Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 31

Francis Poulenc
Francis Poulenc
	Poulenc's grave on the Cimetière du Père-Lachaise
Born	Francis Jean Marcel Poulenc; 7 January 1899; Paris
Died	30 January 1963 (aged 64); Paris
Burial place	Père Lachaise Cemetery
Occupations	Pianist; Composer;
Works	List of compositions

Sir Winston Churchill
Sir Winston Churchill
Political party	Conservative (Before 1904; 1924–1964); Liberal (1904–1924);

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

←

→

Width of the box

Is there a standard width to the box, some seem wider than others, or is this an optical illusion? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The infobox is an html <table>...</table>, so behaves as do most html elements; in particular, it will widen to accommodate wide content like images. The default width is 22em, which is about 240px in my Monobook skin. Any image wider than about 230px will result in a wider infobox. --RexxS (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Parties?

Is there a way to indicate that a person has been member of different parties? The template now indicates only one party, even if the field has multiple values.--Carnby (talk) 10:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

In Winston Churchill the infobox used Template:Infobox officeholder contains the following line:

|party = {{ubl | [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservative]] (Before 1904; 1924–1964) | [[Liberal Party (UK)|Liberal]] (1904–1924) }}

which would display as shown here if we used Template:Infobox person. I don't see the problem that you're trying to solve. --RexxS (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Just the plural form parties when they are/were more than one.--Carnby (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

The plural makes it sound like the person belongs to multiple parties simultaneously. The singular is fine. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, I give up.

--Carnby (talk) 16:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

{{Infobox officeholder}} provides an additional |otherparty= parameter designed to list additional political affiliations of the subject. The Churchill infobox could surely be amended this way. — JFG ^talk 14:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

RFC

The consensus is against the proposal that the inclusion requirement for "spouse=" to match "parents=" in that they must be notable. Cunard (talk) 04:25, 5 December 2016 (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.

Change the wording so that the inclusion requirement for "spouse=" matches "parents=" that they must be notable (bluelinked). --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Support

Support I would think that logically they would hold the same or about average standards, perhaps with a seperate clause that states that if the marriage was well known/reported (which would likely be considered notable anyways so its somewhat redundant), they should be listed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Given that the requirement for parents is "notable or particularly relevant", not "bluelinked" as the RfC erroneously states, are you sure that supporting this proposal actually does fit with your expectations for spouses? --RexxS (talk) 00:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Support trivial clutter, people cruft. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Support. Summoned by bot. Many marginally notable persons have Wikipedia articles and I do not see the point of including their spouses, who are rarely notable and very often are not even mentioned in the article unless they are. Coretheapple (talk) 20:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Support with clarification. Notable is sufficient (i.e., a legit article could be written; one does not already need to exist). Agree that always including spouse[s] in the infobox is generally trivial clutter. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 12:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Neutral

I support wording demanding reliable independent sourcing. Demanding spouses have articles is a bit too much when often times marriages are notable but not the spouses. Parents parametre at present demands they be deemed "particularly relevant" (in this regard the RfC is clearly misleading); though vague I believe spouses should be held to similar standards. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose. Marriages (and sometimes there are several) of public figures are major and highly notable events/parts of their lives, and therefore where applicable (depending on the notability of the article subject, not the notability of the spouse) should be mentioned, with dates, especially if there were or have been more than one. Spouses are chosen, parents are not. Obviously someone with a short wiki article and/or someone who is notable for their accomplishments only and who is not notable as a public figure, will not have that parameter filled out. But obviously someone who is or was a major public figure or celebrity, and who has married more than once, should have that parameter filled out, as the infobox is the perfect place to briefly summarize that data. Softlavender (talk) 05:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

"Spouses are chosen, parents are not" Leaving aside who chooses who.. is this only an argument for listing number of spouses [in a row], and dates/durations of marriages; and only names of they are notable? comp.arch (talk) 12:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Parents start with the letter "p" and spouses starts with the letter "s" so clearly one is notable and the other isn't. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. 1) notability of a subject is not defined by whether or not it already has a Wikipedia article (blue link). 2) The existance or otherwise of a spouse or other domestic partner and children is relevant information about public figures. Inclusion should follow the same guide as other fields - that it summarises prose in the article which has an appropriate reference. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

We already are deleting all the parents from infoboxes, why should spouses be different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 15:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Really? Who is "we" in this context, and where was consensus to do this for "infoboxes" (plural) discussed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

If the rule is that they must be blue linked, then they must be deleted if not blue linked. What is the point of having a rule and not enforcing it? We changed the comma rule of ", Jr." a few months ago and removed them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not a rule. It's advice, as in an essay. If you want it to be a rule, the procedure is at WP:PAG#Proposals.

There's nothing about "blue-linked". It's perfectly possible for a parent or spouse to be independently notable, but not have a Wikipedia entry. Conversely, they may be non-notable, but be "blue-linked"; it's called a 'redirect'.

The advice is "include only if they are independently notable or particularly relevant". Did you deliberately miss out the part about "particularly relevant", or did you just not read that far? --RexxS (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

What does "particularly relevant" even mean? It is 100% subjective, please define it so we can all know who is "particularly relevant" and who is "not particularly relevant", maybe a decision tree or a checklist. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Plenty of people, places and things are "notable" and/or WP:NOTABLE and do not (yet) have Wikipedia articles. Requiring a pre-existing blue link assumes that articles are only ever created in most-to-least-notable order, which is nonsense. Regardless of her personal notability, my wife is relevant to my biography, so I expect a spouse is at least as relevant to the biography of someone who is notable. --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Oppose If a spouse is included in the prose (which they almost always are if there's a source that names them), they should also be included in the infobox, since infoboxes summarize key points of the prose. clpo13_(talk) 22:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

How is this different from "parents=" which are not to be included? WHat makes one clutter and the other essential? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Oppose: the purpose of this RfC is to create a test - that of having a Wikipedia article in order to be mentioned in an infobox - by the back-door. Whether or not such a test is desirable, this is no way of going about creating that rule. At present the guidance for parenats, children, etc. is to include them when "notable or particularly relevant". If the proposer wants to change that to "has a Wikipedia article" and bring spouse into line with that, they should make that proposal openly, not by disguising it through a misleading preamble to this RfC. --RexxS (talk) 00:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. Replacing the "notable or particularly relevant" test with article existence is a poor decision. The current test is sensible yet subjective, but the proposed replacement is irrational. Many notable people do not have articles, and many non-notable do have articles, so judging notability by the editing habits of Wikipedians is not useful. (Of course, article existence vel non is evidence to be considered when questioning whether someone is notable: if we have a GA-class article, that's solid evidence of notability; if the article was recently deleted at AFD for lacking notability, its subject is almost certainly not notable.) Rebb ing 00:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Far too over-broad a proposition; marriages can easily be of deep encyclopedic relevance/salience to an article topic, even if one of the spouses does not as yet have an article or namespace--or indeed in many instances, regardless of whether an article is forthcoming. This is particularly true of historical subjects. In my opinion, this rule would be unwieldy and counter-intuitive. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose per Snow Rise. Another consideration is that it would lead to the disproportionate removal of women, who are less likely to be bluelinked, especially in older bios. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. Editors at individual articles can decide whether information about spouse(s) warrants inclusion. I oppose blanket rules that take away the option of individual editors to write the article, in this case the Infobox, as they see fit in accordance with the particulars of the individual article under consideration. Bus stop (talk) 03:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Per RfC request. No, being notable doesnt mean another subject is infact notable.Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 04:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose per everything Softlavender said. We shouldn't downplay big events in people's lives, especially when the marriage is highly publicized. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose The name of a notable person's spouse warrants inclusion whether or not the spouse is bluelinked. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment. And the image of a notable guy's spunky first wife should be included too, no matter that they divorced 13 years ago and he remarried 10 years ago. Just making a comment ya know. Moriori (talk) 01:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Oppose – Marriages are part of the basic information in any biography, and most spouses of notable people are not notable in their own right. This proposal sounds utterly un-encyclopedic. — JFG ^talk 14:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

There is no mention in the guidance of "bluelinked". Since an individual can be notable but not be bluelinked, and conversely have a bluelinked redirect when not notable, this RfC is defective in its preamble and should be closed. --RexxS (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

People commenting in this RfC may also be interested in Template talk:Marriage#End, where it is proposed to expand the spouse parameter. DrKay (talk) 08:24, 1 December 2016 (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.

add qualification(s) as parameter

The consensus is against adding qualifications as parameters. Cunard (talk) 04:25, 5 December 2016 (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.

