Template talk:Infobox person

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from
Template talk:Infobox actor
)
Infoboxes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion
and see a list of open tasks.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes articles
WikiProject iconBiography Template‑class
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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

Placement of "Sir"

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

The Keir Starmer article doesn't use this template. Most of the peers appear to have their title instead of their name in the template header. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And there's nothing "silly" about grouping the titles/prefixes together. Just because you would casually refer to this person, in person, as "Sir Keir" doesn't mean that every mention of their name on Wikipedia has to be fused to a "Sir" prefix.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've landed on the reason why these prefixes should be treated differently. "Sir" is widely used even in colloquial speech, whereas "the Rt Hon." and similar honorifics never appear outside of the most formal circumstances. Zacwill (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP isn't written in informal speech. And there are other things used informally to formally, such as "Dr[.]", "Prof.", "Rev./Revd", etc., which we do not treat as "magically attached" to the name. I really don't understand what the obsession is with treating "Sir/Dame" as uniquely calling for special handling. There's nothing particularly special about it, and all this special pleading is tiresome (years and years of tiresome, without ever consensus going in the direction of giving those titles unique treament).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This "obsession" is reflective of normal British usage. The 19th-century scholar Henry Yule, for instance, was a professor, a doctor, a colonel, and a knight; his ODNB article identifies him as Yule, Sir Henry, treating the "Sir" as part of the name but ignoring the academic and military titles. To be clear, I am not arguing for Starmer to be referred to as "Sir Keir" in every context in which his name appears; I'd simply like to see his title displayed properly in the infobox. He is not "the Right Honourable Sir ... Keir Starmer", he is "the Right Honourable ... Sir Keir Starmer". Zacwill (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Normal British usage" in a running sentence has nothing to do with what infobox line a datum is put on in an infobox. In a normal British English sentence, all of the titles someone could have and which were used in the sentence would be put on one line, so there is no special exception to be made here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth I agree with Zacwill. A discussion on this subject is taking place here Talk:Ben_Key. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 22:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree. It looks ridiculous. We bold the title in the first line, so why not in the infobox? The honorific_prefix field should be used for honorifics such as The (Right) Honourable and for ranks, not for titles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:01, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See
MOS:BOLDSYN), but not in the infobox. It is counterintuitive, but well-established as an infobox-related practice on Wikipedia. Prefixes in the main body and prefixes in the infobox do not have to look the same. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't think it's at all "well-established". It's merely liked by a few editors. It's illogical, inconsistent, looks weird and makes no sense. In any case, we're not talking about saints here. That's an honorific that is only applied in a religious context and is not always used (e.g. Thomas More is usually referred to as Sir Thomas More and not St Thomas More, except in a Catholic religious sense). "Sir" and "Dame" are titles that are always applied. Once John Smith is knighted he is always Sir John Smith in the future unless he chooses not to use it (which is rare) and reputable media outlets commonly use it to refer to him. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'"Sir" and "Dame" are titles that are always applied' is just patently false, though. They're commonly and traditionally applied in British writing, less commonly applied in other Commonwealth writing, and almost entirely eschewed otherwise. And several subjects to whom they pertain disdain them in their professional life, while various others (whatever their personal preferences) are usually referred to without them, even in material that post-dates the knighthood/damehood (as just one example, Emma Thompson; see GNews search which starts with newer material at the top, and includes British publications – some of them eventually use Dame in the article body but are not using it in the headlines). "I like to use them" or "the materials I mostly read like to use them" doesn't quite to "they are always applied".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They're commonly and traditionally applied in British writing... Generally, we're talking about Britain here, since the vast majority of knights and dames are British. And most British publications use them. Very few people who have them do not use their titles. Actors are not usually credited using them on screen, but they are usually referred to using them by the British media. As an example, obituaries of Sir Michael Gambon: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. "I don't approve of titles" and "America doesn't use them so Wikipedia shouldn't" (which appear to be the two basic arguments against their use if we boil things down) are not really valid arguments. The fact is, in the country with which they are most associated, they are pretty much always used. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The key words here are "most", "few", "not usually credited", "usually". And the fact that you can find an example of British press being deferential in a particular obit is meaningless; we already know that the British press is mostly defferential when it comes to titles of this source, but they do not dictate how to write an encyclopedia for a global audience, and even they are not uniform about it (even within the same publication, much less across all of British publishing).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Deference has nothing to do with it. It is not "defferential" (sic) to display a person's name and titles correctly. Zacwill (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your views on the British journalism industry are of no relevance here. Atchom (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also completely agree with Zacwill. "Sir" should go alongside the individual's name. It looks particularly inappropiate, when separated out, if "Sir" is the only item on the preceeding line. Dormskirk (talk) 13:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are those in favour of this stupid documentation clause really unable to see how ridiculous this looks? Or is it just pure dogma? And given the clear lack of enthusiasm for it in this discussion, does Omnipaedista really have any mandate (other than aforesaid dogma) to go around changing all these infoboxes? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean this version of the article and its infobox, it looks eminently, 100% sensible to me, with the actual name clearly separated from all of the both pre- and post-nominal titles of all sorts, exactly as it should be. If you move "Sir" to the same line as "William Horwood" it looks like his birth name was "surname: Horwood; first name: Sir; middle name: William". While not many native English speakers would be confused into thinking that, especially about a British subject, "Sir" is actually an uncommon given name (e.g. in the American South where a lot of people are given riculous "title names" like this; I had an uncle in Mississippi literally named Prince John Campbell, I kid you not), and a string that simple is virtually guaranteed to be a valid given name in a variety of non-English languages.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The changes by Omnipaedista look premature to me: this has not been concluded yet. Dormskirk (talk) 14:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They were entirely compliant with the template documentation. "Someone isn't doing what I wish would be done if my proposal to change things actually had consensus" doesn't make someone complying with how it is actually done now "wrong" or "premature". The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate a WP-wide consensus to do what you want to do instead. No one should do what is not the current norm just because you want to engender a new norm that diverges from it. You seem to have the idea that if you don't like something then everyone has to stop doing what you don't like. WP doesn't work that way. If you want to make a WP-wide change in how this template is documented and used and what parameters it has, for what purposes, then you should open a proposal at
