. Bus stop (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

An infobox is for verifiable facts—someone either is 1.8 m high or they're not. Classifying someone's religion is not like that. It is not even clear what, for example, "Religion: Catholic" means. Is being raised in a Catholic family sufficient? Attending a Catholic school? Attending Catholic churches with family? Or, would labeling someone as a Catholic require that they currently share most of the views of Catholicism and currently attend church? The religion field invites nonsense like this which set the religion for Richard Dawkins to "Anglican (pre-1956) No religion/Atheist (post-1956)". All of that is verifiable, golden truth, yet it is plainly unsuitable for an infobox. Dawkins is an extreme case, but many people have a similarly complex history regarding their religion. Johnuniq (talk) 04:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Johnuniq. The infobox should be limited to binary items that are not open to interpretation and argument, as that opens the door to never-ending edit wars and drive-by additions/removals by editors who don't know any better because they didn't know they had to read through ten talk page archives to know why we did or didn't list Bernie Sanders' religion in his infobox. Infoboxes are also frequented by casual readers looking for basic facts and anything requiring a more nuanced understanding should be limited to the article text. --Laser brain (talk) 12:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Bustop. If someone who is living says that they are Catholic or practice Judaism, then that should be enough. If they are dead and had a Jewish or Muslim or Protestant burial service, then that should be enough as well. This is relevant information to a person's biography and i do not see it as contentious. Ethnicity is quite important around the world so that should remain as an option as well; we need to be aware that not everywhere is a melting pot like the USA where religion and ethnicity are less important. It is up to us to monitor biographies to make sure that improperly supported materials are not included; we should not exclude information because it is too much of a hassle.Patapsco913 (talk) 14:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Patapsco913 that if information about a person's religious beliefs (or ethnicity), when properly sourced, can be "relevant information to a person's biography" -- and I don't see anyone disagreeing with that. The issue under discussion here, however, is whether we should also try to shoehorn that same information, which is often complex, subjective or even controversial, into a little field designed for just a word or two. On that issue, I must agree with the Wikipedia community when they concluded "oh hell no". As Patapsco913 has said, "we should not exclude information because it is too much of a hassle", and that is absolutely correct: the information should definitely appear in the article, and not be excluded. But trying to redundantly squeeze such information to an infobox parameter, which is supposed to display values consistently across all articles, is not just a "hassle", it is impossible. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Look at Roger I of Sicily, the infobox cannot support that he is a Catholic despite him going to war against the Muslims to reconquer southern Italy. Somewhat crazy, nay?Patapsco913 (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Nay. Why would you want that information in the Infobox - what purpose do you see that serving? Such information might form an encyclopedic addition to the body of the article (which is presently lacking). Also, why would you put Catholic in the Infobox rather than Christian? I presume you directed my attention to the Roger I of Sicily article in support of some point, but I'm not seeing it. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I sympathize with Johnuniq and Laser brain's view too (despite opposing categorical ban for religion parameters in all infoboxes). I think they key to any infobox parameter is clear and precise documentation backed by consensus in use. Something like |height= appears as straightforward enough at first sight, but 1.8 m isn't the only option that can be inserted there. Why not "pretty tall", "taller than his sister", or "1.57 ell"? Because the template documentation tells you not to do that and editors never do it. In a perfect world where template documentations are well-worded and templates include perhaps coding that prevents editors from entering anything silly, a responsible religion parameter is possible.

To answer Johnuniq's question – what does it even mean that someone is "Catholic" – it's not a problem for us. If a source says that a person is Catholic, then this piece of information is precisely as verifiable as his height. The real problem is when editors engage in original research (I've seen someone's Catholicism being cited to a source that simply said that the person carried a rosary in her bag). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

No, the real problem is trying to condense a person's religious beliefs down to a one or two word non-subjective value that can be squeezed into an Infobox parameter. The Wikipedia community has not witnessed the same endless, disruptive edit wars and argumentative discussions over a person's height. When Johnuniq observed that "It is not even clear what, for example, "Religion: Catholic" means", you waved that concern away as "not a problem for us". That is incorrect; Wikipedia requires that values displayed in the same field of the same template have consistent meaning across articles. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Xenophrenic—does it not occur to you that the "endless, disruptive edit wars and argumentative discussions", to which you refer, are not primarily caused by those following reliable sources and adhering to Wikipedia policy, such as WP:BLP, but rather by those with an ax to grind and a disregard for sources or policy? Bus stop (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bus stop: "Following reliable sources" isn't nearly as black-and-white as you make it out to be. What if different sources say different things? If someone flippantly says to a journalist "I was raised Catholic" and that journalist decides to write that the subject "is Catholic" (which is not a simple or straightforward statement, as many have pointed out) then suddenly we have people adding it to the infobox as if it was straightforward or even relevant to the subject. Who cares if a trombone player or a visual artist is Catholic unless it has some bearing on their work? It's a magnet for disruption and arguments, yes, but you've yet to illustrate why it even needs to be there. If there was a Wikipedia article about me, it would be absurd to put in there that I was raised Catholic, about as absurd as including what kind of car I drive. In fact people probably take more identity from their cars than they do from their religions these days. --Laser brain (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