On Talk:Tracey_Curtis-Taylor page there is difficulty in reaching consensus on what an occupation is or how to describe a subject in the context of the article, I would like to add qualification(s) as an infobox field. This would allow contributors another way to describe a subject without having to address issues such a remuneration, or what proportion of their time is spent on the activity for it to be described as an occupation.2.96.37.100 (talk) 01:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Other contributors appear to feel strongly that an occupation has to be how one earns a living, what about occupations that have no relationship to earning a living, e.g. student, housewife, scholar, volunteer, charity worker, counsellor, retired, full-time wikipedia editor etc. The crux of my argument is that qualification(s) provides another avenue for contributors to come to a consensus on how to describe a subject that adds context to an article.78.144.79.169 (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Oppose: As soon as there's that much difficulty in reaching consensus, it's a sure sign that the inclusion of a particular field like "occupation" needs more explanation than a single word summary can provide, and hence it is unsuitable to include in that infobox. A subject's qualifications are almost never key facts in their biography and having such a field would simply be a magnet for inserting trivia about a subject's exam grades, etc. This proposal is solely intended to circumvent the problem of stating Curtis-Taylor's occupation as "pilot" by giving her qualifications as "pilot's licence" or something similar. We don't create fields in an infobox used on 230,000+ pages just because a handful of IPs don't like the outcome of an issue arising in a single, barely-notable BLP. --RexxS (talk) 15:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose The details and nuance of a field like this need explanation(s) in prose in the body of the article. MarnetteD|Talk 17:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment: IP, how would this solve the problem you raise? None of the occupations you mention could really be described as "qualifications" - we don't require someone pass an exam or earn a license to be a housewife, for instance. If you disagree with the documentation of |occupation=, or how others are interpreting that documentation, you could certainly start a discussion on that issue - but this isn't it. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. Honestly this seems to be an easy decision, adding in "qualifications" is far too vague a topic. For example, if someone took a few years of Organic Chem are they officially qualified as someone who can be trusted for Organic Chemistry? I would hope not. This example can be enlarged as well as shortened, but either way you go, you run into troubles of vagueness. Funkyman99 (talk) 01:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Follow up Comment to opinions above Tracy Curtis Taylor is just an example, both occupation and qualifications are subjective. I am frustrated that consensus can not be found to describe what a subject 'does' in the context of a biographical article. Qualification(s) would be another 'magnet' for controversy but it also provides an avenue to find consensus. Used in 230K+ page is a sensationalist argument, does it really disturb or damage those pages in anyway? Or is the consensus just give up and don't bother, there must be away to describe the subject is sensible way in the context of the article, qualifications provides an additional avenue?88.105.43.64 (talk) 12:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The consensus appears to be that the solution you propose is not a good or the best way to address the problem you've identified. For my part, I believe it would be useful in a minimal number of cases - under most circumstances this would be covered by either |education= or |occupation=, if it should be covered at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Oppose: as per RexxS. For 99.9% of BLP articles, this would be irrelevant/ redundant trivia for the infobox. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose: No clear criteria, would mostly be used for trivia. We already have too many parameters that people use as excuses to shoe-horn detailia into the infobox, which should be a summary of only the most important facts. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 12:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - As noted by previous editors, too vague. Not everything needs to be in infoboxes anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - subtlety and careful wording is the way to consensus; you won't find it with another infobox category. Glendoremus (talk) 06:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose: As WP:INFOBOX states "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose", and filling with redundant trivia makes an infobox much less effective in its job. - The Bounder (talk) 07:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose: Occupation should chiefly reflect the occupations for the person for which they are notable. Strong consensus for not introducing Qualifications field. ~~Closed RFC.~~ Aeonx (talk) 09:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: Struck "Closed RFC" as editors who !vote are WP:INVOLVED and should not close the same RfC. Softlavender (talk) 10:20, 24 November 2016 (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.

Can the infobox religious biography template be made to embed into this template?

Can someone make Template:Infobox religious biography able to be embedded into this person template? Or help show me how to do it myself? There are parameter in this template that are not duplicated in that one.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@3family6: {{Infobox person}} has six |module= parameters, designed to allow other templates to be embedded inside it. So in an article using {infobox person}, you could use |module={{Infobox religious biography|child=yes| ... }} to put the fields of that infobox inside the {infobox person} infobox. However, templates used like that are modified to accept a |child=yes parameter which will suppress the headings for the second infobox (like {infobox person} itself has). If you felt capable of doing the modification, and could get consensus for it, then that would be a solution for you. --RexxS (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll try this. Some infoboxes, like the one for musicians, have an |embed=yes parameter. I'll see how the |child=yes works.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I've modified {{Infobox religious biography}} to accept the |child= parameter for you. --RexxS (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that worked!--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should biographical articles always include an infobox?

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.

Over on Talk:Stanley Kubrick, one can find the latest in a series of heated discussions as to whether or not the article Stanley Kubrick should have an infobox. I propose that all biographical articles, about persons living or dead (so long as the following information is verifiably known: name, birth date, death date if deceased, nationality, and perhaps occupation), should include the Infobox person template in their lede. Now, this would be a monumental, and I certainly expect a controversial, change. It would also conflict with the consensus acheived by WP:COMPOSERS to keep infoboxes off of most composer articles, so I am not sure how this conflict would be solved. Nonetheless, here's my point: I believe, while infoboxes are not always necessary, that biographical articles would benefit from the easily accessible and formatted information, and should therefore universally include them so long as the aforementioned information is known. –Matthew - (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that biographical articles should, as a rule of thumb, have infoboxes. I view it as a great way to sum up information about any given person without having to read through sometimes fairly lengthy articles to pick out this data. GauchoDude (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

So you would consider yourself as supportive of this proposal? –Matthew - (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)+

I would, personally. As Winkelvi noted below, this should be more about how a typical, end user reads, interprets, and interacts with biographical articles. I believe for huge biographies like George Washington, Isaac Newton, and William Shakespeare as some examples, it is incredibly beneficial to have infoboxes listed as a shortlist for the "most important" information. At the end of the day, isn't that the sole purpose for the creation and usage of Template:Infobox person in the first place? GauchoDude (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I also feel biographical articles should have infoboxes. Have never understood why this isn't a standard for bios in Wikipedia. As far as composer articles go, I don't see why those articles wouldn't, either, as their articles are also bios. There are people who like and appreciate factoids about those they are looking into at Wikipedia. To me, it's a what's best for readers issue, not an editor's elitist, WP:IDLI attitude that should be considered first. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

IDLI, Winkelvi? Isn't it funny how this essay is something attributed to those who think differently to you. What is it when you don't like the fact an article doesn't have an infobox; is that IDLI too? Or is it just a socialistic crusade that you consider yourself to be the Führer of? Cassianto ^Talk 18:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Why do you always have to use ad hominem against others who are merely expressing their opinions? If anyone is going for socialistic "führer" behavior here, it's you, since you just can't seem to stand it when someone sees the world of Wikipedia differently than you do. Grow up. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

That's rich coming from someone who's just told me to "grow up". "...you just can't seem to stand it when someone sees the world of Wikipedia differently than you do. Also rich, when you also exhibit behaviour that shows your own disdain for infobox-less articles. Still, never let the truth get in the way of having the last word. Cassianto ^Talk 18:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I am supportive of this proposal. I think that Infoboxes should be used wherever they are useful and this would tend to include biographical articles. In looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes I see exceptions or adaptations that make sense. Highly subjective material should be kept out of Infoboxes. Therefore I read about "confusing style and genre, setting forth haphazard lists of individual works" at "WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes" and I agree with that. Similarly I don't think Infoboxes should include "Influenced by" and "Influenced" fields. This tends to be subjective and is better addressed in the body of the article. Bus stop (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Just to point out that this RFC by its nature and location cannot mandate, prohibit, restrict or otherwise dictate infobox use anywhere on the encylopedia. WP:INFOBOXUSE is clear on this: "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.". So unless you are going to move this RFC to the MOS:INFOBOX talkpage and reframe the discussion to amend WP:INFOBOXUSE, any discussion here is a waste of time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I think MH knows this (hope so, anyway), but believe he is just testing the waters via survey to see if this is something that could be effectively pursued at MOSINFOBOX. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

To be honest it hasnt a hope of succeeding. You cant mandate a swathe of articles are *required* to have specific content. It also arguably violates WP:CON. Its just never going to pass. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. Infobox inclusion is best decided on a case-by-case basis, taking into account particularly the importance of the information that would be included in the infobox, the length of the article, and the comprehensiveness of the lead. If this decision must be made project-wide, as you propose, I would prefer and believe it would be better for our readers to forbid all infoboxes, even where they are useful, than mandate them where they serve only to clutter the article; the current compromise is satisfactory. I also question the usefulness of having this discussion here: the question has already been debated ad nauseum, and this RfC certainly can't rewrite WP:INFOBOXUSE. Rebb ing 15:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - though I think most biographical articles should have an infobox, it should not be a requirement.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Please note that, under this proposal, an infobox would not be included on a biographical article where the subject's name, birth date, death date if deceased, nationality, and perhaps occupation could not all be verifiably identified. –Matthew - (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Please note that you are delusional if you think you can force this cancer on all biographies. Does Matron know you have access to the computer? Cassianto ^Talk 18:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose -- is it 1 April already? By the way, I take my hat off to MatthewHoobin for this clever bit of canvassing for the Kubrick talk page. Congratulations you. Cassianto ^Talk 18:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Not really trying to canvas here, bud. The Kubrick talk page was going nowhere, so I notified on the talk page, as well as on the user pages of several who were involved in the discussion (including those with viewpoints different from mine), that there was a discussion occurring over here. –Matthew - (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - while I generally support the presence of infoboxes, this should remain a matter of consensus and discussion per ArbCom, since certain biographies benefit more of infoboxes over others. It shouldn't be a rule in any way. κατάστασ η 18:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Arbcom does not make policy. They just re-affirmed the already existing community consensus for infoboxs. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Strongly opposed Please tell me what purpose the infobox at Attallah Shabazz serves, except that it helped some editor with OCD sleep well knowing that she or he had added an infobox to a previously barren biography? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

It helps to condense relevant information, such as birth date and location, into a nice little quadrilateral, and can allow itself for use in relation to Wikidata. –Matthew - (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

This discussion is being transferred over to WT:MOSIBX. –Matthew - (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment Some may know me as a strong proponent of infoboxes, but I have to admit that even I wouldn't want to see a requirement for infoboxes in biographies (or any other topic area). That's because the factors that need to be weighed in making a decision about whether an infobox would improve an article or not are too complex to be generalised as "all biographies should have one". It's equally true, of course, that I don't believe that there ever should be a blanket rule saying that any particular group of articles should not have an infobox. I do affirm that, in general, an infobox may be expected to improve an article, and I would normally hope that the burden of politely justifying a decision to exclude an infobox should fall on those who make such a decision. Nevertheless, at the risk of heresy here, I have grudgingly come to accept that one of the vital factors is the attitude of the editors who spend their time attempting to steward a given article. Infoboxes, like all content, require maintenance and it's really not productive to impose an infobox on an article where all of the regular maintainers are opposed to having one. Those are often the cases where the infobox falls out of date and out of sync with new content, thus becoming a source of misinformation, rather than fulfilling its role as a useful at-a-glance summary of key information related to the subject – a job for which it is the best tool on Wikipedia. The end of the infobox wars will come not with victory for one side or the other, but when all involved sufficiently de-escalate the conflict and are able to put up with each others' sincerely-held views – even the ones we know are dead wrong from our point-of-view! Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
This kind of comment, RexxS, is why I like you so much. Winkelvi, Hoobin, and the other person who I can't be bothered to scroll up to find, please take note. This is how to make friends and influence people. Cassianto ^Talk 21:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes Cassianto, RexxS is indeed the voice of reason here and I share his view entirely. Although the war might also end when all the leading proponents had resigned, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. Per the reasons listed by others above. If memory serves there is a policy where - when an infobox would only have one or two entries like "name" and "birthdate" - their use is deprecated. I cannot find the link to that at the moment but even if that policy has been changed there should still not be a blanket "must" or "must not" use guideline. MarnetteD|Talk 21:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