MOS:HONORIFICS to avoid undue use of or attention toward such titles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
When this issue was raised at Talk:Ben Key you said that it should be discussed here, and now that it's being discussed here, you're saying that it should be discussed somewhere else. Make up your mind please. Zacwill (talk) 06:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I specifically said "and advertise it at WT:MOSBIO and WT:BIO and WT:BLP where the biography-focused editors, not template editors, are", but no one did that, so this discussion is not going to have sufficient
WT:MOSBIO and turned into another circular debate. This is never going to be resolved until it's put up for a site-wide RfC that people in large numbers actually see and participate in. In the interim, the consensus has not changed MOS:BIO says what it says and the template documentation says what it says.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't see why a relatively minor change to a template's documentation would necessitate altering MOS:BIO. From the way you're hueing and crying, you'd think that we were arguing over something a lot more significant than where exactly a word should go. "Sir" already appears in infoboxes – we just want to display it in a more logical way. Zacwill (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But only a tiny, tiny number of people so far, who have been beating this dead horse for years against overwhelming ooposition, think that what you want to do is "a more logical way". There is nothing logical about having a parameter for pre-nominal honorifics and a parameter for the name yet moving one of the pre-nominal honorifics into the name parameter. That is illogical by definition. And such a change would affect thousands of articles across innumberable categories, as well as inspire doing the same thing with other titles, so yes this abosolutely should be a prominent RfC and not a
WP:FALSECONSENSUS attempt at a talk page virtually no one watchlists. Or the stick should just finally be dropped.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
You seem to be unaware that the header in the infobox lists the name by which the individual is commonly known, not their full name or birth name. The birth name is further down. So the header name has nothing to do with birth name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not unaware of any such thing. |name= is for their name, not their name with pre- and post-nominal titles glommed onto it. These parameters are really, really, really obviously separate for a reason and mean what their names say they are and what the documentation says they are used for. No amount of "I wish the template was different because it doesn't suit my personal preferences" is going to change that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your reply would have more force if you did not mistake "hon suffix" for "name". Atchom (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you also get confused when you see, for example, Margaret Thatcher referred to as "Baroness Thatcher" in her infobox? Does this give you the impression that her Christian name is "Baroness"? Zacwill (talk) 16:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not me personally, but it could easily confuse non-native English speakers. "Baroness" and other pre-nominal titles belong in |honorific_prefix=. It is quite literally why the parameter exists. That article's infobox usage is clearly against both the template's documentation and MOS:HONORIFICS and the very purpose of the infobox's |name= parameter whis is to give their
WP:COMMONNAME and agree with the article title. It's an outright abuse.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
You have a very low opinion of non-native speakers' intelligence. I don't think this could "easily" confuse them at all. Also, every single infobox pertaining to a peer is structured like Lady Thatcher's. Are you going to impose your idea of what an infobox should look like on all of them? Zacwill (talk) 06:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Has nothing to do with intelligence. Beginning to intermediate
ESL people not deeply exposed to the British titles system are not apt to recognize the string "baroness" (not a common word), and it will simply look like another Western given name. This is complicated by the fact that outside of Britain there actually are people with names like "Baroness" and "Duchess" and "Duke" and "Princess" and so on. Actually even within Britain for that matter; Sacha Baron Cohen is English and is not a baron. It's real and fairly common (especially among certain communities, like African Americans in the US South). I had a real-life uncle (now deceased) named Prince John Campbell. See also King Vidor. But this is largely beside the point. The |name= parameter is for giving the name (the common one, the article title) in the infobox, it is not for ginning up honorific forms of address that are not used by virtually any sources anywhere to refer to the subject. The Thatcher infobox and the one at Christopher Guest are farcical trainwrecks.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
As I said, every single infobox pertaining to a peer is structured this way. See
Lord Tennyson, John Buchan, Betty Boothroyd, etc. etc. This has been the consensus way of doing things for a long time. Zacwill (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Just a patently false statement. The very first peer that popped into my mind,
MOS:HONORIFICS, and against the basic principle that the infobox name and the article title should not confusingly mismatch, is the very reason that a site-wide RfC needs to address the question. This has become both a content and behavioral dispute at this point.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The fact that you think Sean Connery is a peer makes me wonder if you should be engaging in this kind of discussion at all. Zacwill (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a momentary terminological brainfart. My central point is that using a "slow-editwar" fait accompli approach to abuse the template parameters for a group of these people based on their social-status classification (peers in the case you actually brought up) is not how actual consensus is established. We do not do this parameter abuse for knights (except where some of the