"raised Catholic" has never meant "being Catholic" and if it is added, we as monitors, remove it and tell the person that added that they need to provide a source that the subject has expressly affirmed their faith. Under you perspective, Ted Kennedy would not be listed as Catholic unless there is an express statement that he said near the time of his death that he is Catholic (because , of course, he could have changed his mind). Never mind that he had a Catholic funeral.21:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Laser brain—if sources contradict one another, that seriously strengthens the argument to omit the parameter from the Infobox. We actually do go by sources, with a pinch of common sense. If we know an answer is facetious, or an off-the-cuff remark, not intended to be taken seriously, that seriously weakens whatever assertion was contained in that flippant remark. You say "Who cares if a trombone player or a visual artist is Catholic unless it has some bearing on their work?" I don't mean to offend, but that question very much bothers me. Here is why: we are not all-knowing. Contrary to what is commonly argued, our role is not to feed useful information to people. I don't think we are simply writing Encyclopedia Britannica-type articles. I think Wikipedia represents a slightly different paradigm. A person can use Wikipedia any way they wish, even if that entails associating Catholicism with trombone playing or visual art. We are much more concerned with providing raw material than the traditional book-form encyclopedia. We are here to facilitate research of a much more flexible nature. The printed paper book provides education of the traditional sort and consequently it is of much more limited usefulness. It limits research. But research can take on unpredictable forms. You say "you've yet to illustrate why it even needs to be there." I couldn't possibly do that. I do not know what the needs will be of future researchers. You say "If there was a Wikipedia article about me, it would be absurd to put in there that I was raised Catholic, about as absurd as including what kind of car I drive." I don't think car drivership has the biographic status of religious orientation. You are reflecting a cliche when you say "In fact people probably take more identity from their cars than they do from their religions these days." Automobiles are plainly seen. In an egalitarian society automobiles can seem to eclipse religion in importance. But under more stressed conditions—say in Syria when sarin gas is in the air—religious affinities can assume a status of greater-than-normal importance. Ditto for its related attribute of identity: ethnicity. Bus stop (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

No one has addressed the definitional issue of what "Religion: Catholic" means. It is not satisfactory to say that we have no idea what it means because we merely regurgitate what is said by a possibly reliable source. We rely on sources for potentially controversial claims such as a person's political affiliation, and that's fine because while "right wing" is a vague term, at least it has a "know-it-if-I-see-it" meaning. But one reliable source may say that Smith is Catholic (because Smith was raised and confirmed as a Catholic, and that's all), while another reliable source may say that Jones is Catholic (because Jones wrote a book about his religious faith). Putting "Catholic" in the infobox for both Smith and Jones would be absurd because using a word with that much elasticity suggests that when an infobox uses a word, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less". Johnuniq (talk) 02:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

You are placing a high value on the preconceptions of Wikipedia editors concerning the significance of religious identities. I am less concerned than you are with the distinction between a casual relation to religion and a more serious dedication to religion. Yes, the language is elastic. We should not exploit this "elasticity" to foist upon the reader a religious identity that largely does not exist, but we also should not shy away from conveying information to the readers if sources support it. Bus stop (talk) 11:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

we also should not shy away from conveying information to the readers if sources support it. --Bus stop