This discussion has been transferred over to WT:MOSIBX. –Matthew - (talk) 01:24, 7 January 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 January 2017

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

Remove the religion parameter per this RfC or disable the "this parameter will be removed soon" warning. Almost every time I edit a BLP this warning comes up. Laurdecl ^talk 08:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Laurdecl: You do realise that once the religion parameter is removed, you'll get "Warning: Page using Template:Infobox person with unknown parameter "religion" (this message is shown only in preview)." in every one of those articles until the parameter is removed from the article? --RexxS (talk) 10:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@RexxS: Well, not really – once the parameter is made defunct editors will remove it from infoboxes because the message is clear. As it stands the religion parameter is left in because editors are unsure of whether they should remove it yet, especially because they can still see it in the infobox. Hence the red warning appearing on most biographies. Laurdecl ^talk 11:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Laurdecl:

Done. I have to say that I don't understand how anybody could misunderstand "this parameter will be removed soon". That's about as clear as I could have made it, and I really don't understand why anybody would leave the parameter in place in the circumstances. --RexxS (talk) 13:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@RexxS: I meant that someone editing the page would not feel compelled to remove the parameter while it still existed and worked. Anyway, thanks. Laurdecl ^talk 13:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Laurdecl: I understand, but I don't have any means of compelling editors to do anything, more's the pity. Anyway, there's been enough time since last April for folks to figure out what was going to happen. No doubt we'll now have a spree of complaints about the religion parameter disappearing from the 0 articles where it still exists. --RexxS (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Ethnicity? Religion?

I notice at Shreya Ghoshal that |ethnicity= displays from this template, (and perhaps at a number of biographical infoboxes?) but there is no presence of this parameter in the template documentation. Was the parameter intended to be removed? If not, there should be clear instructions for this parameter, as ethnicity is a contentious concept. What is the appropriate usage? Should the parameter only be used when it is significant to the article subject, as was decided with |religion=? Like, does the community care what ethnicity an actor or a famous American auto racer is? And lastly, how do we determine ethnicity? Independent attribution, or self-identification? Something in between? Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: See this RfC. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I've disabled the |ethnicity= parameter to implement the outcome of the RfC. --RexxS (talk) 03:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh wow. Cool. Thanks for the info, Nikkimaria and RexxS. And thanks for removing the parameter form the template, Rexx. Have these changes been made across the myriad biographical infoboxes? I know it's a tall order. I don't even know how such a thing would be implemented. Do any of you know if there's any plan to have a bot (or some other mechanism) remove them from articles across the project? Just curious. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:31, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria and RexxS: Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria and RexxS: When I look at the header to the Ethnicity in Infoboxes RfC, it immediately tells me to See also related concurrent RfC about religion parameters in infoboxes. When I look at the Religion in Infoboxes RfC, it immediately advises me to See also the ongoing Ethnicity RfC for similar reasons. Both RfCs, which refer to each other, had similar outcomes. Since the |ethnicity= parameter has now been disabled, should the |religion= parameter be likewise disabled to implement the outcome of the RfC? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that the two RfC's did not have identical outcomes. In Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126 #RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes, the closing admin, Iridescent said:

How to implement this removal while ensuring that those cases in which the religion is significant to the article subject is adequately covered either in the body text or in a custom parameter will potentially require a second RFC if a discussion can't agree on a mechanism for an orderly removal of the parameter, but it's clear that there's strong consensus to remove the parameter from the generic infobox.

The argument was that religion may be a key fact in certain individuals' biographies, in a way that ethnicity could never be. The documentation makes a good job, imho, of describing the result and warning against the indiscriminate use of the field. I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable removing the ability of the infobox to display |religion= while there's no guidance on how we should include that in those relatively small fraction of infoboxes where it is appropriate. Perhaps it's time for that second RfC to meet Iridescent's prescription? --RexxS (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Having thought about it, I've created a demo of how Template:Infobox person could be modified to accept a custom parameter instead of |religion= at Template:Infobox person/RPsandbox. That could be called from a wrapper template that I've created for demonstration purposes at Template:Infobox religious person. The latter template accepts and displays |religion=; the former will not display |religion= and shows a message when previewing the wikitext. If folks wanted to go along that route, then the sandbox version could replace {{Infobox person}}, and biographies needing the |religion= parameter could use {{Infobox religious person}} --RexxS (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, a very non-standard but workable way to prevent the |religion= field displaying indiscriminately while still allowing it to be used in cases where the subject's religion is inherent to their significance would be a separate and invisible |religion-justification= field, with the infobox coded so as only to show the religion field if the justification field is not empty. It would be easy enough for people to game it, but it would hopefully force people to think "why is it necessary to display the religion in this case?" for each article. ‑ Iridescent 14:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

When I look at the two RfCs, I see the same outcome for both: Remove the problematic parameter from the Infoboxes. The only difference I see between the closing of the two RfCs is that Iridescent also included some routine cautionary guidance in the closing statement. That guidance applies equally well to the implementation of either RfC decision: ensure that any content which gets removed from the Infobox because of these changes is still present in the body of the article (or in a custom field if necessary). I don't recall seeing where an argument was made "that religion may be a key fact in certain individuals' biographies, in a way that ethnicity could never be." Reading that assertion has prompted me to review both RfCs, and while I still can't see where that argument was made, I must admit it is more difficult for me to name many people who are notable first-and-foremost for their ethnicity. (Perhaps Anne Frank, Sitting Bull, Rachel Dolezal ...)

The community decided to remove these parameters from the Infoboxes as a solution to some specific chronic problems. We should probably be mindful that we aren't re-enabling those very same problems by implementing workarounds which effectively negate the decision to remove the problematic fields. If either field remain available to be easily used, they will continue to be misused, in my pessimistic opinion anyway. For article subjects whose religion is legitimately a defining characteristic of their public notability, there already exist religion-specific infoboxes with all the necessary and relevant fields, if I recall correctly. And I've seen that most "Infobox person"-derived templates already have support for manually entered custom fields for the very rare exceptions, if any exist. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

As the closer, I confirm that my closing comment was intended pretty much as Xenophrenic interprets it above; a note that while there's an obvious consensus to remove the field from infoboxes, there are going to be numerous cases in which it's essential to the reader's understanding that the subject's religion be known (a missionary, a martyr, a participant in a religious war…), and thus once the field is deprecated, in these cases people will need to ensure that their religion is either explained adequately in the body text (which should already be there, but one can't assume, particularly on shorter articles), or that a mechanism is established for re-including religion into infoboxes when it's genuinely significant. ‑ Iridescent 13:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The reason why the two RfCs had different outcomes is that - as Iridescent says - there are numerous cases where where it's essential to the reader's understanding that the subject's religion be known. There could be hardly any where the ethnicity has the same importance. Therefore, the problem, as I see it, is that it is a huge job to ensure that the religion is either explained adequately in the body text or a mechanism is established for re-including religion into infoboxes when it's genuinely significant, whereas it it trivial to do the same for ethnicity. The community quite reasonably shows its expectation, but nobody has taken on the task. I certainly have no intention of volunteering for it. Nevertheless, as a first step, I've removed religion from the list of accepted parameters. --RexxS (talk) 14:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the clearer explanation of your concerns, Rexxs. We disagree that the two RfCs "had different outcomes". The outcomes appear identical: remove the problematic field from the Infobox. However, your point is well-taken that the implementation of those community decisions affects many more articles with "religion" fields than with "ethnicity" fields. Of course we want to cause as little disruption to articles as possible when implementing the community decisions. But as Iridescent correctly observed, such information should already be covered in the body of the article. That's also where any citations should already reside. So while the removal of the |religion= field will affect many articles, the net detrimental effect should still be "trivial" (if I may borrow your term), because that same information will already be in the body text in all but a few articles. In the rare case where religion is the defining characteristic of the article subject, the article likely should be using the Template:Infobox religious biography, or a similar one, anyway. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, perhaps the same result, but with differing implementations, but that's not important. At present, my concern is with editors who curate articles which properly use |religion= in {{Infobox person}}. It certainly seems to me that recommending that they should change to {{Infobox religious biography}} makes sense, so perhaps someone who is familiar with the latter template could comment on any likely pitfalls, and update this template's documentation to help them switch? Once we are reasonably certain we have sufficient guidance to avoid major disruption, I'd be quite happy to disable the religion parameter here, if someone doesn't beat me to it.--RexxS (talk) 23:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest that we also add a tracking category for religion (and possibly also for ethnicity), much as we did for influenced/influences. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I've added Category:Infobox person using ethnicity and Category:Infobox person using religion. That should keep the gnomes busy for a while. --RexxS (talk) 04:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Update: There are presently 0 articles in Category:Infobox person using ethnicity and 0 articles in Category:Infobox person using religion. That's rather more than I expected. --RexxS (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

RexxS, those numbers are beyond what I expected as well. I also expected the nearly balanced "ethnicity to religion" ratio to be much different, along the lines of 1-to-20. I'll try to put a dent in those numbers, but I've already encountered a couple problems. (1) I see there is now a red label warning in the "edit preview" stage which warns editors that the field will be removed soon, but still the numeric count of articles using the field increases. (2) I've seen field removal reverted, with an editor using the justification that "The Template documentation still says the field can be used, so I'm restoring it." Are we waiting until the tracking categories are emptied before we remove the problematic fields and update the documentation? If so, the task will never be completed. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