MOS:HONORIFICS saying not to use them, though they can be mentioned somewhere in the article. It's very telling that pages like List of life peerages (2010–present), etc., are built in tables that have columns reading "Name" and "Title", and there is no confusion between them; the titles are where they belong, in the Title column. The only place where this confusion occurs on the entire system is in peer (and a few knight) infoboxes, all because of the "to hell with the guidelines and the documentation, I'm going to treat this like my personal blog and do whatever I like" behavior of a tiny handful of single-minded users.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The slow edit war comes from users such as Omnipaedista who have been systematically changing the infoboxes then claiming that this was how it was meant to be all along. MOS is clear: "Sir" and "Dame" are treated as part of the name and bolded in the lede with the person's name. The infobox "name" field explicitly refers to it being common name. Atchom (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The topic was "MOS:SIR, Knighthoods & Damehoods are name changing titles, much the same as peerages, should the MOS be updated to reflect this?" The answer was clearly no. --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of consensus on the MOS proposal does not mean that your position commands support. It's not hard. Atchom (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Bolded in the lede" does not mean "bolded in the infobox." The template documentation still says what it says. --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"template documentation pages, and essays have not gone through the policy and guideline proposal process and may or may not represent a broad community consensus" Atchom (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I just said: the topic was "MOS:SIR, Knighthoods & Damehoods are name changing titles, much the same as peerages, should the MOS be updated to reflect this?" The answer was clearly no. So the template documentation of Infobox person has already been discussed. What has never been discussed is your edit here. --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is a parallel discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Honorifics in infobox_headings. --Omnipaedista (talk) 04:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bastun's comment that we are supposed to be a global encyclopedia. --Omnipaedista (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After far too long in searching and asking for it, I have not found the discussion where consensus was reached that established the documentation in the first instance. The argument that the documentation must be mindlessly adhered too, and can't be changed is a
WP:FAITACCOMPLI style argument. Such a global policy surely has receipts? Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 04:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The documentation of the relevant template (Infobox person) has been indicating that |honorific_prefix= is to be used for these titles since at least November 2017‎. For the past 6 years, no one seems to have changed this bit of the documentation. This is the deafening silence of consensus (
WP:VPPOL in case you think otherwise. --Omnipaedista (talk) 05:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The documentation in question was added on 12 June 2007, here: [6], and appears to come from thin air. The fact that this same/very similar topic of conversation keeps coming up suggests that Wikipedia:Silence and consensus isn't a valid argument. Surely the receipts exist, otherwise the whole suggestion that this is community wide consensus is itself baseless. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 05:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Nford24 see here and here. For what it's worth I think "Sir" should be part of the name in the infobox and would vote accordingly if there was another RfC, but unfortunately it was a pretty clearcut result. ITBF (talk) 09:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 2022 RfC had no consensus; but the long-standing usage before Omnipaedista began his attritional warfare was for "Sir" and "Dame" to go into the "Name" field. That is the status quo and Omnipaedista's mass-edits does not override that. Atchom (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Omnipaedista: I beg to differ regarding your claim of a "deafening silence of consensus". I would suggest the fact that you have recently systematically gone through hundreds of New Zealand biographical articles and moved "Sir" or "Dame" from the subject's name to the honorific_prefix parameter of the infobox shows that the longstanding practice for editors of New Zealand articles is that "Sir" or "Dame" is part of the name field in the infobox, just as they are placed in bold as part of the subject's name in the lede. I wholeheartedly agree with those contributors to this discussion who have contended that honorifics such as "The Right Honourable", "The Honourable", "Her Excellency", etc., belong in the honorific_prefix parameter, but "Sir" and "Dame" do not, and concur with their explanations for this. It was suggested above that this is a single country issue, but clearly it is not. Indeed, it would be impossible to find a country further from the United Kingdom than New Zealand. It is unfortunate that earlier RfCs on this issue were not alerted to Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Article alerts. Paora (talk) 11:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that the editors proposing a change to the longstanding template documentation have demonstrated a change in *wikiwide* consensus. If these editors think they can change consensus, they are invited to open an RfC at
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS) cannot override community consensus. —Omnipaedista (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
See this example of local-consensus enforcement: [7] --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The correct place to have a discussion about Infobox person is here at Template talk:Infobox person, not at Village Pump. If all proposed changes to templates etc took place at Village Pump, it would be completely overwhelmed. It is quite clear from the discussion above that there is no consensus on this issue. Dormskirk (talk) 14:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But it was through the Village Pump that we got rid of the controversial |ethnicity= and |religion= infobox parameters. --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You were literally the user who reverted that change. You can't do an edit and rely on it as evidence of third-party enforcement. That is absurd. Atchom (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is absurd is that you just proposed different placement for the honorific prefixes for the Infobox you are interested in while disregarding what the documentation of all other infoboxes (including the parent infobox, Infobox person) has been saying for the past six years. --Omnipaedista (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the main reason why there was no documentation change after the previous discussion ("MOS:SIR, Knighthoods & Damehoods are name changing titles, much the same as peerages, should the MOS be updated to reflect this?") is that the proposal did not clarify why 'Sir' is not to be treated as an honorific prefix. Even the Wikipedia article Sir says it is a honorific prefix; where is the rational rebuttal of the claim made in the current documentation and our own article about the matter? --Omnipaedista (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is getting clear that this is about a specific Wikiproject defying the wikiwide guideline's intent and documentation. This is a borderline conduct issue. If a guideline has been defied without any compelling rationale by a small group of editors (see
ArbCom should issue remedies to fix that. The irony is that the people who wrote the documentation of this infobox (by the way, I am not included in them) more than six years ago are being accused of abusing consensus levels. The Infobox person template (effectively, the model for all other biographical templates) is being used on hundreds of thousands of pages and is intensely watchlisted. How can a local consensus be formed regarding Infobox person? --Omnipaedista (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't know which Wikiproject you are talking about and I am almost certain I am not a member of it. You have repeatedly failed to show the consensus you claim exists. You have abusively changed thousands of pages to create new facts on the ground. Half of your arguments don't make any sense, such as when you cited your own actions as evidence of consensus enforcement. Atchom (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For once I agree with Omnipaedista, there seems to be a conduct issue. Old mate is trying to now gatekeep us (as in clearly more than one editor) from even discussing this topic now. I'd love for you to elaborate on which Wikiproject "defying the wikiwide guideline's".