No one has seriously suggested that we not convey such information. The objection was against also trying to squeeze that information into a problematic Infobox field. The body of the article has plenty of room for the encyclopedic prose necessary to properly convey the character and nature of Smith and Jones religious beliefs. I must run now, as someone just changed the Infobox field at the Jones article from Catholic to Christian based on a source that was dug up... Xenophrenic (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The more expansive indication of religious orientation found in the body of the article does not invalidate the less expansive indication of religious orientation found in the Infobox. These can be thought of as different levels of granularity. Neither is right or wrong. Bus stop (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of what you may consider neither "right or wrong", the fact remains that one is allowed and one is disallowed for the very good reasons described above, upon which the Wikipedia community based their decision. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Xenophrenic—regardless of how expansive the explanation of religious orientation found in the body of the article may be, the terse indication of religious orientation found in the Infobox remains equally valid. One does not invalidate the other. Infoboxes are always the less thorough counterpart of material found in the body of the article. Bus stop (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I can't (and have no need to) speak to those occasions when, in your opinion, "the terse indication of religious orientation found in the Infobox remains equally valid". My remarks were only about the numerous and extensive problems with having a "religion=" parameter, which resulted in its removal. (A discussion you and I have revisited numerous times already, with the same arguments and conclusions.) ~~This was fun as usual, Bus stop.~~ Ooops, you've resorted to fabrication (see comment below), so I'll disengage. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Your notion of a blanket prohibition of the use of the "Religion" parameter in Infoboxes is counterproductive. Wikipedia functions just fine when healthy debate surrounds the construction of content. Bus stop (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia often includes Infoboxes in biographies and good quality reliable sources often attribute religious identities to subjects of biographies. Hence the possibility should exist in all instances of completing the parameter for "Religion" in the Infobox provided certain conditions are met. Foremost among these conditions is solid support in sources, along with compliance with our additional safeguards concerning biographies of living people. Bus stop (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't that look nice. However, it would be meaningless for the many reasons explained above. If a commercial publisher commissioned a dozen writers to compile biographies of 100 people, it would be fine for them to include a summary identifying, say, Smith as Catholic. The 100 biographies would consistently apply whatever criteria was adopted to choose the word used as a summary of the subject's religion. At Wikipedia the situation is very different. It would be absurd to label both Smith and Jones as Catholics when one of them only attended a Catholic school and is not religious, while the other wrote a book about their faith. The article has plenty of room to explain what is known about the subject's religion. Johnuniq (talk) 01:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Johnuniq—I'm not going to argue whether the casually Catholic and the devotedly Catholic are alike. I'm simply not knowledgeable enough to know whether the distinction is significant or not. But if an abundance of good quality sources say that someone is Catholic, and if a person enunciates that they are Catholic, and if no source contradicts that they are Catholic—I think we would be justified in saying in an Infobox that they are Catholic—regardless of whether they are devotedly Catholic or merely casually Catholic. I think that an important point is that we don't have to include religion in the Infobox. We are not required to do so. But we should have the option of doing so. Bus stop (talk) 03:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

"An infobox is for verifiable facts—someone either is 1.8 m high or they're not. Classifying someone's religion is not like that." Utter bunkum. The removal on religion from, for example George Bramwell Evens was a farce. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Cat cleanup

Category:Pages using infobox person with unknown parameters has become really huge. Would anyone like to give some suggestions to clean it up? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 17:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I fixed one! Just 25,587 to go... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 11:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The category separates the entries alphabetically by name of the parameter that is the problem. The R part is very large. But fixing those would be simpler than other categories which have spelling problems or the wrong infobox template. An editor who uses Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser could go through the R list rapidly removing the religion parameter. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually cleaning this category should be a low priority. It is there so things can be fixed in the normal course of editing (which is why the error messages are invisible except in preview mode.) There is a historical build up of removed parameters and parameters that were ignored during merges (but can be fixed by embedding other infoboxes). I've spent a day fixing things in the M section, including removing models' measurements and a strange parameter titled "natural bust". Yes, Wikipedia used to display whether they were enhanced or not. We've come a long way baby. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@StarryGrandma: I know that there's a bot for this, I just can't remember which bot it is, so that's of no help. Lol at "natural bust", btw... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Burial date?

Is there no burial date parameter, for cases where date of burial is known but date of death is not? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

It would seem sensible to add this, for the same reason that we have date of baptism. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Would there be any objection to adding a Time of Death field next to the Date of Death? It would also be useful, a no-brainer in fact, to have a place in the Infobox to indicate if the funeral was held with an open or closed casket. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

If there's no objection to a burial date parameter, could some kind person add one? Pigsonthewing, perhaps? I can't believe it'll be very extensively used, but there are times when it's needed – at Johann Adolph Hass, for example. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: Maybe I'm being too sensitive, but I think Xenophrenic's comment may be an objection. I've observed that there is a convention that we don't usually add parameters that would be rarely used to such heavily transcluded templates, but don't count that as an objection on my part. Andy would probably tell you I'm imagining it anyway. If Xenophrenic doesn't come back with an explicit objection, I'll add the parameter, if you'll update the documentation. Presumably it ought to be displayed in the same place in the infobox as date of death, and not be displayed unless |death_date= is absent? --RexxS (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