@Xenophrenic: I expected the same sort of ratio as you and the absolute numbers to be at least an order of magnitude smaller, but we have what we have. The category populates slowly, so it may even take several days before the number stops going up. I placed the warning note in preview to try to give editors a "head's-up" so that they can work out what, if any, action they need to take. In light of your experience, I've now updated the documentation. If editors revert the removal of religion from an article infobox, that's their problem: the parameter is going to be removed anyway. I don't see any point in waiting for empty tracking categories - their function is mainly to to provide a list for bots to do automated edits, and not to second-guess consensus. --RexxS (talk) 21:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

What are we doing with |denomination=? My reading of the RfC suggests that it too should be removed, but that wasn't spelled out in the close. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I would defend the removal. It's a parameter that's dependent on |religion=. I'm curious if the parameter removals are taking place at all the derivative niche infobox templates. I don't know how many there are or how to even find all of them, but there's stuff like Template:Infobox officeholder and Template:Infobox pageant titleholder, etc. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: I don't know whether denomination can be a key fact in its own right, but the RfC was based on the Proposal: Should we remove from {{Infobox person}} the |religion= parameter (and the associated |denomination= one)?, although the only two contributors who mentioned it seemed to be against removal, a position that did not enjoy support. I would think that Iridescent in closing the RfC probably didn't have much to summarise about denomination, but I suppose we could ask him if he simply assumed that the "overwhelming consensus" to remove 'religion' would apply equally to 'denomination' - for obvious reasons. As for the issue of other infoboxes, despite the RfC title, the proposal confined itself to {{infobox person}}, and it's not obvious to me that the result should automatically propagate to other biographical infoboxes, as it couldn't apply to {{Infobox religious biography}} and its ilk, could it? I think that the least we should expect would be a discussion at the infobox talk page where removal is proposed. I accept that others may disagree with me on that. --RexxS (talk) 03:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I closed this precisely because I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I would think it's implicit that "denomination" is a subset of "religion" and trying to keep the former while eliminating the latter would just be an end-run against consensus. The RFC was explicitly about {{infobox person}} and not infoboxes in general, or it would create the ludicrous situation where {{infobox bishop}} couldn't include the denomination, although I'd urge those who do maintain other biographical infoboxes to look at every field and consider "is this really necessary?". ‑ Iridescent 19:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@Iridescent: I think that if the spirit of the RfC was to remove |religion= because it's not relevant for most biographical subjects, then that idea should carry to most biographical infoboxes for which religion would not be relevant. Models, actors, probably (but maybe not entirely) politicians, and similar. Of course I'm being vague as I don't know the extent of the use of |religion= across these templates, I just wanted to float the idea so that things didn't get lost in the cracks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@Nikki: I've created and enabled the tracking category Category:Infobox person using denomination to see the scale of the issue. I expect that a bot can use that to clean up after the parameter is removed. --RexxS (talk) 04:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussions of whether to include religion in {infobox person} are off-topic following the RfC

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Where the religion parameter is relevant

Right now in my sandbox, I have an example where the religion parameter is relevant, even though the subject is not primarily known for working in a religious occupation (though she does do that, too). Natalie Sims is a Christian, and this is relevant not only because she performs Christian hip hop, but because four years ago she wrote several songs for The New Classic by Iggy Azalea. This is important because there was significant controversy in the Christian hip hop community over this collaboration, and Sims herself said that she regrets how the collaboration turned out. My point with all of this is that this is something significant about Sims, there were two articles written about the collaboration and subsequent controversy, and only occurred directly because of Sims' faith. Maybe that's not enough to warrant the religion parameter, but I thought that it should be considered.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, 3family6. I agree with you that the subject, Natalie Sims, is a Christian, and that fact is "relevant". For that reason, it most certainly should be covered in an article on her. However, that alone is not justification for also activating the special purpose "Infobox field" for her as well. Unlike most fields in Infoboxes which can be filled with very little thought or concern (birthdate, school attended, place of birth, spouses and siblings, etc.), there are 5 special fields which should remain blank and unused unless a bunch of other requirements are met to substantiate that the use of the reserved field is required. (See WP:CATGRS for the 5 kinds of information which require special handling.) If she is famous for being a songwriter or a singer, the special field shouldn't be activated. If instead she is famous because she is religious, then it might be used. For example, religion is obviously "relevant" to Tim Tebow, and it is likely most people who know of him also know this relevant fact. But that does not justify the use of the reserved field in an Infobox. Hopefully this helps better explain the Infobox field situation. Kind regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

If the "right" way to annotate religion and activities is going to be {{Infobox religious biography}}, could someone who knows how please make that an embeddable module? I see a lot of historic politicians who were also Presbyterian or Methodist lay preachers for many decades. This is a notable part of their biography, but not the reason they are notable. {{Infobox Christian leader}} is already embeddable, but not the simpler form. --Scott Davis ^Talk 05:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

The "right" way to annotate a person's religion via an Infobox, which is only done when religion is a defining characteristic of that subject's notability, will likely be to use a "religious biography" Infobox template, which should already have all of the necessary fields. There are no doubt historically notable people who were also religious, and this may indeed be a notable part of their biography - and as such, it should be covered in the body of the biography - but as it is not the reason they are notable, this information won't be found in the Infobox. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

That argument has been hashed over many times already. Most infoboxes contain info that is not the reason that the subject is notable. If the infobox only contained the reason that a person was notable, it would be a couple of lines at most, without birth or death dates or places, and rarely their name or photograph. It is supposed to succinctly summarise the key points about that person/thing, and for some people, their religious affiliation is relevant to their life story. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Scott Davis. There are many biographies of persons where their ethnicity or religion is relevant especially outside of the US. In Africa, one's tribe is a defining characteristic of who one is and not just something trivial. In Iraq, whether one is Arab or Kurd, Sunni or Shia, is also relevant. Religion for people like newscasters or journalists is also important since their religious views could slant their reporting. Say for instance, Louis Sockalexis, the first Native American baseball player. Why would it not be relevant to have in his infobox that he is of Penobscot ethnicity. Or Ayaan Hirsi Ali, that she is a Somali?Patapsco913 (talk) 08:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I also agree with Scott Davis. Why does religion or ethnicity have to be "defining"? Aside from rational reasons for the applicability of a religion or an ethnicity to subjects of biographies, readers can have inexplicable reasons for being interested in the religion or ethnicity of the subject of the biography. I don't see us as being here to suggest to the reader what matters and what doesn't matter. If the sources place adequate emphasis on these dimensions of the person's identity I think we should dutifully pass the information along to the reader, in the Infobox. Sourcing of course matters. Do sources fairly often mention identity in terms of religion or ethnicity? Bus stop (talk) 12:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I also agree with Scott Davis: that this argument has been covered many times already. Apparently, however, Scott Davis is still hoping for a different outcome this time. As Scott Davis correctly notes, Infoboxes (and Categories and other Templates) contain relevant information that is not the "reason" the subject is notable, like their place of birth, or date of death. What Scott Davis fails to mention is that Wikipedia also has five categories of information which are restricted and require additional special handling. "Ethnicity" and "Religion" are two of those five sensitive topics, and as such, they were not to appear in Infoboxes, Categories or other Templates unless they were a defining characteristic of the article subject. If that information is merely "relevant to the subject" or "relevant to the subject's life story", then it should still be covered in the article, of course, and no one is suggesting otherwise, but that doesn't qualify it to appear in the reserved Infobox field. Because editors have ignored these requirements, and because a person's ethnicity or religious beliefs are frequently complex, nuanced matters not suitably conveyed by a tiny Infobox field, and because these fields are frequently the nexus of disruption and edit wars, the Wikipedia community has overwhelmingly decided to remove the problematic fields. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no reason for "ethnicity" to be used unless it is a non-contentious defining characteristic of a person. The best source is, as usual, self-identification with that ethnicity, but right now the field is used to ascribe "Jewish" as an "ethnicity" where it is disallowed as a "religion" as not having self-identification. As a result, it is clear that the field should only be used where clear self-identification is present, just as with nationality, religion, etc. The prior consensus that self-identification is required is well-established. Collect (talk) 12:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Collect—Wouldn't "I am proud to be Jewish" constitute self-identification? Yet the Infobox at Bernie Sanders does not read Religion: Jewish. All of this wrangling over policy fails to serve the reader because common sense and countless sources support that Bernie Sanders is Jewish. Are we taking a principled stand when we studiously avoid indicating in the Infobox that Bernie Sanders is Jewish? Should material of this nature be omitted from the Infobox? Bus stop (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I am not allowed to comment on Sanders. I note, moreover, that where a person states they are "atheist", they do not then also have a "religion." Infoboxes on living persons are governed by WP:BLP and discussions thereon, and, so far, your position has not gained a consensus to overturn the existing consensus, which is in line with my position. Collect (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Our article does not say that Bernie Sanders is an atheist for the simple reason that sources do not support that Bernie Sanders is an atheist. Also you should be aware of our articles on Jewish atheism, Christian atheism, Atheism and religion, and others. Religion is not necessarily inconsistent with atheism. Bus stop (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an international project, and while the USA might be the most populous majority-English-speaking country, this is the English-language Wikipedia, not just the USA Wikipedia. USA cultural resistance to naming people's religion (or ethnic group) is not globally-universal. The guideline I was referred to above includes:

General categorization by ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, or disability is permitted, with the following considerations:
...
6. The "defining" principle applies to gendered/ethnic/sexuality/disability/religion-based categorization as to any other, i.e.:
The defining characteristics of an article's topic are central to categorizing the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to^[1] in describing the topic, such as the nationality of a person or the geographic location of a place.
In other words, avoiding to categorize by non-defining characteristics is a first step in avoiding problems with gendered/ethnic/sexuality/disability/religion-based categories.
...
Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion. For a dead person, there must be a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate.
— WP:CAT/R

I see nothing there that says that a dead politician who is documented in multiple sources as having been a Presbyterian lay preacher for over five decades should not be categorised as a Presbyterian politician. The guideline does not mention infoboxes, although something else says that similar considerations should apply. It does say that the characteristic should be defining of the article's subject, not defining of their notability. Therefore if it's OK to categorise him as a Presbyterian Australian politician, it should be OK to put all of those adjectives in the infobox on his article too. Scott Davis ^Talk 02:44, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

References

^ in declarative statements, rather than table or list form

I see nothing there that says...should not be... - and - ...it should be OK to put all of those adjectives in the infobox...