We also have the right to question anything written on the documentation, Wikipedia:Consensus literally comes with note stating they're not perfect, "template documentation pages, and essays have not gone through the policy and guideline proposal process and may or may not represent a broad community consensus"Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 07:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For everyone's convenience, I flag that Omnipaedista has been carrying on his editing rampage across Wikipedia. Editors may wish to escalate this. Atchom (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The above thread and various reverts indicate that many editors disagree with your interpretation, Omnipaedista. There is clearly no established or agreed consensus, and claiming that one exists on the basis of an infobox parameter – a parameter that wasn't exactly in widespread use until your recent edits – is disingenuous at best. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken. Of course there was widespread use before my edits. The earliest such edit I can remember is by MarnetteD back in April 2015 (the article was "Alec Guinness", an intensely watchlisted article). Within the next couple of years after that edit, most of the articles about knighted celebrities had been changed accordingly and the new common practice was eventually documented in Infobox person's documentation. I only started editing that parameter in late 2020 when I noticed that certain Wikiprojects such as WikiProject Military history and WikiProject New Zealand just defied the general guideline. --Omnipaedista (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that certain editors have only now discovered (through some of my recent edits) what has been common Wikipedia practice for the past 8 years actually bolsters my argument about a specific Wikiproject ignoring/defying the wikiwide guideline's intent and documentation. --Omnipaedista (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it was common practice in 2015 you wouldn't have had to manually edit thousands of pages to make them conform to your scheme in 2023. Atchom (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so it was added by SMcCandlish, who as we can all see from the discussion above is a vociferous advocate of it. Interesting. Frankly, I can see no actual consensus to add anything of the sort or for your edits. The "new common practice" appears to merely be that favoured by a tiny handful of editors who have enforced their views on Wikipedia, not "common practice" at all. As Atchom points out, there was no common practice at all until you started your editing spree. The fact that only celebrities had in general had their titles listed in your favoured way is actually more an endorsement of Atchom's statement than yours. Generally, only people the self-appointed "enforcers" noticed had their styles altered. Most of those infoboxes created by those of us who work on British biography in general rather than only on celebrities used the other style. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you realize that there was an actual vote involved? --Omnipaedista (talk) 05:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC by general use is not a vote, if it was, then it was 7-12, however, an RfC uses the weight of argument, and the opposing side really had no clear opposition to the change. The most common point was the lack of understanding that Sir/Dame is a name changing title, but they also had responses like "Argument not strong enough, Don't see a reason to change." which carry little to no 'weight'. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 05:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The bottom line was that your side did not win the argument and that the RfC did not effect any changes, so the template documentation still says what it says. --Omnipaedista (talk) 10:14, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Template documentation is explicitly not evidence of consensus, so having conceded the last point you've no leg to stand on. Atchom (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 2022 RfC is clearly a consensus (at a much higher
WP:CONLEVEL venue and with many more participants) against jamming Sir/Dame into the name field, and it is in no way magically overturned by some refuted kvetching on this talk page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree. The consensus of that discussion was that 'Sir' and 'Dame' are high-grade (as opposed to routine) honorifics, not actual names, and have no place in the "Names" part of the infobox. --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "RfC" (although it doesn't appear to have actually been a formal one) was never closed and therefore cannot really be used as some form of consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see
WP:CONS. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I am quoting: "If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable." --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The UK government does consider knighthoods/damehoods to be name changing titles, which is often overlooked or just ignored.[1] Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 21:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument has not been ignored; it has been refuted in the RfC above. A report issued by a Public Administration Committee does not hold any legal authority in the United Kingdom. Furthermore, it is even more preposterous to suggest that such a report may be used to dictate Wikipedia's policy regarding style. --Omnipaedista (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was never refuted at all actually, and is a perfectly acceptable reference. The report literally states "We found that few people have any grasp of the difference between a CB and a CBE, or why some people become GBEs, some KBEs and some are simply Knights Bachelor. Name-changing honours are especially baffling, and carry connotations of social divisiveness." is a direct representation where the last RfC failed, most no respondents don't grasp the fact its a name changing title in the exact same fashion as peerages. Putting Sir/Dame where it belongs would not create any special policy, merely properly fall into line with existing policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nford24 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The "you are saying a select committee report is legally binding" thing is a strawman and should be treated as such since literally no one is saying that. But it is very good first hand evidence of the relevant body of practice. Atchom (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If "Sir" is truly a name-changing title in practice then how come encyclopedias like
Britannica simply say Alec Guiness or Winston Churchill as opposed to Lord Byron? "Lord" is name-changing in practice; "Sir" is not. I do not think you know what editors are looking for as a reference when drafting the documentation of an infobox. --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh we're deferring to random Britannical entries now? When Wikipedia has our own conventions? The far more authoritative Oxford Dictionary of National Biography includes Sir in the title, but of course that undermines your argument so you don't mention it. Atchom (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it’s a good thing Omnipaedista mentioned the Britanica entries, as both the Alec Guiness & Winston Churchill entires mention “name in full: Sir…” in their version of the info box. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 06:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet "Sir" is not part of the title of the article which I would argue is the real equivalent of the name parameter of our infobox. I also think that your are inconsistent here. Britannica editors have "George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron" in the full name parameter of their infobox, but I do not think you want us to have "George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron" in the name parameter of our infobox (instead of Lord Byron). --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the title ‘Lord’ is the informal way to address both a Peer and more specifically a Baron. EB’s article naming policies are definitely whack, however I’m not sure what you’re trying to drive at? Are you now suggesting we want ‘Sir’ added to WP article names? WP’s article naming policy gives preference to the commonly known name of the individual, as it should. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 21:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me spell out what I said. What Wikipedia does is this: we use the name parameter of our infoboxes the same way that Britannica uses the name parameter (their article titles) of their infoboxes ("Alec Guinness", "Lord Byron"); but in the lead of our articles, we boldface all the components of what Britannica calls "full name" (so we boldface Sir in the lead of
