Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Infobox person. 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.

|other-names= doesn't seem to be working; at least on Enrique Granados. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

the "death_cause" part does not work. I tried to put it in and it wasn't visible on the preview. Pdiddyjr (talk) 09:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Works fine for me. Are you sure you've using "infobox person": the last biography I see you edited before posting here uses "infobox writer", which doesn't have that parameter. DrKiernan (talk) 11:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems there has been a universal change when describing a person's identity within the context of a romantic relationship to the word 'partner', however 'partner' isn't a neutral term and it is rarely an accurate description. For instance, instead of using terms such as 'girlfriend', 'boyfriend', 'fiance', 'life partner', 'significant other', etc.. Using the word 'partner' in this manner is novel. When I see the word 'partner' I think of one of two things - a business partner or a homosexual couple in a committed long term romantic relationship. I haven't found any discussions regarding this topic and am curious why this change in usage has occured. I think using 'girlfriend', 'boyfriend', 'fiance', 'life partner', 'significant other', etc.. conveys important information and should be used whenever this information is known instead of the word 'partner.' For example within the infobox for the biography for Justin Theroux he is referred to Jennifer Aniston's 'partner'. They are engaged and is her fiance, prior to that they were dating for two years. Dating someone for a few years doesn't make them a 'partner' in the sense of a 'life partner' and it might not even make them a 'sexual partner' but it would qualify as a 'boyfriend/girlfriend' Gorillazebramonkeyelephant (talk) 01:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Given the impossibility of distinguishing, much less reliably sourcing, all the different possible relationship types, for all of the applicable Wikipedia subjects, the current parameters represent the best we are likely to achieve. The status quo is thus fine by me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Can any neutral third party offer an opinion at Stephen H. Wendover as to whether the article should nave an infobox or not have an infobox? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I propose the parameter net_worth should be removed. This encourages ridiculous speculation, and the comment "Net worth should be supported with a citation from a reliable source" is almost laughable - what is a "reliable source" for someone's net worth? Many of the ones I have seen come from Forbes - but how does Forbes arrive at these figures? It is just a lot of speculation.

Additionally, what does "net worth" actually mean? Wikipedia's own Net worth page is almost entirely about companies, but it has one line about individuals:

In personal finance, net worth (or wealth) refers to an individual's net economic position; similarly, it uses the value of all assets (long term assets) minus the value of all liabilities.

I defy anyone to show me a net worth quoted in a person infobox which is demonstrably based on "an individual's net economic position ... the value of all assets (long term assets) minus the value of all liabilities."

This parameter seems to me at risk of bringing wikipedia into disrepute, because it presents something that is unprovable as if it were encyclopaedic fact.

Clearly, the situation is different to that of publicly quoted companies, who have accounting statements which are audited and published.

NoMatterTryAgain (talk) 19:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree; though perhaps for dead people we should have a "value of estate" parameter, becuase such figures are usually more fixed and given by reliable sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I know it's possible to add the switch to the template, but I cannot for the life of me figure out how to do it.

I'd like to add the standard education switch for {{infobox person}} to {{infobox theologian}}. I tried just including it, but it doesn't display. ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Can we have two spousal parameters, one singular, one plural? The parenthesized Spouse(s): seems less appropriate for an encyclopedia than for a blank form, where the number of spouses is not known in advance. Since we do know the number, the parenthetical plural is unnecessary. So, I propose:

spouse =    produces  Spouse:

spouses=   produces  Spouses:

I see that the /sandbox version has the singular form label already, but it's not clear how to properly add a spouses= parameter to test. Something to do with #if. --Lexein (talk) 07:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

This is not specific to spouse(s); the same could be said of any parameter with a parenthetical plural. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Tedious, I imagine. Spouse may be the most commonly used optional plural, so maybe do that first? --Lexein (talk) 08:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. The majority of fields it is perfectly legitimate to stick with singular or plural - either because plural covers singular (children, for example) or because we choose to only ever have one entry (autograph, website) or because singular covers plural (name, nationality). Rich Farmbrough, 01:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC).