You are looking in the wrong place. The latest guideline regarding the handling of Ethnicity and Religion fields can be found here: Ethnicity in Infoboxes: →the field is to be removed from use and Religion in Infoboxes: →the field is to be removed from use. I assume corresponding policies and guidelines, like the one you just quoted, will eventually be updated accordingly.

With that said, I still think you've overlooked a few things: (1) The lead section of that guideline you quoted does indeed note that it applies to "templates normally used in articles", of which Infoboxes are one type. (2) Your assertion that, "USA cultural resistance to naming people's religion (or ethnic group) is not globally-universal", appears to be misstated. Among English-speaking countries, USA tops the list by a large margin in still making a big deal of people's ethnicity and religion, especially in politics. The "resistance" to such pigeon-holing that you observe is from the Wikipedia community, not the "USA culture". (3) There doesn't appear to be an issue with your hypothetical Dead Australian Presbyterian Lay Preacher Politician even before the decision to remove the problematic fields. If reliable sources didn't consistently refer to, or introduce, the person as the "Australian Lay Preacher" instead of the "Australian Politician" in the totality of sources about the person, then the |religion= field shouldn't have been used. If sources did consistently refer, describe or introduce him as a preacher, then also happen to note he was in politics, then the {{Infobox religious biography}} would have been used. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

You are looking in the wrong place. - I was looking specifically where you told me to look.

My comment about US culture was that as far as I can tell, in US culture, race, ethnicity and religion are often (not always) used in negative tones, to criticise or put down either the the in-group or the out-group of the label. Yet at the same time, it is important for politicians to be able to claim to be in a group, even if there is little evidence they belong there. I am not concerned about those edge cases, I'm concerned about the obvious ones where the person is notable for one aspect of their life, yet that may not be the most the most significant aspect of their life. I haven't found the example I was thinking of, but Gordon Davidson (politician) is close. His government biography mentions "Presbyterian" eight times. It was clearly a significant part of his life, but the reason he is entitled to a wikipedia article about him is his parliamentary role, not his religious life. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I was looking specifically where you told me to look.

If we're going to be specific, I never told you to look to WP:CATGRS for Wikipedia's latest guidance on why it isn't 'OK to put those ethnicity and religion adjectives' in Infoboxes. I actually told you to look here and here, for current guidance. If you'll recall, it was when you were making the case that Infoboxes were full of non-defining factoids - so why not ethnicity and religion - that I noted that you forgot to mention Wikipedia's historic rules regarding exactly that (the 5 sensitive subjects).

...as far as I can tell, in US culture, race, ethnicity and religion are often (not always) used in negative tones, to criticise or put down either the the in-group or the out-group of the label.

Your assessment is, unfortunately, spot on. A person's ethnicity or religious beliefs are often weaponized by one group or another, and that is one of the key reasons the Wikipedia community overwhelmingly decided that having Infobox fields for them was a bad idea. Such fields are contentious, unlike "place of birth" or "date of death" fields. Infobox data fields are often propagated outside of Wikipedia, and then cached and mirrored without any of the nuance, context or explanatory elaboration found in the body of the articles. As an illustrative test, try searching online for a person outside of Wikipedia. Depending on which search engine, operating system and platform format you use, you'll likely see a cached portion of a Wikipedia Infobox, with 5 to 12 of its fields displayed, along with your search results. I can't count how many times I've entered a person's name in the Google search box, and, for example, seen Barack Obama's Ethnicity= and Religion= as some combo of Kenyan Islam Black Liberation Muslim Irish American.

it is important for politicians to be able to claim to be in a group

Doubtful; but I've no doubt many think it is important, especially in the States. That's why their ethnic and religious claims will be fully claimed and covered in the body of the article. The Infobox fields, however, are for people who do not just "claim" to be in a group, but are actually notable for being movers and shakers in that group. There are two popular misconceptions among Wikipedians, that the qualification for using the |religion= field is: (1) "how religious" or observant a person is, or (2) how important the person feels his religion is to him/her. It's neither. The most devout, observant, even fanatical, religious adherent won't have the Infobox field activated unless those religious beliefs are the reason reliable sources take note of the person. Looking at your Gordon Davidson example, the |religion= Infobox field should not have been used. While his religious beliefs may have been "clearly a significant part of his life", as you say, that has no bearing on whether the field should have been used. What mattered, back before the community decided to do away with the field in general Infoboxes, was if the person's religion was the significant reason reliable sources took notice of him in the first place. (As a side note: the government biography you linked, which he likely wrote himself, mentions his religion only once, and not at all in their version of an Infobox - the other 7 mentions appear to be of church-related institutions.) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 11:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Xenophrenic—you point out in more than one post that an Infobox field for religion fails to capture "nuance". But this is unnecessary. It is understood that religious identity manifests itself differently in each person. Thus the fact that the name of a religion fails to convey "nuance" does not constitute an argument against the indication of religion in the Infobox. Bus stop (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Bus stop, you appear to be attempting to re-litigate the RfC community decisions, so you should probably initiate a new thread with that clearly stated purpose. But in brief response: in my comment immediately above, I spoke only of the "nuance" to be found in the body of the article, which is lacking in mirrored sites that only display the Infobox fields and not the article text. But I and others have indeed noted that ethnicity and religion are complex subjects not conveyable by a one or two word Infobox field. Your observation that "It is understood" (by our readership?) that the same one or two word entry in that field will mean something different in each article, and is therefore nearly useless as a conveyance of actual succinct information, lends support for the removal of the fields rather than detracts from it. In addition, per the MOS on Infoboxes, the expectation of a level of consistency across articles using the same field is not met. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

You say "Because editors have ignored these requirements, and because a person's ethnicity or religious beliefs are frequently complex, nuanced matters not suitably conveyed by a tiny Infobox field, and because these fields are frequently the nexus of disruption and edit wars, the Wikipedia community has overwhelmingly decided to remove the problematic fields."[1] It doesn't matter if a person's religious beliefs are complex, nuanced matters—because no one believes that a person's religious beliefs are not complex, nuanced matters. There is universal recognition that religion manifests itself differently in each person. It is not even correct that there are "religious beliefs". This is because there are atheists within religions. Though Christianity and Judaism posit the existence of God there is a not insignificant population within these religions that do not believe in God. See Christian atheism and Jewish atheism. We are not here to resolve what we may perceive as internal inconsistencies in the religions of the world. You may not like religion in the Infobox but stating that "a person's ethnicity or religious beliefs are frequently complex, nuanced matters" does not constitute a cogent argument against religion in the Infobox. Firstly there is no one that would argue that all coreligionists are of one mind. Secondly that statement contains the illogical notion of "religious beliefs" when in fact we know that a person can claim membership in a religion while simultaneously claiming atheism as their operant philosophy. You say that I am "attempting to re-litigate the RfC community decisions".[2] That is not what I am doing. You are gratuitously posting comments about religion on a Talk page that exists ostensibly for the purpose of discussing Template:Infobox person and I am responding to your misguided, ill-informed, and gratuitous comments about religion. Bus stop (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Continued

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

Remove the whole ethnicity parameter (label and data) as per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 127 #RfC: Ethnicity in infoboxes discussion. 219.79.127.74 (talk) 09:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Already done from reading the discussion above it seems this was done two days ago. If you are still seeing this in an article, please provide more details — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

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

I mean is to remove |label22=, |data22= and |class22=. Of course it is good if editors can rearrange the namber after remove these 3 parameters. 219.79.127.74 (talk) 10:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Why? Their presence is surely beneficial as a pointer to editors of the template in future that the parameter was once there but has now been removed. We are in no danger of running out of numbers. --RexxS (talk) 13:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: This would be pointless and add unnecessarily add 233,506 pages to the job queue. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Infobox Clergy

@RexxS: It looks very odd to edit an article that uses {{infobox clergy}} and see "Warning: the religion parameter will be removed soon. (this message is shown only in preview)." It will be even worse if the parameter is removed or prevented from displaying properly. I think someone needs to do some more work somewhere before removing |religion= from this template. There are currently 21 articles in Category:Templates calling Infobox person that might need fixing. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you're quite right. However as a result of the Religion in biographical infoboxes RfC and the discussion above, I don't think we can do anything but remove the religion parameter from {{infobox person}} and hence from {{infobox clergy}}. It's a pity that some of these problems weren't foreseen when the RfC was being discussed, but we are where we are. Looking at the list of other infoboxes that depend directly on {infobox person}, I only saw {{infobox theologian}} as likely to be affected. For reasons I can't quite fathom, {infobox theologian} doesn't allow the |religion= parameter anyway.

On the other hand, {infobox theologian} does call a module, Template:Infobox theological work, so we could add |religion= and |denomination= in there, and use the module in {infobox clergy} as well, mainly to supply the missing |religion= and |denomination= fields. Some might cal that a kludge, but I prefer to consider it an elegant work-around.

As I see it, then, we have perhaps three options to fix the problem of not having |religion= in {{infobox clergy}} (which would likely make it suitable only for Father Dougal McGuire):

Re-write {{infobox clergy}} to use {{Infobox}} - i.e. re-write it from scratch to include |religion= and |denomination=;
Add a custom parameter to {{infobox person}} which would allow us to pass religion from {{infobox clergy}};
Expand the module Template:Infobox theological work to include |religion= and |denomination=, then add it to {{infobox clergy}}. This would have the additional side-effect of making religion and denomination available to {{infobox theologian}}.

