The documentation for this parameter says Place of birth: city, administrative region, country

This can be read several ways:

1. which data to present: the three facts we want in this field are city, region, country. We don't want others, we don't want more than three.
2. ordering: city goes before region goes before country
3. precision: only use this field when city AND region AND country are known (verified etc)

So what is it? (I'm only really asking about #3)

Can I use Example text for instance, or does the documentation tell me "leave blank unless full details are known (verified etc)" such as Example text. Is there a general principle to follow (not just WP:BOLD)? I fully realize we can't specify ultra-general rules for each and every param.

A formal question: Can I partially fill fields, and what policy or guideline governs your answer (if contested by other users)?

Of course, feel free to consider this input on how to improve/clarify the template documentation.

CapnZapp (talk) 09:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to just put the country if that's all that's verifiable. That description is so that people don't just put a city (eg York) or try to put too much detail such as down to the house number (eg 221B Baker Street). There are exceptions of course: if someone was born on the Titanic or in the White House you could use your discretion. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 18:23, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, but the follow-up remains unanswered: "what policy or guideline governs your answer?". Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

There probably isn't any official policy/guideline for this; its just WP:Common sense. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 19:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

For some categories of historical people (in particular), it is common to know their baptismal date but not their birth date (Shakespeare and contemporaries is the exempli gratia). The corollary to this is that we know exactly which church they were baptised in but not their place of birth (with any meaningful precision). This template supports |baptism= for giving the date, but not the equivalent param of |birth_place=. This breaks the two datums up into separate blocks when rendered and is potentially misleading: the geographic location of the birth and baptism is not necessarily the same (and both, either, or none may be known). --Xover (talk) 16:22, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

The parameter quote, would give the option of showing a quote in the infobox of a person, the quote would be located between post-nominals and the image. The quote parameter can be used for the most notable quote of the person. Many authors, politicians, athletes and scientist have one defining quote above all others that could be showcased with the infobox. Would adding this parameter be a good idea? RBJ~nlwiki (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I can already imagine this resulting in countless arguments over what constitutes the "defining" quote, and what source is most accurate about that... DonIago (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, it would be really good to add "Tribe" to the full parameters. In New Zealand it is really common to mention a Maori person's tribe (iwi) when writing about them, and it is usually a major part of their identity. I would guess that this is also the case for many other indigenous peoples. I didn't want to go make the change myself as I'm sure you get a lot of people messing around with this infobox. Helenalex (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

After a bunch of testing in the sandbox, I have changed some of this template's <span>...</span> tags to <div>...</div> tags in order to fix Linter div-span-flip errors (a div tag inside of a span tag, which is invalid HTML).

As far as I can tell from my testing, the infobox should look the same in all articles before and after this change. That said, WP editors are endlessly creative in their use of template parameters, and with 300,000 transclusions, there are bound to be a few unexpected side effects. Please post here if you notice anything unusual or bad happening after this change. Thanks! – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Getting a blank line between pre-nominals and the name, and between the name and post-nominals, which wasn't there previously — see, for example, Kiri Te Kanawa. Paora (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I put an html dump at User:Johnuniq/sandbox2 (permalink) in case it helps debug. Previewing that page with the old infobox might be useful? Feel free to edit. Johnuniq (talk) 02:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

If you use divs as the items within the template {{Br separated entries}} then you'll have a blank line between each item because of the <br> tags inserted by that template. You either have to use spans or don't use {{Br separated entries}} – simply abutting the divs will produce separate lines in that case. --RexxS (talk) 02:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed. Thanks for not freaking out, everyone. Please let me know if you see any other problems. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

What are you supposed to do if the exact year a person was born is unknown? I was trying to put an infobox on the article Lawrence Sheriff, but I'm confused as to how to make it work. G-13114 (talk) 02:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

If the year of birth is completely unknown, you can omit it.

If it is known with a degree of uncertainty, you can use a template like {{circa|1650}} which gives c. 1450.

If it's known to be between particular years, you can state the range, e.g. 1640–1660.

If only one endpoint of a range is know, you can indicate that, e.g. "no later than 1660".

In none of those cases would the recommended templates, {{birth date}}, or {{birth date and age}}, be useful. --RexxS (talk) 02:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok, well the date is known to within two years, but I'll try what you've suggested. EDIT: I seem to have got it working, thank you. This could do with having some instructions somewhere. G-13114 (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Now that TemplateStyles has been implemented, an inline list using comma separators is now available:

• {{cslist |First |second |third item}} →
  • First
  • second
  • third item

That looks like a prose list but is marked up as a horizontal unbulleted list so that a screen reader will treat it as it does any other list.