RexxS has correctly sensed the sarcasm in my response. Sarcasm through the printed word online is an art I have thus far failed to master. Mark me down in the weak objection column, as I don't see it as being of much utility, and I am of the opinion that less is more where Infobox fields are concerned. But I haven't researched the proposition in depth, so I could probably be easily persuaded by a clear and reasonable argument. At least it is a "date" field, which wouldn't be nearly as controversial as other fields I've commented on. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Xenophrenic: You ask for "a clear and reasonable argument". Which part of "for the same reason that we have date of baptism" eluded you? Likewise the example of Johann Adolph Hass? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Would there be any objection to adding plant species in floral tributes, coffin material and whether or not the coffin had brass fittings? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC) Is this sufficiently sarcastic? But you may be interested to know that, in UK, it is not a legal requirement that a coffin or casket must be used to house a dead body. The only legal stipulation is that "It is an offence to expose a dead body near a public highway as this would outrage public decency."

I could learn a thing or two from Martin. Please let me know if tutoring is available.

Andy, I don't see any of the possible reasons justifying a "date of baptism" field also applying to a "burial date" field, since we already have a "Date of death" field. As for the Hass article, I don't see how it applies as an example. If "Date of death" is unknown, then leave it blank. Just because other factoids are known, such as burial date or shoe size, etc., that doesn't mean we need to create a field for the rare occasion when such information is available. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Redirects

These still redirect to this template. Are there any plans to clean it up? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 22:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Why? What's wrong with REDIRECTs? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with redirect. But why should a page use {{Infobox actor}}, when there is no such template? It should use {{Infobox person}}. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 04:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

You asked: "Are there any plans to clean it up?". Per WP:NOTBROKEN, any "clean up" would be misguided. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The policy you referred to does not talk about what I'm trying to say here. I am asking for "if there are any plans to replace Infobox actor with Infobox person in the articles. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 05:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

No, there are no plans. One reason is that {{infobox actor}} works just as well as {{infobox person}} in actors' biographies, so the effort in changing it would be wasted. The second is that it allows the possibility, at some future point, to modify {infobox actor} to take custom parameters that are not used in {infobox person}, or vice-versa. That could be done by converting {infobox actor} to a wrapper rather than a redirect, but still could be done in one place. If we had replaced {infobox actor} with {infobox person}, we would have to reverse that in every actor BLP. There's no advantage in the suggested replacement, and at least one potential disadvantage. --RexxS (talk) 08:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The reason that some articles use {{infobox actor}} and not {{infobox person}} is normally because the infobox was added prior to the closure of this TfM. We do not have a policy that requires subsequent replacement in the individual articles, and so these left alone because they are not broken. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 April 2017

This edit request to Template:Infobox person has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Snow consensus to oppose the proposal.Winged Blades^Godric 07:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Please change {{{spouse|}}} to {{#invoke:Wikidata|getValue|P26|{{{spouse|FETCH_WIKIDATA}}}}} on data56. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 11:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Please gain consensus for this change first. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. Due to the problems with Wikidata items for people being vandalized, there is resistance to using it in Infobox person. Vandalism at Wikidata is invisible to most editors here. Capankajsmilyo, we have a Wikidata-enabled verson of this template at Template:Infobox person/Wikidata which is used by many articles. Use that version instead. It already takes the spouse field from Wikidata. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The suggested mode will fetch spouse only when the Param is not used on the article. This will improve the articles, whose infoboxes are empty or with minimal params, while leaving the full fledged ones untouched. As regards vandal, we can simply add |spouse= to a infobox to cancel fetching the data. To describe this process, we can write in documentation. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 20:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

oppose i was asked to comment here, in this diff. I oppose this; my reasoning is the same as that stated by StarryGrandma above. Jytdog (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose: The proposed change would have the immediate effect of introducing a field into some infoboxes without any notification of a change in the watchlist of editors who watch the article. See this May 2016 RfC for the shitstorm that would cause: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 128 #RfC: Wikidata in infoboxes, opt-in or opt-out?. In addition, there is no means of directly validating the source, because using that call to Wikidata allows for unsourced data to be fetched and placed into the infobox - this was discussed to death at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 January 24 #Template:Infobox person/Wikidata. Finally, it's not obvious to other editors that an empty parameter |spouse= would be there to suppress fetching Wikidata, so it can easily be removed by wiki-gnomes when they are tidying up blank parameters. It's just too fragile a mechanism for general use in an infobox so widely used as {Infobox person}. Why not take a look at Module:WikidataIB that was designed to answer those problems, and perhaps spend some time looking at any fresh problems arising in the trial articles where Template:Infobox person/Wikidata is in use? It's far better to take this slowly and build acceptance by engineering robust and flexible solutions to the problems of using Wikidata to supply data to infoboxes, in my humble opinion. --RexxS (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. Integrating a single and arbitrary Wikidata field into the standard infobox is completely nonsensical. Either it should either be all appropriate fields, or none of them. As noted above, there is already Template:Infobox person/Wikidata.