• Already using "spouses=" as 3 per 100 and need "spouse1=" singular: A survey of 3,000 articles containing "name occupation spouse" revealed that 93 (~3.1%) used unsupported parameter name "spouses=" (plural), with nothing displayed. There has also been a request to detect and show singular "Spouse" when just one. The most-common multiple listing of spouses seems to use "<br...>" but some break-wrap the line just for years, so a 3rd parameter as "spouse1=" could force the singular label "Spouse" even when using "<br>" that looked like multiple spouses. To implement all 3 parameters, I have created sandbox version Template:Infobox_person/sandbox2, altering label55:

• "spouse=" - auto-detects break "<br>" as "Spouse(s)" else "Spouse"
• "spouses=" - always shows "Spouses" plural
• "spouse1=" - always shows "Spouse" singular, regardless of commas/breaks

There are many thousands of articles where the auto-detection of singular name can show "Spouse" without the distraction of "Spouse(s)" which often seems to imply the children's names are other spouse(s). So, that issue will be reduced, as well. The need to handle plural "spouses=" has been a problem for over 5 years. The final concern is "efficiency" of the revised template, which seems fine, because the underlying Template:Infobox already has a template-expansion depth of 20 levels, and checking for spouse/spouse1/spouses would use only 8 levels still within those 20. The logic to detect line-break "<br>" runs only 1/40 second (with Template:Has_char), so the display speed of the article will be unaffected during edit-preview of the {infobox_person}. If there are no objections, then I will submit an {editprotected} request to have an admin install the change to handle the 3 spouse parameters. I want to thank everyone for noting the need to fix those parameters from the past 5 years. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

If we are going to have alternative parameters, then I would forget completely about trying to make the template parse for singular or plural contents. Set a bot on the job, it can use much more sophisticated heuristics, for example recognising when only a typical date range follows a line break. Once the bot has tidied things up, there will be no need for template-time content parsing. That means there would be no need for |spouse1= which is also an unnecessary complication. The condition for displaying could then be "display spouse or spouses or nothing". --Mirokado (talk) 11:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• Some editors forget to choose plural spouses/spouse: Even after setting specific parameters, some editors will accidentally use the singular, when actually needing plural, so the auto-detection would still be needed. There has been a similar problem with the cite templates, regarding plural pages/page, where editors of almost 45,000 articles have incorrectly set plural "pp." for a singular page, even though there has always been a clear explanation that using "pages=" versus "page=" has meant a plural set of pages. In the event of a 2nd marriage, then many editors are likely to just add a second name to the current "spouse=" (without changing to "spouses="), and that would be fine because the template would auto-detect the plural. Hence, auto-detection will also fix future problems, with no need to authorize a Bot-edit-request to change over 89,000 articles. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

As discussed at VPT, this is a social issue. It should be resolved by social means involving user education and tracking categories rather than overwrought technical means. People should be wary not to assign the above steamrollering (80% of the previous discussion is by the same editor) more weight than it deserves. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

As to the p vs pp issue I coded a solution for that years ago, but the cite templates creaked under the weight of another straw. Certainly we try to avoid (s) wherever possible, but a bot task would probably be better than an NLP solution, and indeed would be a good ongoing companion, since a template solution can be optimised on the basis that most "spouse=" are correct - thanks to the bot - and can return the favour by flagging dubious constructs for the bot to fix. Rich Farmbrough, 00:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC).

Is there a problem with just saying "spouse(s)"? That looks like a simple solution. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The distinction between p. versus pp. is much more obscure and subtle than incorrectly using spouse vs. spouses. Yes, some editors may put the wrong parameter, but this is easily noticeable and correctable (just like the many code SNAFUs that crop up all the time). I don't think we should avoid a slightly technical solution just because some editors will harmlessly put the wrong value. Avoiding (s) on all fields is a worthwhile goal. —Designate (talk) 02:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