Alec Guiness; we boldface "George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron" in the lead of Lord Byron). I now realize this correspondence has not been spelled out in this thread before; in any case, Wikipedia practice reflects Britannica practice. --Omnipaedista (talk) 10:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
[Citation needed]. Atchom (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just open the Britannica links I cited above. --Omnipaedista (talk) 10:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That theory of yours doesn't appear to be accurate. There are several thousand articles listed on Britannica with 'Sir' in the article name - britannica.com/search?query=sir&page=6 Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 05:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those appear to be about people born before the 20th century. As I said above Alec Guiness and Winston Churchill do not include 'Sir' in the article name. The discrepancy in the article names seems to imply that Britannica editors do not follow a consistent policy. Including it or not is a matter of style preference. The relevant Wikipedia RfC has chosen the style you do not like. --Omnipaedista (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Above in an extremely rude and belittling manner you bluntly said that Wikipedia follows the Britannicas style, now you’re saying it only follows the style adopted by a handful of articles out of thousands. The list also includes people born after Churchill & Guinness just so you know. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 21:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's almost as @Omnipaedista is making it up as they go along! Atchom (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What was rude and belittling was Nford24's sentence "The most common point was the lack of understanding that Sir/Dame is a name changing title." --Omnipaedista (talk) 09:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That statement came from a referenceable government report. [2] Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 09:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point of the other side though. Wikipedia-style policy is not governed by government reports. Infobox parameters are just the layout of infobox, not information provided for readers. We could argue for years over whether "Sir" is name-changing or not. The key question is whether specific honorific prefixes go in the honorific-prefix field in the infobox or the name field in the infobox. To settle that we need to cite style guides and other encyclopedias, not government reports. Other editors did not ignore your source in the latest RfC, they just found it irrelevant and you were explicitly told so.
And I just noticed another issue with your style preference. If you were completely consistent with your own view, you would go for the suggestion to include just "Sir" + "First Name" in the name parameter as per
Cambridge Dictionary: "Sir": used as the title of a knight (= a man who has been given a rank of honour by a British king or queen), with a first name or with both first and family names, but never with just the family name. Now, what the template documentation says
is in accordance to the latest RfC result. Namely, we don't go neither for "Sir First Name" (which is unheard of on Wikipedia), nor for "Sir First Name + Last Name" (because jamming Sir/Dame into the name field is not explicitly dictated by any of the style guides that have so far been invoked by the parties involved), but we separate a stand-alone, high-grade prefix from both the first and the last name.
I never claimed that template documentation is set in stone. I merely claimed that an RfC discussion is necessary when it comes to controversial matters, an RfC did indeed occur, and that RfC concluded with the view that your style preference has not been properly backed up by convincing style-related arguments. --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Other editors did not ignore your source in the latest RfC, they just found it irrelevant and you were explicitly told so." Only one respondent to the RfC even made comment on the reference, "the second, more absurd, premise is that UK law or convention governs Wikipedia style policy." For which Cambial made a strange remark given the reference in no way made an attempt to force policy, something you've been told repeatedly, but seems to constantly fall on deaf ears.
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue with the Cambridge Dictionary reference, I don't believe anyone has suggested 'Sir Churchill' be placed into any infoboxes that I've seen. If anything the dictionary reference should be used with a grain on salt given that the definition above suggests 'Dear Sirs' is the correct form of address to multiple men when 'Messrs' is actually the correct title.messrs Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form)
Ralbegen also commented on your source, and the comment was: I don't see why a UK Parliament's select committee report saying that knighthoods are confusing and different people have different preferences about what to be called should bear on Wikipedia style.
Cambridge Dictionary has a style guide for Sir (used as the title of a knight, with a first name or with both first and family names, but never with just the family name). It would be more consistent if your side suggested we use "Sir Winston" in the name parameter of Winston Churchill so that we adhere to referenceable style-guide prescriptions. --Omnipaedista (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your own source says it's issued with both first and family name. Ralbegen's response I left out because it failed to directly address the point of the reference in that it says 'Sir' is a name changing title, and only responded the my point that most people don't understand how the titles work. Of all the respondents, no one actually declared the reference irrelevant, and If even one person had, there are six people in this thread that consider it relevant. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 21:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, "consistent" was not what I meant, "convincing" is a better word. My point is that most editors can understand why the prefix "Lord" can be included in the name parameter in
Lord Giddens
 because one cannot easily parse "Lord Giddens" if "Lord" (a style for certain ranks of nobility) is visually separated from "Giddens"; in the same vein, most editors could understand why the prefix "Sir" could be included in the name parameter if we went for simply "Sir Winston" (Option A) because one cannot easily parse "Sir Winston" if "Sir" is format-wise separated from "Winston". But since we go for "Sir Winston Churchill" (Option B), we can expect our readers to be able to parse the name even if Sir and "Winston Churchill" are format-wise separated (actually most RfC contributors pointed out that separating "Sir" from "First Name + Last Name" is more helpful to our international readers). I stress "format-wise" because the whole thing is a matter of presentation, not a statement about how important specific prefixes are (that's why I said earlier that this issue is not about knighthood-related "information provided for readers").
Now, you seem to be claiming that we can resolve this debate about style by having a debate about the importance of the relevant titles; that's a
ArbCom? What we've been doing here for the past few weeks is merely interpreting a past RfC. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