Using Wikidata on Wikipedia has been controversial at best. Remotely hosted Wikidata fields makes things messier, more confusing, and less transparent - even for experienced editors and especially for new editors. Even when Wikidata claims something is sourced, in reality it is usually an unsourced violation of Circular. The Wikidata community is a particular significant problem here. Wikidata has no Verifiability or BLP policy at all. The Wikidata community has been disinterested in a Verifiability policy, and the Wikidata community has demonstared an active hostility to appropriate care / policies / abuse-blocking when it comes to Living Person content. I have long been cautiously skeptical of integrating Wikidata in general, however reading Wikidata-community discussions have now convinced me that we cannot present person-information from Wikidata at all. This is as unacceptable as it would be for us to incorporate Commons images, if the Commons community was actively opposed to addressing copyright matters appropriately. That is a non-negotiable "no", regardless of any other arguments involved. Alsee (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Template-protected edit request on 9 May 2017

No, for the above reasons. Bencherlite ^Talk 09:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

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

This edit request to Template:Infobox person has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Replace image and caption with

| image = {{#invoke:InfoboxImage|InfoboxImage|image={{#invoke:Wikidata|getValue|P18|{{{image|FETCH_WIKIDATA}}}}}|size={{{image size|{{{image_size|{{{imagesize|}}}}}}}}}|sizedefault=frameless|upright={{{image_upright|1}}}|alt={{{alt|}}}|suppressplaceholder=yes}}

| caption = {{{image caption|{{{caption|{{{image_caption|{{#invoke:Wikidata|getImageLegend|FETCH_WIKIDATA}}}}}}}}}}} -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 09:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

As per the last time you tried asking for a parameter here to fetch a value from Wikidata, the answer is "no". Bencherlite ^Talk 09:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

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

No headers?

Why are there no headers in this infobox (like personal information, relations, etc.)? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 03:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 14 June 2017

This edit request to Template:Infobox person/doc has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In "Usage" section, subsection "Blank template with basic parameters", add "-->" to the end of the line "death_place" EngiZe (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@EngiZe:

Not done: {{edit semi-protected}} is usually not required for edits to the documentation, categories, or interlanguage links of templates using a documentation subpage. Use the 'edit' link at the top of the green "Template documentation" box to edit the documentation subpage. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Years active?

What does this signify? How is it determined? I don't see any content in article supporting the data mentioned in this param nor any source. I guess this should either be sourced appropriately or not used at all. 03:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

To editor Capankajsmilyo: I thought it was pretty clear that it was for the years the individual was active in whatever is the reason for that person being notable, when applicable or useful. Also, if a person has more than one notable position or activity, then the years active applies to whatever sub-header that position or activity falls under.

However, your point is reasonable, and the documentation on that parameter, if it doesn't cover this, should be improved. —Geekdiva (talk) 10:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Deprecated parameter workarounds?

Near the top of the documentation, there is a Template:Notice box which reads in part:

Please note that in 2016, the |religion= and |ethnicity= parameters were removed from Infobox person as a result of [two RfCs] as clarified by this discussion.

Frankly, I did not get clarity from that discussion; I only got a headache. Since that discussion is archived I'm discussing it here, since I was trying to use the religion parameter.

As I understand it, the religion and ethnicity parameters were removed so as to discourage their arbitrary use in biographies because they do not have bearing on the subject's notability in the vast majority of biographical articles on Wikipedia. However, for the cases where they do apply, there were to be one or more workarounds available.

Even so, the documentation does not have any information on these workarounds, only links to the two RfCs and the "clarifying" discussion.

Points to consider:

Should the workaround section include steps to take in the current infobox, another infobox, or both?
Does switching to a different infobox require a lot of extra effort as compared to adding or modifying parameters in the current infobox, or is the opposite or neither true?
Is there one option so obviously superior and easy that it should be recommended above the others or be the only one documented at all?

In the future, I think the established practice should be for RfCs to not be put into effect on templates until the documentation is thoroughly updated, unless some legal or ethical problem is causing a time crunch. The process of documenting the various options would also test the results of an RfC and if enough issues arise the RfC could then be reopened. However, my real life limitations will not let me propose this in the appropriate forum. I would appreciate it if someone could follow through on this separate issue.

Similarly, I may not be able to make it back here to follow up on this discussion and improving the documentation, so I thank in advance anybody who can do so.