That's what I'm wondering: why avoiding (s) is a worthwhile goal. Lexein wrote above that it's inappropriate because we know how many spouses there are, but we don't for living people. And for dead people, where we do know the number, I can't see what difference the (s) makes. It's obvious to readers that it's a generic infobox that we apply to different situations. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean "we don't for living people"? We do know precisely how many spouses a living person has at any given moment, or has ever had (if we don't know, reliably sourced, then the parameter should be left blank, surely). To state "Spouse(s):" when there has ever been only one, reads as silly on the face of it. It also imposes an uncertainty where there is none inherent in the condition: the duly wed typically vow to be the partner for life, not one of a possible series as (s) implies. As I said, it resembles the heading for a blank form, when the number of spouses is not known. Avoiding (s) is a worthwhile goal because there's no common English single word for the group of all people who are now or who have ever been a spouse. Compare "cast": appropriate for singular or plural use, for a solo show or ensemble show. --Lexein (talk) 04:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It's worthwhile because you would never see it in a professional publication, only in a simplistic database-type site. We're not a database so we should care about the "little things" when it comes to editorial style. It's such a simple switch there's no reason not to do it other than inertia. —Designate (talk) 02:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

There's too much controversy, so I suggest the principle of least offense: Spouse: singular only, in the infobox. If there have been several marriages due to divorce, death, annulment, or plural marriage, it goes in the article, not the infobox, and the parameter is left blank. This keeps the infobox simple. --Lexein (talk) 04:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not going to be at all happy with that, it effectively gives some married couples a subordinate status to others and would, I suspect, be practically speaking unenforceable. Very few people will be seriously confused or offended by xyz(s): if they are they must be told clearly that infoboxen have generic placeholders and the (s) idiom is widely used and understood. I think leaving things as they are is in fact the route to least offence. (Having said that, writing a suitable bot would be a fun project for someone and would do no harm, so I think it would be fine if somebody can do that). --Mirokado (talk) 05:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

There are lots of things we don't list multiples of in infoboxes, like multiple film release dates. I don't think multiple spouses should go in the infobox, but instead should go in the article. In fact, I'll go further: only latest marriage status (married, divorced) should go in the infobox. Names of spouses should go in the article only. There: no discrimination. --Lexein (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a cop-out, not a solution, and does not serve the readers of articles whose subjects have had one or more notable spouses. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

If it's a "cop-out", it's a community consensus one, so say that to the infobox film community. It avoids needless clutter, confusion, and error, and has served infobox film quite well, for a "cop-out". Who does it serve to constantly have multiple spouses suggested when there was only one? When one's sole wife, reads one's Wikipedia biography to see Spouse(s) = (name). Spouse(s)? That's bullshit. --Lexein (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't doubt that the cop-out serves the infobox film community well. However, I'm concerned with what serves our readers, and data re-users, not just editors, and not your esoteric assertion of what female readers will think. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

"Cop-out" applies to leaving the label "Spouse(s):" in place. Readers are not served by an implied ambiguity in number, where reliable sources do not state or imply any such ambiguity. You deliberately refuse to see the problem, and even more deliberately refuse to consider a solution, instead, calling it a "cop-out". So, the status quo is a no better: cop-out.

• Married/single is sufficient information for the infobox: all detail about a spouse or multiple spouses belongs in the prose. Infoboxes are a fillip, a gift, intended to capsule-summarize verified information contained in the prose. Why should the infobox add ambiguity? It should not.
• Naming a single or plural anything necessitates, if labeled, labeling with matching number (singular or plural): that's just per MOS, and the rules of the English language.
• You have failed to prove that it is appropriate for an encyclopedia imply an uncertainty, when reliable sources assert that there is no such uncertainty.

There's really no clearer way to say it. --Lexein (talk) 12:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I for one am happy to assume that our readers can count with a proficiency sufficient to distinguish "one" from "more than one". I don't see anyone else here supporting your various assertions. Unless you can demonstrate consensus for the change you're proposing, we'll stay with the status quo. I think we're done here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

One could quite easily make the case that one's ex-wife may not appreciate being written out of a subject's life as soon as he remarries. But that's an argument for another day. I certainly wouldn't simply assume that the film project knows best: the film project is notoriously resistant to changes to its templates, but it has eventually budged on points of greater consensus on a number of occasions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I have two wtf's and a whoosh for you.

Written out? WTF? Nobody said that. Infobox: Married/Single. Prose: Talk about all the marriages and divorces and annulments and partnerships and singleness you want.