Pinging @Cyphoidbomb, Xenophrenic, Nikkimaria, JJMC89, and Pigsonthewing: for any thoughts on how best to proceed? Apologies to anyone I've left out. --RexxS (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

It would be bizarre to remove |religion= from an infobox that's specifically about religious people. As for my other comments on the matter elsewhere on the page, I was more concerned that if the parameter was being removed from this infobox on the basis that its use in most circumstances is frivolous, (do we care what religion a notable Indy 500 mechanic subscribes to?) it should be removed from offshoot infoboxes that don't intuitively pertain to religious leaders. For instance, if it appeared at {{Infobox pageant titleholder}} (it doesn't), I would think it wise to remove it because of the spirit of the RfC. But {{Infobox clergy}}? Seems like a "letter-of-the-law" issue that doesn't jibe with the spirit of the law. As for how to resolve the matter on a technical level, that's a discussion beyond my capabilities. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I would rewrite {{infobox clergy}} to be based on {{infobox}} instead of {{infobox person}} (#1) or expand the {{infobox}} module already in {{infobox clergy}} to add |religion= and |denomination= (#4?). — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Implementing the RfC would clearly be detrimental to the project. Per WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, it should be kicked into the long grass (start a new RfC to placate wiki-bureaucrats, if necessary). A bit like Brexit, you might say. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Also trout the closer of that RfC, for counting votes instead of weighing arguments (aka "Wikipedia has had enough of experts"?). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no indication the closer "counted votes instead of weighing arguments". The RfC was SNOW-closed, as the common sense result based on the arguments given. The "numbers" were also given as an unnecessary courtesy "if anyone cares", and I found them informative as a measure of how many editors participated. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no evidence whatsoever of any arguments being weighed; and the "snow" claim is palpably absurd. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes there is; and no, it is not. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Bullshit: "The snowball clause is designed to prevent editors from getting tangled up in long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic discussions over things that are foregone conclusions from the start". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Horsefeathers: The "snowball clause" is yet another way that editors are encouraged to exercise common sense and avoid pointy, bureaucratic behavior. The snowball clause states: If an issue does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

What a senseless outcome. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I can't recall the Wikipedia community ever overwhelmingly making a good, non-detrimental decision without at least a handful of dissenting, but ultimately unpersuasive opinions being voiced. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you have a selective memory impairment. How would we know? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

How would we know? By checking, of course. I've just checked. My memory is correct; the Wikipedia community has never overwhelmingly arrived at a good decision without at least a handful of unpersuasive naysayers. (And I was so hoping I was blessed with selective memory, as I could really put that to good use...). Xenophrenic (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

This isn't about "a handful of unpersuasive naysayers"; it's about " It's a pity that some of these problems weren't foreseen when the RfC was being discussed"; it's about "11,492 articles in Category:Infobox person using religion [being] rather more than [...] expected". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I think option 3 sounds like a good solution. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Option number 3 appears to be the best of those three. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree 3 is probably the best way round it. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I've initiated a discussion at Template talk:Infobox theological work to ensure we won't be trampling over the opinions of the editors there. In the meantime, it has been pointed out to me (thank you ScottDavis) that Template:Infobox religious biography already has the ability to be embedded and the |religion= and |denomination= parameters, so would be an even better bet most of the time as an embedded module to supply religion and denomination for {infobox clergy}. On the other hand, the more I look, the more I'm attracted to JJMC89's suggestion of adding religion and denomination to the module already embedded in {infobox clergy}, even though it would only fix the problem for that infobox. --RexxS (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Landscape image parameter

Can we add the landscape parameter to this infobox for the image? "Infobox musical artist" has it. I think it might come in handy. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 19:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jennica: That parameter can result in an infobox that is as much as 310px wide with an image width of 300px. That compares with the normal infobox width of 22em (about 240px) and normal infobox image width of 220px. I don't think you'll get support for giving {{infobox person}} the ability to be as wide as the one on Afro Celt Sound System, for example. I could be wrong, so let's see what others think about it. Technically it would be straightforward to implement, but you might want to explain how you feel it would come in handy, as there may be a better solution available. As an alternative, perhaps you could check out User:RexxS/sandbox #Infobox with separate image for a technique of allowing the image to be rendered above the infobox, thus allowing much wider images without affecting the width of the infobox. --RexxS (talk) 21:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Idea: IMDB link

As noteable people (and actors that also use this template) are often in and around in TV shows and movies, IMDB is great source of unique identification and further information this part of their lives , would it be an idea to add a IMDB parameter to the infobox in a similar way to the IMDB template? Back ache (talk)

No. IMDb is not generally reliable and should not be given this sort of prominence. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Back ache: And in case you're wondering, much of IMDB's content is user-generated, which dramatically reduces its value as a reliable source. We don't consider Wikipedia a reliable source for a similar reason. --RexxS (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes! Most of IMDB is under editorial control, which defines a reliable source. The comments section and the trivia sections are posted by users. If you find a mistake in IMDB you submit a correction for review which is rejected or accepted. Even the trivia section is under editorial control. The New York Times is unreliable because it contains about 6 errors per issue corrected the following day. This is really just moving the external link from the external link section to the infobox. It is not using IMDB as a reference. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

IMDB is a user-generated database and is currently (and has repeatedly in the past) been found to be an unreliable source in general, as well as almost completely unuseable for BLP's. Please do not spread misinformation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Can you give examples of errors in IMDB that are uncorrected. There are 3 errors in today's New York Times that I found that are yet uncorrected. I am sure they will be corrected when I next look at the article because it is under editorial control. Somewhere on Wikipedia is a list of errors in Encyclopedia Britannica uncovered by Nature: "Wikipedia articles were described as containing 4 errors or omissions, while the Britannica articles 3." I corrected 6 dates of birth for actors that were incorrectly stated in EB. I corrected them using primary sources like birth, marriage, and death certificates. There are over 10,000 links to the print version of the New York Times in Wikipedia in which corrections are not made, they are made to the online version, or printed the following day. Here is a correction from the New York Times:

An appraisal on Saturday about Walter Cronkite’s career included a number of errors. In some copies, it misstated the date that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was killed and referred incorrectly to Mr. Cronkite’s coverage of D-Day. Dr. King was killed on April 4, 1968, not April 30. Mr. Cronkite covered the D-Day landing from a warplane; he did not storm the beaches. In addition, Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon on July 20, 1969, not July 26. “The CBS Evening News” overtook “The Huntley-Brinkley Report” on NBC in the ratings during the 1967-68 television season, not after Chet Huntley retired in 1970. A communications satellite used to relay correspondents’ reports from around the world was Telstar, not Telestar. Howard K. Smith was not one of the CBS correspondents Mr. Cronkite would turn to for reports from the field after he became anchor of “The CBS Evening News” in 1962; he left CBS before Mr. Cronkite was the anchor. Because of an editing error, the appraisal also misstated the name of the news agency for which Mr. Cronkite was Moscow bureau chief after World War II. At that time it was United Press, not United Press International.

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Ummm.... printing a correction is an indication of editorial reliability, not otherwise. A reliable source checks out its information before publishing, and hopes it got it right, but in many cases there are deadlines, and they don't have forever to do so. When they find that they published something incorrect, they publish a correction or a retraction. That is a sign of their editorial reliability - if they were unreliable, they wouldn't even bother. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

See WP:UGC. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

This is moving the external link from the external link section to the infobox. It is not using IMDB as a reference. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

All information in an infobox is required to be reliably sourced. IMDB is not a reliable source. EL's have different criteria as you can link to external websites that *may* provide more information to the reader but would be unsuitable to use as a reference. Having an IMDB parameter indicates that wikipedia finds IMDB reliable. Which it overwhelmingly does not. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

That means that we have the proper link to IMDB. We have no proof that the official website listed in infoboxes contains accurate data, we now know that Volkswagen's official website contained lies about their gas mileage and emissions, so was unreliable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Which is a completely pointless comparison. As Volkswagen's (a company, not a living person) website is always going to be relevant for Volkswagen (again, a company, not a living person) regardless of the information it carries as a primary source. IMDB is an unreliable user-generated website which rarely contains useable information. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the core of IMDb's information is not user-generated, and the majority of its information is accurate. However, IMDb does accept user input, and its editorial staff does not do a particularly good job of verifying this information, which gets added to the database without proper scrutiny. (I can confirm this from personally being the victim of false information which it took moving heaven and earth to get deleted.) It is because of this that IMDb is generally not considered to be a reliable source for Wikipedia. For American films, the AFI catalog is generally reliable, which -- and not (pace RAN) complete perfection -- is what we look for in a reliable source. (The New Yorker makes mistakes too, but they're still an RS, as is the NYT) Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Pls dont spam or encourage uses of these kinds of webpages Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites --Moxy (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Alma mater

Reading about Bill Gates today and noticed Harvard in the infobox. Not sure why we would mislead our readers about someone's education. How can we fix this problem.....noticed same at Matt Damon....y are we listing this for drop-outs......very misleading?--Moxy (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Switch it to "education=". Using a latin phrase in the English Wikipedia is never a good idea. If you have to look up the definition to see if it means if they graduated or not, then it is best not to use it in an infobox. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

We could ....But there is no partial credits- degrees at this level - you either completed it or you did not...no half way. These people are not half educated.--Moxy (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

The field isn't "degree=", you get educated at high school and do not receive a degree. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Your missing the point.....we need a qualifying word.....looks like they finished. We should not mislead readers off the bat like this..just need a parameter to say `-withdrew or something.----Moxy (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I guess I am missing the point, it says "withdrew" for Gates. "Drop out" and "withdrew" are not synonyms. When you drop out without formally withdrawing you have to gain admittance again, and may not be accepted. When you withdraw you are free to start up again without reapplying for admission. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not clear on the issue, either. As Mr. Norton notes, neither parameter requires a formal degree, and the status of his endeavor was clearly noted. It some cases, where the institution provided a notable event or background for the subject, I can see the inclusion in the infobox. For Mr. Gates and Mr. Damon, this is clearly the case. To complicate, I would also note that Mr. Gates did eventually receive a degree from Harvard, but I'm not sure how we should weight honorary degrees. Kuru (talk) 14:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

As I understand it, the alma mater is any university that has been attended by the subject, so even if Bill gates did not graduate or Charlie Munger transferred, their alma maters are still the schools the attended (along with the ones they graduated from). The education field notes the degrees they received, and the dates they attended and so on. Common Yarrow (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Microformat markup

The instance of {{Infobox person/Wikidata}} on Eric Arthur Tomlinson emits a microformat, but this lacks the microformat markup for dates, which is emitted by sub-templates like {{Birth date and age}}, which are used in the non-Wikidata version of the template. How can that markup be included in this template? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I've been thinking about that for a while. I would need to make a custom function, but the sticking point is deciding on whether the full dob or just the year should display for living persons. As that information isn't available on Wikidata, we'd need to add a new parameter that controlled the format for each article. For now, I'd recommend using the appropriate template as a local parameter. --RexxS (talk) 03:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Infobox person/Wikidata

There's a deletion discussion about Infobox person/Wikidata that could affect BLPs, in case anyone here is interested. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

The dead are not "resting" they are dead and buried.