(I also made a suggestion in the § Years active? section above so if somebody would follow up on documenting that I would be very grateful.) —Geekdiva (talk) 11:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear you got a headache trying to read the discussions. Spare a thought for those who had to implement the decisions. I understand that you were trying to use the 'religion' parameter. You can't. It was decided to remove it and it was removed. There are no workarounds. That's why the documentation has no information on workarounds.

If the person is a member of the clergy, or a similar occupation where there religion is an intrinsic part of their notability, then it may be possible to use an infobox like {{Infobox clergy}} if one exists. In response to your points:

There is no workaround section, so there won't be any steps taking in the current infobox.
The effort required in switching to another infobox depends entirely on the alternate infobox chosen, so it's impossible to give general advice. In the case of {{Infobox clergy}}, for example, it accepts the same parameters as {{infobox person}}, plus |religion=, |church=, |ordained=, |writings=, |congregations=, |offices_held=, and |title=, which display in that order. Unfortunately, in practice, you can't add or modify parameters in the current infobox before getting consensus for the change.
The only option is to use a different infobox.

The driving force behind making changes to infoboxes in these sort of cases is the pressure from editors who demand that the consensus of an RfC be implemented. As it happens, the RfC was closed in April 2016, yet the template was not changed until November 2016. I would have thought that was plenty of time to think about the consequences and/or update the documentation. You see, we're all volunteers and you simply can't demand that just because I carried out the wishes of the community in removing the religion parameter, that I have to re-write the documentation thoroughly as well. Nobody's obliged to. As far as RfCs are concerned, decisions mean decisions (as they say), and it's not my place, nor yours, to test the results and re-open the RfC if we find issues. That way would lie anarchy, and we'd never get any decisions made as long as some editor could find an issue. And believe me, there's always some editor who will find an issue. I'm not sure if it's obvious, but the documentation for this template (as for almost all) is not protected. So anybody can edit it. Have you considered doing the following up that you suggested yourself? --RexxS (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Nationality

I apologise if I'm resurrecting an old chestnut here. I can find similar questions but no answers.

Should the nationality parameter (where not "commonly known") have a wikilink, and if so to where? I spotted an article with nationality=Lebanese (link to disambiguation page) but it's not obvious what to correct it to. The other Lebanese biographies I checked are fairly equally divided between Lebanon, Lebanese people, Lebanese nationality law and no link. I suspect we need a clean-up exercise extending beyond Lebanon, but I'd appreciate some advice from the experts rather than jumping in and making things neatly and consistently wrong. Citizenship may have similar problems, though I've not stumbled across any yet. Thanks, Certes (talk) 23:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Unified passing of birth and death dates

We currently have |birth_date=, which takes either {{birth date and age|YYYY|MM|DD}} if alive or {{birth date|YYYY|MM|DD}} if dead, and then also |death_date= if dead, which takes {{death date and age|YYYY|MM|DD|YYYY|MM|DD}}. We then have separately added categories for birth-year and (if dead) death-year. That's a lot of redundant passing of data! This template should be able to set the birth/death-year cats if it is passed a birthdate and/or death-date. And it shouldn't need to be passed a birth-date twice, or need different variants of a birth_date formatter used explicitly because it too is knowable according to death_date. I propose that the birth/death-date be passed in a more raw form to this template, which could then figure out how to handle it and would therefore only require things to be passed once.

As a similar example, {{Chembox}} and {{Drugbox}} used to require separately passing a unified chemical formula and a separate molecular weight value, the former having possibly variable formatting and latter being determined by unspecified external sources (even though it's just a mathematical calculation using the formula) and with varying format and level of detail. But now the raw components of the molecular formula are passed individually, which means the infobox template itself can standardize the formatting of the formula and can calculate the weight without it needing to be passed separately.

|Formula=C<sub>6</sub>H<sub>6</sub>

|MolarMass=78.1121 g/mol

Became:

|C=6 |H=6

DMacks (talk) 02:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I believe that it's because the four templates that you mention are only valid when full dates are known, and that those dates are in the Gregorian calendar. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

True, but it's likewise true in the chem/drug sets. There are times we need to hardcode formulas and/or masses because they require formatting or details that cannot be expressed simply or have a some other non-canonical value. So we retain old fields, but use new for simplicity when reasonable. And passing the raw values (whichever ones are known) would make it easier have standardized formatting when not all are known. For example, if only a birth-year is known, age can be known to ±1 year, which can be calculated. DMacks (talk) 14:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to see an improvement if it can be done without breaking partially known dates, dmy/mdy format, etc. It could also solve the problem of well-meaning editors adding "(aged 42)" etc. manually and not returning to update it on the subject's birthday. Certes (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