Film knows best? WTF? Nobody said that.

Whoosh: single/plural issues have been sorted, so there's no excuse for not sorting this one.

--Lexein (talk) 12:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Removing information on the name of a subject's partner from the infobox entirely would be a very significant move, and proposing it for the sake of a trivial quibble over which names to include would be counterproductive. it's not going to happen, at least in the short term. This conversation is getting increasingly hostile for no particular reason, so I think we're done here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's still silly to imply that we don't know how many spouses a person has had, when we do know. And when we do know, we should use the appropriate label, singular or plural. Simple as that. There was a lot of misdirection and distraction from the main point above, and everybody went along with that, just trotted right along. If template editors don't want to be bothered getting the names of things, and the counts of things, right, they should be honest about that, rather than labeling discussion hostile. Infoboxes should state the truth of the moment as established by reliable sources, regardless of (perceived) inconvenience. If reliable sources don't say "spouses(s)" like census forms, then neither should we. --Lexein (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Would it be possible for {{infobox}} to detect the presence of {{Plainlist}}, as an indicator of multiple values, and switch labels when it is present? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Possible? Perhaps. A net benefit? Doubtful. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Why doubtful? The use of {{Plainlist}} ensures the generation of the semantically and accessibly proper HTML list markup. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Because there's no guarantee that the {{plainlist}} will contain more than one entry, and it's yet to be established that there's anything egregious about (s) in the first place. It's hard to argue therefore that adding a bunch of new and hairy conditional code to one of the project's most transcluded infoboxes would be a net benefit. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Granted that the existence of a problem has yet to be established. The use of {{plainlist}} for single entries is, as a wise person notes about a related issue above, a social issue and should be resolved by social means. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Like there is in {{Infobox video game}}? Statυs (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Do any instances of the videogame infobox actually utilize this feature?

MOS:COLLAPSE strongly cautions the use of collapsible elements, and many editors object to their usage. I think adding it as an option, will simply create another thing for the pro/anti-infobox people to argue about (ie. whether or not to set the default as "collapsed", in any given article). How exactly would it help? –Quiddity (talk) 01:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I've come across a few. It's nice to have when the infobox is very long. Well, the infobox would not be collapsed as default. Just give an editor the option if an infobox is too long, or for what I would need it for, on Jennifer Lopez (Her main infobox is for being a singer, but information about her personal life is relevant, and not a field in the infobox. So I added an infobox person to show personal fields, including her legal name. Having a [show] option would look nicer.) I think it would just come in useful to some. Statυs (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

spouse(s) Name of spouse(s), followed by years of marriage

partner(s) For unmarried life partners (of any gender or sexual preference)

This leads to situations like this: Natalie Portman and Benjamin Millepied have been a couple since 2009, but they married in 2012. The infobox on Portman's article only uses the spouse parameter and gives the date as "Benjamin Millepied (2012–present)". Given the current parameters, this is actually correct, since the spouse parameter is based exclusively on marital status. But isn't it very awkward that the infobox just ignores the verifiable fact that they have been a couple for three years before their marriage?

So there are basically two ways ahead. I could either take the parameters at face value and edit Portman's infobox to accurately read:

Spouse(s) Benjamin Millepied (2012–present)

Partner(s) Benjamin Millepied (2009–2012)

Or we could unify the spouse and partner parameters, which I for one would vastly prefer, since status of marriage is of exceedingly minor import compared to the relationship itself. --213.168.109.165 (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The partner parameter should only be used if it's a current relationship (but past ones can be mentioned in body). Spouse parameter is for past and present. --Musdan77 (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but that makes little to no sense. Consider my example case: Portman and Millepied have been together, an item, a pair, since 2009. They married in 2012. So what you're saying is that the infobox should explicitly state that their relationship began in 2012, without mentioning the first three years of their relationship?