(outdent) Where is my fishing net? I am in need of some trout... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just notified the editors of two relevant templates: Template talk:Infobox officeholder and Template talk:Infobox military person. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Atchom has been edit-warring on the template documentation pages Template:Infobox officeholder/doc and Template:Infobox military person/doc (without discussing changes in the respective talk pages even though there are relevant threads there now) and simply ignoring what Template:Infobox person/doc currently says. --Omnipaedista (talk) 10:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's been 135 days since this topic was created. Could someone briefly summarize the discussion? From what I understand, until this discussion turns into a site-wide RfC that a sizable number of people participate in, the issue will never be resolved. --Omnipaedista (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of this discussion is something I've taken a side interest in through my own editing, but I've only just come across and read through it. Not having participated thus far, I'll take a stab at summarising:
As far as I can see (although please correct me if needed), we're simply re-litigating the subject of this "informal"(?) RfC on whether "Sir" or "Dame" should go in |honorific-prefix= or |name=. From what I've noticed, placing it in |honorific-prefix= is the prevailing convention for British biographical infoboxes, and by extension for most knights and dames on Wikipedia.
As for myself, I don't have a strong opinion as to which is objectively preferable, but I agree that we should ideally have consistency across all knights/dames regardless of nationality. There would however be an argument that this is not significant enough a change such that we should ideally just stick with the most common form in use. Pending a wider RfC or other discussion that allows us to decide on one form, I suggest that we stop edit-warring on this issue. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 16:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of my knowledge, only knighthoods (and by extension damehoods) awarded by the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, Belize, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Tuvalu and the Solomon Islands (all Commonwealth countries) carry the Sir/Dame prefix. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 05:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Baronets. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Baronets are also purely a Commonwealth thing. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 23:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Select Committee on Public Administration Fifth Report". publications.parliament.uk. House of Commons Public Administration Committee. Retrieved 13 January 2024.
  2. ^ "Select Committee on Public Administration Fifth Report". publications.parliament.uk. House of Commons Public Administration Committee. Retrieved 13 January 2024.