She is not a former Muslim

There is a wide agreement among the Muslim scholars that Alawite people are not part of Islam at all. This is encompasses the Alawite faith and ideology. Alawite faith is no way part of Islam. Furthermore, Alawite people do not practice Islam as the vast majority of Muslims. However, the poor Arabic of Wafa Sultan is very obvious to the extent that she has no minimum capacity in the Arabic language which makes every argument, that she puts forward against Islam, exposed to mockery! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.200.33.177 (talk) 11:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Does this look like the talk page for the Wafa Sultan article? Ian.thomson (talk) 13:02, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Criminal_status

Hey all, there's a lack of clear instruction on the use of |criminal_charge=, |criminal_penalty= and |criminal_status=. What are the common values used in these fields? I'm looking at Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh. Would his go:

criminal_charge = Rape
criminal_penalty = 20 years
criminal_status = "Guilty" or "Convicted"?

Do we ever use these when someone is accused of a crime, or when they are exonerated? I suppose my confusion is mostly about how the criminal_status parameter is used. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

For example:

|criminal_charge=Stepping on the cracks in the pavement
|criminal_status=Charged

or:

|criminal_charge=Wearing a loud shirt in a built-up area
|criminal_status=Acquitted

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Not birth name but full name (especially for adoptees)

I wanted to add the full name "Stephen Edward Hewlett" to the infobox for Steve Hewlett (journalist). Usually one would use "Birth_name". But he was adopted by a couple with surname Hewlett so this was not his birth name. I've used "Other names" but this seems a bit clunky, especially as it's plural. I suggest that there should be a parameter "Full_name" or similar for cases like this. Or even just "Other_name", singular? Any thoughts? This can't be a unique case, I'm sure. PamD 10:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, why do you think it's important to have the subject's full name in the infobox when it's there in bold in the first sentence of the article? Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 14:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, good question. I'm more often arguing the other way, that everything in the info box ought to be included (and sourced) in the text of the article. I suppose it just seems the sort of thing I'd expect to see in an infobox. Isn't that why there's a "Birth_name" field? PamD 18:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps because the infobox exists to summarise such key information, in an easily-accessible and structured format? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Summarise the name of the article? Well I suppose its possible someone managed to get to the page without knowing the person's name and might benefit from having it explained again. In a longer form. Great summarising there! Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

No. The name of the article is "Steve Hewlett (journalist)", not "Stephen Edward Hewlett". HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Well I suppose the addition of (journalist) does in fact make his name completely incomprehensible and in clear need of summarising, by repeating it and adding a middle name. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The person's full name is a useful fact about them (which is why it's always used in the lead) and I'd have thought it ought to appear in the infobox. PamD 22:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

"Body discovered" parameter

I appreciate standardized metadata as much as the next person, but is it really necessary to display all the death info in the person template? By all accounts, Kim Wall was an interesting and important journalist, but with her bio as short as it is, seeing the highlighted info about when and where her body discovered is kind of sickening. It's a shame her article was only created after her dissppearance (I think there's a good chance she would've been notable before that) but her life should not be reduced to this. It would make more sense to display this parameter in an article specifically about her death or disappearance. ~Eliz81^(C) 22:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Eliz81: You refer, presumably, to this edit by Linguist111 (talk · contribs). However, that is a content-related matter, so is outside the scope of this page; I suggest that you take it up at the talk page of the article, i.e. Talk:Kim Wall (journalist). But please bear in mind that Wikipedia is not censored. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I don't think this is out of scope. I provided an example article, and I think we should consider hiding (in the display ONLY) 'body'-related information from all biography pages, and only display it for articles specifically about deaths and disappearances. The metadata would still be preserved, it just wouldn't be highlighted in the same way. Displaying data in an infobox is not a matter of censorship, but rather a judgment call about what Wikipedians value highlighting in biographies. ~Eliz81^(C) 20:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes I almost get the impression that someday we won't have biographical articles anymore, just vast infoboxes containing tens of thousands of parameters. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 14:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

You can get a view of that future at this template's version used by our Italian colleagues, it:Template:Bio. It doesn't generate a box at all but all of the opening paragraph; see it:Jimmy Wales, or it:Alfred Nobel. On the other hand, the German Wikipedia doesn't use such an infobox at all: de:Vorlage:Infobox Person. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Holy crap. I guess we're the unhappy medium. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 16:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 31 August 2017