Another, even worse example is David Letterman. He and Regina Lasko have been together since 1986, but only got married in 2009. So what you are saying is that the infobox should explicitly state their relationship as starting in 2009, disregarding the first twenty-three years of their relationship? --213.168.108.17 (talk) 07:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, you're clearly wrong in stating that the "partner parameter should only be used if it's a current relationship". The template's documentation says:

"partner(s) — For unmarried life partners (of any gender or sexual preference), not business partners. Use the format Name (1950–present) for current partner and Name (1970–1999) for former partner(s)."

Which begs the question: Are partners whom a person marries "former" partners? That's part of why the distinction between the Spouse and Partner parameters is quite nonsensical, even for Americans (see my examples) who often get married and divorced at the drop of a hat. --213.168.108.17 (talk) 08:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I know what the template page says. That's why I said "should." I gave my opinion just like you gave yours. A "domestic partnership" is not equal to a marriage. A marriage is legally binding. As for Letterman's, I don't think that his spouses or partner should even be in the infobox at all because they aren't notable. But, again, that's just my opinion. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I know what the template page says. -- Ok, if you say so. "The partner parameter should only be used if it's a current relationship" to me sounds an awful lot like you really did not read the template documentation before posting your initial reply. It still does.

A marriage is legally binding. -- Domestic partnerships are regarded as legally relevant in many jurisdictions outside of the USA. Also, I didn't say it was "equal to" marriage, that's just some strawman you made up. However, to emphasize the meaning of marriage to the point of giving it a separate parameter in the template is entirely absurd. This applies even more to the average American marriage, which quite frequently isn't worth the Vegas chapel papers it was printed on.

Moreover and even more crucially, who are we to say that any married partnership a person has had is of categorically different import for that person's life than any non-married partnerships that person has been in? There, the bold part, that's our main criterion here: Relevance in the context of the person's life. Not some normative nonsense, and not some legal considerations which may or may not be important in the context of that person's life.

Also, to emphasize marriage over civil unions is obviously unacceptable. If that is not obvious to you, that's on you. --87.79.108.198 (talk) 07:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to unify both fields in some cases, but not in the way that you propose. I would write the above case as:

Spouse(s) Benjamin Millepied (2009–present, married 2012).

This avoids the redundancy of having the same person listed twice, but doesn't completely dismiss the difference between legal marriage and de-facto partnership (which is information). Diego (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

It is information, but this is the infobox we're talking about. Clarity and brevity, and as I pointed out above, especially relevance in the context of the person's life should imho govern the way info is included there. Anyway, as a compromise, yours is a sound proposal to which I won't object. --87.79.108.198 (talk) 06:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

As non-standard solutions are not a promising approach when it comes to handling infobox parameters, especially on highly visible articles, I would definitely support a solution that deprecates the Spouse parameter in favor of listing all relationships under the Partner parameter and simply noting (where applicable) that the partnership included marriage. This would retain all the information with regard to marriages of the person, and it would rid us of complications resulting from cases like the ones mentioned above, as well as the even greater issue of potential NPOV/OR conflicts resulting from the blanket emphasis on marriage which may or may not make sense in a person's article. --78.35.245.52 (talk) (=87.79.108.198) 18:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

While that may be the best compromise, it's still likely to be controversial, and should therefore be discussed centrally before being implemented. Any such discussion should be about a policy for all our biographical infoboxes, not just this one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree. I was considering starting an RfC here, with notifications on all the relevant boards and template talk pages. Or would you suggest another venue? --78.35.245.52 (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

An RfC here seems the best way. I wouldn't use the rationale that IP user 87.79.108.198 proposed, though; the separation of partnership and marriage is a historically significant point of view. I would justify the change to solve the base problem that the current parameters force an unnatural split in each single relationship, that currently must be listed twice as pre- and post-marriage. Diego (talk) 13:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Whatever works for you. I see these as multiple valid points in the argument to unify the parameters. If the obvious impracticality of having two parameters convinces more people, fine by me. I (=all the IPs that have commented in this section) still believe that the separate Spouse parameter's emphasis on marriage poses an NPOV and OR problem with regard to individual articles. While it's true that marriage is a historically significant point of view, this fact may be entirely irrelevant in the context of a person's life.

If I'm the one to start the RfC, I think I'll be listing both of these points as part of the argument, since both points are perfectly valid as far as I can see. --89.0.200.158 (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)