Why are all British Prime Ministers only "resting" in their graves, when as we all know something far more horrible is really happening. Can we not overcome this lower middle class tweeness, and allow them at least a decent burial? Giano (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. If, per WP:EUPHEMISM, we can't say "passed away" (or, indeed, "eternal rest") then we ought not to say that someone's body or cremated remains have a "resting place". So "burial place" (currently an optional alternative to "resting place") should become the only phrase used in this context in the infobox. Bencherlite ^Talk 23:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

As far as I know, cremated people aren't necessarily "buried", an that justifies the choice of words "resting place", at least in some cases. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

"Location of remains" seems the most basically descriptive, but it's long and clumsy. It seems like it would be safe to call the parameter something like "interment", covering all instances when remains are deposited into a grave/tomb. That would cover most of the cases when there is, in fact, a location. Plenty of exceptions, of course, like an urn kept on a mantle, burial at sea, ashes turned into a diamond, turned into fireworks (which seems like a particularly odd "resting place"), dissolved via resomation, being cryogenically frozen somewhere, etc. Perhaps adding a catch-all parameter for when interment doesn't apply, like, well, "remains location"... or we could just keep "resting place" because while it's a euphemism, it's also the only way (that I can think of) that includes all locations for remains without using something awkward like I've half-heartedly suggested just above. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I think of "resting place" in the sense of an object comes to rest somewhere when it stops moving, not in the sense of the Prime Minister having an afternoon nap. --Scott Davis ^Talk 01:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

What is so wrong with just saying what has happened to the remains? Whether they be buried, scattered, blasted into space or merely eaten by the cat. Resting sounds coy and really rather silly. Surely the info box can just say "Died in London. Buried at sea." Giano (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that "resting place" is essentially a euphemism that we should avoid. If someone is buried, we can use the term "burial place". If someone has been cremated, etc., but the location of their remains is known, we can say "location of remains" - though it's only very rarely likely to be of interest, I would have thought. It may offend some, but that's irrelevant - it's a neutral description. If no-one knows, we leave the parameter(s) blank. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I also agree with Giano here. But more to the point, who cares where they are buried? In my opinion, this parameter is just bloat. Cassianto ^Talk 14:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

In some cases, quite a lot of people care, apparently. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The difference is, this is an encyclopaedia. Findagrave is perhaps better and more informative. It's fine to give it in the "death" section, but for an infobox? Cassianto ^Talk 14:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

"Resting place" is an idiomatic English phrase (at least in British English) that means where the dead body or other remains are put. It has nothing to do with the normal meaning of "resting". I think it was originally suggested for use in the infobox because cremation ashes are not typically thought of a burial (even though they typically are interred, of course, often in a body-sized grave). If the body was buried, I agree with Bencherlite, that "burial place" should always be used. If the body was cremated, I personally think "location of remains" is better than resting place. I thought an earlier discussion here had "put this to bed" in some way? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

It keeps coming up again though. Even if it is bloat. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Cripes! I'm all punned out. M. Zombie 123 (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and we are probably all tired to death of the subject. So can we agree that if we know what has happened to the sadly departed,can we can say buried, scattered, eaten by wolves or thrown on the compost heap, whatever. Can the info box now be altered to reflect this? Giano (talk) 15:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

We might have to dress it up a bit? We might even need a RfC here. There are no fewer than eight previous discussions with "resting place" in the archive, the most recent of which is here, closed by our good undertaker friend "Doc Mice" Martinevans123 (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Well it is high time that Wikipedia faced up to death and gave its deceased a decent burial and moved on. "Resting place" smacks of passing on and over, entering into glory and being called to Jesus. all of which are fine if one is a sweet little old lady of 94 living with a cat in Walton's Mountain. Assuming most of our readers are under that age and hopefully live somewhere a little more cosmopolitan let's be a little more precise with the human remains. Giano (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Haha, that's quite a skewed characterisation. I'm sure "resting place" is far more widely used and has nothing at all to do with being called. It just doesn't sound very encyclopedic to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Quite! So do we have consensus to change it; and if so how does one go about it? Giano (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

My good friend Bill was a keen game fisherman. His ashes were scattared along a line between the island you see far left, and the island you see way off in the distance, far right. Considering we have had more than 21,000 tide changes since then, where is his "resting place"? Ok, I agree we need a change, but I'm not sure to what . Will follow this for a while. Moriori (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Well I always feel sorry for people who have been buried entire at sea, just imagine every time the tide turns: you are thrown this way and that, not to mention being poked and prodded by passing fish and sea lions; it must be quite exhausting - anything but restful in any sense of the word. Then there's those other unfortunates in the Himalayas, or wherever, who are chopped up and left out for vultures, that can't be very relaxing either. So it does seem that "resting place" really does have to go. Giano (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

A thought: There are already parameters for burial place, monuments, and death place. Perhaps for all those cases when it would otherwise be difficult to explain a precise location.... we just omit it and use the article text. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

That would be my favoured option. If it's in the text, anyone who's that interested can dig about for it, no pun intended. Giano (talk) 08:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Similar thought: use |burial_place= when buried (and we should fill it only in the rare cases of general interest, such as a monument on a cemetery where people might want to go). - We then need to find a different new parameter (or several) only for other cases, IF it is needed at all. I try to keep infoboxes simple. I doubt that I would even include the burial place in an actual infobox for the composer, this is only an example of how burial place can be used and is displayed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
The composer died on this day, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Please see past discussion of this point in the archives. "Resting place" is not a euphemism. It is where an object "comes to [a] rest", i.e. a place from which it is not expected to move. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Andy Mabbett: Even if you are correct and it is not a silly euphemism, the word "resting" implies that the state is temporary. A resting place is an armchair. "Place of rest" of "final resting place" would be the correct term and that most certainly is a coy euphemism. Unless you have the misfortune to be buried in certain European cemeteries then burial/disposal of the remains is permanent. I agree with those above, that it isn't really necessary to have info about disposal of remains in an info-box anyway. So let's do away with it. Giano (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

There is the Newtonian sense of "resting", i.e. "an object at rest stays at rest...". Granted, if we're talking about material objects (i.e. the body), it's hard to say there are no forces acting upon it while it's e.g. decomposing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd suggest that for many surviving friends or family, the act of interment, or even sprinkling of ashes, is not generally seen as "disposal"; I'm also not sure that the need to adopt an encyclopedic approach would really require us to see it that way either. But I can understand if some folks don't wish to associate any veneration at all to bodily remains. To many people having a place to go, to remember the departed person, is more important than if there are any physical remains there at all. Ghmyrtle and Gerda makes good points about the separate significance of the graves of notable people, which are often visited by very many. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

... which makes me think of displaying "Grave" instead of "Burial place", fitting both, buried and an urn of a cremated body. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

No objection. There has to be some flexibility, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

But I don't think "grave" covers a place where an urn is interred. They can be buried in a grave, but are more usually scattered or immured for ten years or so (not usually forever) in a niche at a crematorium or cemetery with a memorial plaque - like here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I disagree that "resting" always implies "that the state is temporary" (at least in the traditional sense).— Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 15:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

If you are "resting", eventually you will be "rested" and get up and do something. The dead are buried in graves and with few exceptions remain there. Resting place in a coy euphemism in the same way that the British say "Chapel of Rest" for a funeral director's morgue. Incidentally, ashes go in a columbarium - just one of the useless pieces of information one picks up as one journeys through life towards the grave. Giano (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Most ashes yes, but not all. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

My father owned a funeral home.....the word he used was "interred"....not sure if this helps here.--Moxy (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

A friend's mother is currently 'resting' in jewelry after being cremated and turned into an artificial gem. I am not sure 'Middle finger' is appropriate for an infobox... Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I've often wondered about the carbon diamond thing; suppose it was stolen: would that be theft or kidnap? But, yes, Moxy is right, interred would do if buried is too graphic. Giano (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The term "interred" is not as broadly suitable as some here suggest because it means "put into earth". To the point: I can't see any actual proposal in Giano's extensive complaints; what does he want to change? I don't think there's any need to change the current options (|resting_place= / |burial_place=). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I have said quite clearly I want to change "resting place" for a less coy and more encyclopedic term - such as "grave", "buried" "commemorated at" etc. If no acceptable term can be found then let where people's remains are deposited be in the text, but not the info box. An info-xox is supposed to only summarise the test after all, not repeat every fact. Giano (talk) 08:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