Death cause parameter

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

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

It's not the purpose or bailiwick of template documentation to set policy/guidelines. This has been left to editorial discretion on an article-by-article basis. If we think that has ended up being a bad idea, then it should instead probably be covered at
WT:MOSBIO for addition there.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Functionally, infobox templates have become much more “guiding” than I think they used to be, and I would agree that a more central, more watched policy/guideline page would be better to set convention on these matters.
This specific question came up before, regarding Jim Henson. I personally agree that “significance for the subject's notability” is a particularly bad way to phrase guidance, but I remember there being resistance from another editor here when attempts to rephrase were made. — HTGS (talk) 09:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The template doc wording is definitely faulty, a copy-paste of "the subject's notability" wording out of
WT:MOSBIO where it will be seen by more than a handful of template editors and infobox flamers.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Who exactly? Maybe Elaine Herzberg, although that's a death not a person? Have not yet checked through the whole of List of unusual deaths... In fact, all of the "Death of..." articles. They only exist because of their notable deaths? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Write “contested” and call it a day.
talk) 09:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Linking "Nationality"

Would anyone object linking the "Nationality" field name to Nationality to clarify this field is for a legal status and not an ethnicity, and so people can hopefully be more educated about the difference between legal nationality and legal citizenship? -- Beland (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a
MOS:FORCELINK clarification. Most readers will anyways not click such a basic term—in an infobox header no less—and dictionaries anyhow have alternative definitions like an ethnic group constituting one element of a larger unit (such as a nation)[11] Still, readers will know Wikipedia's convention for the field, if it is consistent. If editors are the target, Template:Infobox person/doc already states that ethnicity does not belong in this field. —Bagumba (talk) 03:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
@
MOS:INFONAT. -- Beland (talk) 03:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry for the confusion. My point is that readers already have some idea of what Nationality means, even if it's differnent from WP's ibx conventions, and the nuance will not be conveyed merely by linking Nationality. I understand it's a loaded term. If a distinction truly needs to be addressed (no current opinion), perhaps an explanatory footnote is a compromise. —Bagumba (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba: Hmm, I was being cautious about not making too intrusive a change, but you're probably right a link is perhaps too small a change to clarify that this is not an ethnicity. A footnote is a good idea, but it might take a fair amount of work to make it show up in the right place across all the affected articles. We could change the field name itself, to something like "Legal nationality" or "Nationality (legal)"? I still think a link would be helpful for the curious, and it doesn't sound like it would have a down side? -- Beland (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As it doesn't address the original stated issue, adding a link is extraneous. Every reader has access to the search box, so the curious few can enter "Nationality". There's also the guideline
MOS:LEADLINK—Too many links can make the lead hard to read, or at least devalues the more essential links. —Bagumba (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
@Bagumba: This is for an infobox, not the lead. The lead is written in prose, whereas the infobox is in a key-value format, where I think links on the keys are actually generally helpful because there's usually no room to put anything other than the key name.
In any case, since you want more than just a link to address the original problem, what about "Nationality (legal)" without a link? -- Beland (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@
MOS:LEADELEMENTS). In any case, since you want more than just a link to address the original problem: I have not stated that. I've only said that the proposed link doesn't resolve the concern. As for "(legal)", I don't think it would be an improvement to invite editors to highlight additional nationalites that some people technically have, but which are not part of their notability. —Bagumba (talk) 04:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Presumably folks with Wikipedia biographies are notable for something other than their nationality? Isn't that what this field is for, to document legal nationalities that are unexpected, since the guidelines say if it's obvious from the birth country not to list it? -- Beland (talk) 05:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An example would be someone born on a U.S. military base in Germany, who is notable only as an American, but also acquired Italian citizenship by descent through their grandparents in their later life. —Bagumba (talk) 05:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like an interesting fact which would be neat to add to an infobox. If we're worried about people abusing the field, it seems like it would be much more likely for people to put ethnicity here, given that's what most people think nationality means if it doesn't mean citizenship. -- Beland (talk) 07:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

template_name

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

Origin

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

It would be better to remove it there. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. That invites a whole host of unencyclopedic guessing. While music "scenes" can make that sort of parameter somewhat meaningful, and breakout hits for musical artists can even make it fairly objective, it is either completely meaningless, wildly subjective, or completely irrelevant for pretty much any other type of notability. If you manage to have a person who is associated with a particular origination that is notable, it belongs in article prose.
WpWS 14:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Size default for signature

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

Edit request 10 March 2024

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

At the very least for Chinese, per

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

Change made to sandbox. Please check test cases — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! I assume it was intentionally a blanket tweak—meaning, Latin scripts are affected too? I actually think that's preferable, just checking it was intentional.Remsense诉 12:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's the simplest way to implement, and probably better for consistency. Unless anyone disagrees — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recall some function somewhere that would return whether a given IETF code was Latin script or not. Remsense诉 13:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{lang}} italicizes Latin script automatically: either when that is the default encoding for the language or when it is triggered by a xx-Latn language code. It appears to go further in these examples with Serbian, which could use Latin or Cyrillic script:
  • {{lang|sr-Cyrl|Народна скупштина}} → Народна скупштина – no italics Green tickY
  • {{lang|sr-Latn|Narodna skupština}} → Narodna skupština – italics Green tickY
  • {{lang|sr|Народна скупштина}} → Народна скупштина – no italics Green tickY
  • {{lang|sr|Narodna skupština}} → Narodna skupština – italics Green tickY
So, the function or the logic/algorithm is used somewhere in {{lang}}'s module(s) and appears in some ambiguous cases to detect the script being used even if the editor did not specify the script.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 14:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done no further comments, so done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
2020 consensus still has consensus support. DMacks (talk) 03:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should

talk) 01:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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 "burial date" parameter