This edit request to Template:Infobox person has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add {{subst:tfm|Infobox person|type=sidebar}}, per a nomination by Capankajsmilyo. Ppp ery 00:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

done, after figuring out the typo in your request (we aren't merging this template with itself). Frietjes (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: The standard convention for merge nominations at tfd is that tags are placed on both templates. Ppp ery 13:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Deactivating request - Despite Pppery's edit summary it WAS properly deactivated when Frietjes carried out the request. I don't foresee anyone stepping in to re-do the edit before Pppery's problem with SlimVirgin's reversion is resolved. Cabayi (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Pppery, the template left a sentence at the top of all pages with Infobox person saying "The template Infobox person is being considered for merging." But when you look at the discussion, there is just one (unneeded) parameter different, and it looks as though the second infobox will be deleted. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Pppery: the problem with always trying to apply a standard convention is that some situations are not standard. Have a think about it: the purpose of the template is to draw a discussion to the attention of editors who may be interested in the proposed merger. In the case of {{Infobox person}}, the effect of any merger would be virtually negligible; whereas for {{Infobox fashion designer}} it will likely result in that template's deprecation and eventual deletion. So I doubt that the annoyance caused to millions of readers by putting the template on Infobox person would be outweighed by the number of editors who would notice it and care about the potential merger of a near-identical template. On the other hand, the opposite is likely true for the case of applying the Tfm template to Infobox fashion designer. Hence the advantage in an asymmetrical placing of {{Tfm/dated}} in these sort of situations. HTH. --RexxS (talk) 21:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Looks

The looks of this template could be harmonised with both Template:Infobox family, and Template:Infobox Chinese. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean? And what does this have to do with possible modifications to the Template? User:Учхљёная ^{(talk,philosophy,edits)} 02:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

death_cause parameter

I thought there had once been a guideline that death_cause should only be filled in if it is relevant to their notability (so James Dean's cause of death is relevant; Bruce Forsyth's isn't). I can't see this now, though - did this ever exist, or am I misremembering? TSP (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

We've said that in discussions several times, both here and at CfD and discussions around the cause of death vandal, any of which could be what you're remembering? You may also be thinking of this? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what I'm thinking of - the cause of death vandal sounds familiar. It would be worth mentioning it in the documentation if we do have that consensus, as currently it usually seems to be filled in (Bruce Forsyth was a completely random example, but his entirely unnotable bronchial pneumonia is indeed in his infobox). TSP (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, suggestions for what it should say? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

You've picked two good examples, IMHO. How about something along the lines of:

Information in a biographical infobox is best restricted to key facts that help an understanding of the subject, because inclusion of many less important items dilutes the value of the important facts, which should be readable "at a glance". In the case of "cause of death", discussions have indicated a preference for only including it when it has a significant bearing on the subject's notability. For example, James Dean's premature death in a car crash had a lasting effect on how he has subsequently been perceived; whereas Bruce Forsyth's death from bronchial pneumonia is wholly unremarkable in an 89-year old.

A shorter version would be better, but at least there's little doubt about the intent of the above. Perhaps the opening sentence ought to be in a preamble to the whole parameter documentation anyway. Thoughts? --RexxS (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

That seems like the right spirit, but maybe a little lengthy if this is intended for the table of fields, as the first half relates to the template more generally. Perhaps:

Cause of death. This should only be completed when the cause of death has significance for the subject's notability, e.g. James Dean, John F. Kennedy. It should not be filled in for unremarkable deaths such as those from old age or routine illness, e.g. Bruce Forsyth, Eduard Khil.

(Perhaps more diverse examples of remarkable and unremarkable deaths could be found.) TSP (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The template does already say "Do not use all these parameters for any one person. The list is long to cover a wide range of people. Only use those parameters that convey essential or notable information about the subject, and ensure that that information is sourced in the article or (if present only in the infobox) in the infobox itself." at the top of the parameters list; but maybe it could be more prominent, and this does seem to be a particularly regularly-misused parameter. TSP (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I've reformatted that text to make it more prominent, but do feel free to add something specific to the parameter as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Should cause of death be described generally, such as "car accident" (Dean) and "assassination" (Kennedy), or specifically such as "broken neck" (Dean) and "gunshot wounds" (Kennedy)? Piriczki (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The general version, especially since exact particulars may actually be disputed sometimes, and a coroner's opinion is one person's assessment not Truth. Often the exact details are irrelevant (all sorts of fatal damage can happen in, e.g., a car wreck, and it's just random chance which of three fatal injuries is thought to be the one that finally caused the heart to stop). Further, the terms used can often be incorrect; e.g., Dean did not die of a broken neck, but of spinal cord damage from a broken neck. Lots of people break their necks without serious spinal column damage and recover. And so on. The gist being, people care about the "big reason", and the "little reasons" are too fiddly for an infobox, sometimes even for an article. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 09:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree the short version TSP came up with is better. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 09:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)