...which is something I said just a few days. I support not mentioning the burial place at all. But then this is the kind of problem infoboxes introduce in the name of "gleaning quick facts". Cassianto ^Talk 13:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I have said quite clearly that the terms is neither "coy" nor euphemistic; it is perfectly encyclopedic. That is also what sufficient others have said, that every attempt to change (or remove) it in the past has failed to show any consensus to do so. No new or compelling arguement to do so has been made here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

No it is not encyclopaedic. But then what would you know. Cassianto ^Talk 13:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Talk to Andy for sharing you view; however it's a view that appears to be in the minority here. The agreed solution seems to be a choice between an alternative description or nothing at all. Interestingly, the info box here gives a "burial" place, when the test makes it clear that the remains are actually displayed and housed above ground in a cathedral; also Napoleon and Franz Joseph are "buried" when as thousands of tourist will know, they are not. Another famed British Prime Minister who the text tells us is buried in Westminster Abbey has no reference at all to it in his info-box. Meanwhile poor old Oliver Cromwell gets a "resting place" even though the text makes clear it's doubtful that he's resting there and his head is definitely not - sounds very restful. so there is clearly no standard practice at all across the project. So I submit that "burial" is the best option or nothing at all. Giano (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Well that can be done - 'Buried - only to be used if actually buried - otherwise do not use'. It wouldnt account for some exceptions, but then infoboxs are not built for exceptions which can be handled in the prose. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with using Resting Place to describe the location of the remains of the dead, regardless of if they are ashes in an urn, buried, interred, sunk, or bear poop. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Perhaps you can elaborate why you don't see anything "wrong using Resting Place to describe the location of the remains of the dead, regardless of if they are ashes in an urn, buried, interred, sunk, or bear poop". Your view here is not helpful to this discussion. Cassianto ^Talk 21:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  - Ignoring your usual unhelpful and uncivil remarks, Giano titled this section "The dead are not resting, they are dead and buried" which isn't always true. They're not always buried. But one could say that the remains are always "resting." Just keep it simple. Why change it? It's not anything that needs to be changed. Please do not bother to respond, as I won't change your mind no matter what I say. I'll go ahead and anticipate some snarky comment and save you the trouble from typing one. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
    - Perhaps you've confused this with another thread because as far as I can see, I've said nothing "unhelpful" or "uncivil". Anyway, as predicted, your response is unintelligible, but based upon your ability to seemingly be offended by just about everything, I can wholly imagine you being the sort of person who likes to describe someone as "resting" when they are in fact dead. Cassianto ^Talk 22:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Could you link to the past discussions you mentioned? I did a search through the archives for the quote "resting place" and of those I've checked so far, the only discussions that seemed to have a clear consensus leaned more in the other direction (though without any clear resolution). What I do see, however, is that although lots of objections have been raised over "resting place", there's definitely a lack of consensus for what to replace it with. Similar to what we have here. I see that it was added back in 2007, and the first objection looks to have been in early 2008, though it didn't go anywhere. Next [implied] issue was in this thread when WhisperToMe changed it to burial, but he/she didn't argue the point further. Then there was this thread, also in 2008 which looks to have resolved to remove the parameters. Haven't yet seen where they were reinstated. The first real meaty discussion I see was in 2011-2012, where it looks like most people didn't like resting place, but couldn't agree on a replacement and it fizzled out. More recently, at the end of 2015 there was a discussion started by RexxS which doesn't look to have come to a consensus. There, however, you call it "a perennial proposal", which suggests perhaps there's a more substantial discussion that I haven't found yet prior to 2015. Then just to finish out the tabs I opened, there's the partially relevant RfC from last year which found consensus for "resting place" not to include cremation (but did not directly address the name of the parameter). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I too have not been able to find any consensus to keep "resting place." Therefore I propose we do away with it all together, and just have or example: "Died: 2005 in New New York (ashes scattered at sea)" or "Died: 2005 in London (buried in Highgate Cemetery)". This allows for every conceivable method of disposal without confusion, misinformation or euphemism. An example is here [3] allthouh I still see we have the coordinates for a "resting place" which seems completely over the top, unnexessary information, but that's for another day.Giano (talk) 10:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, using co-ordinates in a BLP infobox for place of birth, place of death OR "end place" seems quite over the top. But a separate issue, I guess. And that one seems to breach agreed use of "resting place". But again I don't see one bad case as a good argument to ditch either "resting place" or the entire parameter. (I see end place for both Maggie's and Denis's ashes is called a grave in the picture caption.) Martinevans123 (talk) 11:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment—I don't think "resting" is a euphemism. "Resting place" aptly describes cessation of motion, and motion characterizes life. This is aptly descriptive language which doesn't alter meaning or put a "good" spin on something that is not good. It appropriately refers to the end of life. Bus stop (talk) 12:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

But by that argument the place where a person comes to rest equates to the existing infobox parameter "place of death", (even though the person may have been resting in that exact same place for weeks, months or years)? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I have yet to see anyone put forward a convincing argument for the retention of "resting place" or even anyone who feels strongly that it should be retained. We have been told that there has been overwhelming consensus for its retention in the past, but we see no evidence of that either. So I suggest we do away with it altogether and where known a more accurate description is placed in brackets after the place of death eg Died: London (buried at Highgate Cemetery). Giano (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Language reflects a variety of factors. We aren't here to create language. Rather we are here to use language. One can meditate on the origin of a phrase but ultimately one must use the phrase that best expresses one's ideas. One may object to the origin of the phrase "resting place". One may consider it euphemistic if it offends one's sensibilities. But if it is the useful phrase for indicating the eventual disposal of worldly remains of a life lived then I don't see as how we have much choice but to employ the phrase. We can entertain alternative phraseology but I don't see how we can rule out entirely a phrase that has a history of use to indicate exactly what we want to say in this area. You are whistling past the graveyard if you are condemning "resting place" as somehow no longer useful for Wikipedia purposes. We are not here to right great wrongs. Bus stop (talk) 11:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Yup. We've got to work with what's available, and if the current lexicon is inadequate, so be it. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 12:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that "resting place" is a name for the PC brigade, and is not encyclopedic or suitable for an international audience. May I suggest that we allow articles to use a parameter for the visible title of the field, if it's to be different from the majority (burial), and make articles show "Buried" when that hasn't been given, followed by the place? That way the discussion here will just concern people editing articles and not everyone reading them. --193.111.141.114 (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Trying to picture Dr. McCoy reporting to Capt Kirk about a crewmen's death, uttering out "He's resting, Jim". The writers wouldn't have done that. GoodDay (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

This term does not even imply religion. Life is characterized by motion. Therefore the cessation of life is characterized by the absence of motion. "Resting" is an entirely apt term for indicating the absence of motion hence the cessation of life. It is not even religious. Newton's First Law of Motion states that a body at rest will remain at rest unless an outside force acts on it, and a body in motion at a constant velocity will remain in motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an outside force. The word "rest" has uses outside of the life sciences. Even inanimate bodies are said to be at "rest" when they are not in motion. Bus stop (talk) 12:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Folks are not usually buried exactly where they die. Old Apple Bonce didn't die in Westminster Abbey. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

We don't aim for the degree of precision of language that this discussion is arguing for. Our aim is to employ commonly used terminology to approximate that which is known about the disposal of remains. In this case "remains" refers to the last vestiges of a life lived. Human life understandably is invested with emotional meaning and this is reflected in language. Precision does not take precedent over emotional import despite the best efforts of those trying to banish the use of such common terminology as "resting place". Bus stop (talk) 12:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

And inanimate bodies that are 'at rest' are usually expected at some point to move again, or have the potential to move. Which with notable exceptions is not the case for corpses/remains. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm really not sure infobox parameter names need to follow the scripting conventions of Star Trek. As we all know Wikipedia is life, Jim but not as sane people know it. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Arguably, "resting place" is euphemistic, but as far as I know there isn't any other similarly short phrase that works any better. What we mean, I guess, is "place of disposal of mortal remains"—not exactly svelte enough for infobox purposes. Perhaps someone will coin a new word to apply to every contingency (e.g., being devoured by wide-ranging animals, vaporized, carried off by tornado and never found, interred through wormhole into unexplored sector of universe). If so, once it makes it into Wiktionary, let's use it. In the meantime, the continued use of "resting place", while imperfect, seems reasonable. Alternatively, we could stop being quite so anal retentive about infobox parameters and force our readers to actually read the "Death" sections of articles. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 07:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I generally agree. Its clear there has been a longstanding consensus with 'Resting place' which to my reading indicates 'We should not use this'. The only reason its still there being no one can agree on what to replace it with. Since the only alternatives are 'Replace' or 'Remove completely' perhaps an RFC on its removal should be started? Its clear no single replacement is ever going to gain consensus, so we might as well settle the question of if we need it at all. If it turns out consensus is against removing it completely, well then we will just have to stick with an imperfect field. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Every field is "imperfect". We are not aiming for "perfection". An Infobox serves its purpose when it suggests approximately accurate responses for approximately indicated fields. We do not need to extract the last bit of imprecision from Infobox fields. The reader is not a machine, even though machines too can read Infoboxes. The reader can make allowances for slight mismatches between the name of a field and the answer supplied. It doesn't matter all that much because in most cases the reader's needs are not as demanding as this discussion would suggest. Bus stop (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

It's best we avoid euphemisms. GoodDay (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

In what way is the phrase "resting place" a euphemism? Bus stop (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

You can't awaken a corpse, therefore they're not resting. Anyways, an Rfc on these matters, has been opened. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

RFC required

Then let's have a RFC and if no agreement is reached do away with it altogether. It's not necessary to have every fact crammed into-box anyway; there needs to be something left to inform in the text or it's not worth bothering to write a page Giano (talk) 13:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

You say "there needs to be something left to inform in the text". Everything is left "to inform in the text", because the Infobox is duplicative of the body of the article, intentionally. Bus stop (talk) 14:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Am prepared to discuss use of "resting place" in the infobox. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Tell me

For this person, I pictured the place, but without a parameter. Thoughts? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

[1] rative statements, rather than table or list form

[1]