Please add a "burial date" parameter, since there is a "burial place" parameter. 2606:8700:A:2:8136:3331:CEB:FD6C (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the death date is sufficient. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 17:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just sounds like trivia and clutter to me. The infobox is only meant to summarise the most important facts of someone's life. Edwardx (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|interment= would be far from trivial for the individuals whose dates of death are unknown due to being kidnapped and murdered, lost, or held hostage. For those people and their families do you think they consider the date of interment “trivia” or the only thing they have? Think before you write something so ignorant.
talk) 09:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
|Interment= would be a very nice addition to the infobox parameters! :) I think that what a lot of people on here who think date of death is sufficient don’t understand is that some people aren’t so lucky to know the date their loved one died. If we have parameters for when someone went missing.. I think haven’t a parameter for interment would be a very nice addition that would validate the experiences of many people. Would you be alright with me starting an official discussion on this for editors to take a vote?
talk) 09:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
@
4theloveofallthings, if I may, this is an encyclopedia, not a memorial service. We reflect the aspects of topics as presented in the body of reliable sources, and we don't make presentation changes based on what we personally think would be redemptive or endearing.Remsense诉 09:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
If I may, you are misunderstanding me. I am not saying we have a duty to make the subjects families feel seen. I am saying that those who have been through similar situations and had family members meet similar fates to that of notable subjects would see the interment parameter and it would feel wildly more accurate and in line with what had happened — that perhaps as a side effect they may feel seen. We certainly shouldn’t make it our aim to do things to make people feel seen, but when the inclusion of something as important as someone’s interment just so happens to validate the real life experiences of others, that’s always nice.
You know, as opposed to calling it trivia just because you live your life through your lens and your lens alone.
talk) 10:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
But we don't write Wikipedia articles for the benefit of surviving relatives? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sigh Please read what I wrote again. I said my initial comment was saying that it would be a nice side effect of including a parameter that would be factually accurate. Forget about the happy feelings of the living now, as it was just a comment. For the subjects of the articles that would use this parameter, don’t you think that their date of interment is a wildly important fact about them? Being the very last thing that happened to them in their life? On a level of importance it’s up there with their birth. Don’t you think?
talk) 10:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Again, we're concerned with reflecting what sources have to say, not putting forth what we have to say. No, I do not think it is as important as birth or date of death most of the time. Remsense诉 10:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry, I don't think that. I think date of funeral/memorial event is far more significant. What on earth do you mean "the very last thing that happened to them in their life"?? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some would consider the interment of a human being to the earth to be the very last thing that happens to them in their life, meaning before eternal life. For Christian denominations, the Christian burial is considered sacred. In MANY cultures, the interment of a human body to the earth is sacred and important. Just because it is not to you does not mean it is not to others. Your profound oversight on that point is jarring to me.
talk) 10:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Wikipedia articles need to accommodate all faiths and none. Not sure that your comment about my "profound oversight" is useful here. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think most Christians believe that the transition from mortal life to eternal life is instantaneous and that there is no "limbo period" which is terminated only by burial. That's not to say that Christian burial is not also seen as a sacred act. Other faiths seem to put much more emphasis in ensuring that burial occurs within a given time after death. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you take a shot at explaining the lack of this information in comparably prominent positions in the layout of biographies within other encyclopedias? Remsense诉 13:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would one need to assess the relative importance of date of burial between those of different religious faiths? Would this, in turn, necessitate some kind of assessment, on the part of the editor, of the religious beliefs of the deceased at the time of death? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am an atheist for the record. I am just capable of seeing things from outside of my world view. :)
talk) 10:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Is a date of burial equally significant to atheists as to Christians? How can you tell? Or does its significance transcend matters of religious faith? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As OP pointed out, there is a burial place parameter but no burial date parameter. It’s just pointlessly excluded. We have birthplace and date of birth. We have death date and place of death. Why burial location without the date of burial? The argumentagainst it is what seems pointless to me, not the inclusion of a burial date. Hah
talk) 10:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I didn't call it trivia, I just don't think it's usually reflected prominently enough in sources about a subject to have a parameter added for the infobox. Obviously it's very relevant for some subjects, but I can't think of any class of subjects large enough to make this a net positive addition, where the benefit outweighs the misuse of it where it would be trivia or worse. There's a whole rest of the article for us to include such things, you know. Remsense诉 10:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@
talk) 10:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
“This is an encyclopedia not a memorial service!” Lol okay.. explain
talk) 15:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
That is a Wikipedia: space page, which is not part of the encyclopedia. The changes you are proposing are to mainspace, which is part of the encyclopedia. TSP (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize that I was apparently uncivil enough to make you feel it was worth posting an inane "gotcha" regarding the little candle i put on my user page for my dead friend. Remsense诉 04:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC) Struck in appreciation for the apology below. Remsense诉 07:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [reply]
@
4theloveofallthings, I can see the possibility of some value, when date of death was not known. How would |Interment= fit with "funeral" or "cremation"? Which is the more significant event? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The reason why |interment= would be better than |burial= as OP suggested is that interment can cover both burial and the spreading of one’s ashes. It could also be used to refer to
talk) 10:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
There is also a difference between spreading of ashes and interment of ashes. I suspect that, for many people, the dates of these events are never made public, unlike those for cremation/ funeral. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editors on here act as if adding a parameter takes up precious space. Parameters don’t take up any space and are only visible when explicitly type in by an editor writing an article. There is no dropdown selection of parameters that will now become cluttered with the inclusion of a new parameter, and in case you weren’t aware Wikipedia does not have finite space. You all just love to argue. Well you have fun! Haha
talk) 10:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
It's just us other editors who "love to argue", yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly not, dear
talk) 14:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Hope your ass recovers. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not true: the existence of a parameter in itself makes editors like to use it, and blank templates are often pasted on to new pages, incentivizing other editors to come along and fill in the gaps. You asked whether it would be a good idea, and we're telling you why we don't think it is. Good grief. Remsense诉 10:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the template advice might say something like: "Do not use if date of death is known"? But yes, you're right, some editors are wholly unware of template advice and will just try to fill up all the parameters. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have any of you who are making pointless arguments against the parameter even taken the time to look at OP’s contributions? They were editing the article for
talk) 14:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
So your arguments here are good ones, and everyone else's are "pointless", yes? Because we are idiots? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@
assume good faith, take a deep breath, stick to encyclopedic arguments in your comments, and maybe step away from this subject for a bit if you are struggling to be involved unemotionally. Wikipedia:Beware of the tigers may be relevant here. TSP (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
@
talk) 07:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
@Martinevans123I do apologize sincerely for being a hothead.
I am so sorry.. but I feel the overwhelming urge to respond, that it is quite possible for one to put on a display of idiocy without being an idiot... but that was entirely unnecessary to add to this thread.
But I did it anyway! /lh
Sorry again about the hotheadedness.
talk) 07:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you, 4theloveofallthings, for apologizing, which remains a rarity across Wikipedia. It's easy to get carried away when one feels passionate about something. Time to move on, perhaps. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the fact that not everyone chooses burial, I don't see why anything like this belongs in an infobox. The article body allows information to be added with flexibility available to fit the particular person/situation. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should burial_date be added as a parameter?