I suggest that we could now profitably replace the current guidance

An entry of two or three very short items that will all fit on one line can be done simply with commas: |parameter_name=Foo, bar, baz (use semicolons if any items contain their own commas).

with something such as:

Either mid-dots or commas are available as separators, for example:

• |parameter_name={{hlist |Foo |bar |baz}} →
  • Foo
  • bar
  • baz
• |parameter_name={{cslist |Foo |bar |baz}} →
  • Foo
  • bar
  • baz

Although that doesn't include the advice about using semicolons – does that happen often enough to be worth keeping? What do others think? --RexxS (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

There are several pages which have a value for |parents= (mainly in this template) beginning with a number.

• Some of the values (on Richard Clarkson and Andrew Grainger) were "n children". I've fixed those articles.
• Is it useful to have |parents=2 (no other information)?
• The values include "1" (on Abdullah Almalki and Jilly Johnson) and "4" (on Jacques Charrier). The values on the respective articles were added by Cyfraw, 81.174.153.176, and Patapsco913. Are all of these certainly errors?
• The query timed out because of the large number of articles that use the template. There are probably a few others. As such, should there be a tracking category for such values (i.e. values beginning with numbers or lowercase letters)?

Jc86035 (talk) 14:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes to a tracking category. The documentation is quite clear: Names of parents; include only if they are independently notable or particularly relevant. A number leading the parameter's value is very likely to be an error, as is a lower-case letter. The category should also apply the same test to |mother= and |father=. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I think parents >= 3 would be quite notable in itself. Or am I just being numberist here? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Plenty of people I know have three or more parents. Only half of all marriages end the old-fashioned way, after all. Call it WP:OR, but I don't think that's notable. If someone has three notable parents, then list their names, per the documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking less of the traditional social model and more of the way things can start. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

{Aside) As Izno usually suggests, using hastemplate: in the search often leads to better results. Searching on hastemplate:infobox person insource:parents insource:/| *parents *= *[0-9]/ doesn't time out for me and yields 4 results at present. That's only for {{infobox person}}, but it's easy enough to run other searches on other relevant templates. --RexxS (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

{not an aside} Thanks, RexxS, for keeping us on task and being so businesslike. I was sort of hoping that you would find a way to link "other relevant templates", but alas. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2019_February_6#Alma_mater, request to link the label "Alma mater" in fully protected infoboxes Person, Writer, Scientist, Artist, Philosopher and Officeholder: Bhunacat10 (talk), 11:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The problem is likely to be that the field used to be linked.

The link was removed by this edit on 11 January 2014. The reason was given in Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 20 #Template-protected edit request on 31 December 2013 as "I've also removed the italics and link from alma mater per the discussion on the other talk page and MOS". The other talk page was presumably Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 20 #Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2013, but there's no discussion there. I also can't find anything relevant in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 150, which covers the time of the removal. The editor Technical 13 is blocked, so is unlikely to be able to give us the reason for the de-linking.

So, it's possible that somewhere that I can't find, there is a debate that resulted in de-linking of alma mater. I would suggest that the safest option would be to get consensus somewhere for its re-linking. Even if that is simply a matter of waiting a few days to see whether any objections arise. --RexxS (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I think the term is sufficiently obscure to warrant linking. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I want to add a new parameter. It should be called "associated with" I want this because I want to add the List of people associated with Anne Frank to Anne Frank's infobox as a nice touch. but there is nowhere to put it. AdrianWikiEditor (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Think this proposed parameter is too vague and would not be helpful in most cases. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

In the Anne Frank case the list article is already linked in the See also section, which I think is the right place for it: Bhunacat10 (talk), 12:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I guess it is pretty vague. I feel like it would be nice to have a less vague version. Would be nice to have a friends parameter or really anything that is not biologically related. AdrianWikiEditor (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I would like to create a similar parameter called associated_bands which would replace associated_acts for music group-related articles, as I believe the word "acts" in "Associated acts" makes it look like we're talking about the dramatic arts instead of music. Thank you for your understanding. And AdrianWikiEditor, "ai" should be "I". --Fandelasketchup (talk) 12:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

That request should be made at the talk page for {{infobox musical artist}} rather than here. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

"Only if independently notable themselves or particularly relevant. Number of children (e.g., three), or list of names if notable." Are those last two words a qualification only for adding a list of names? This seems to slightly contradict the first sentence. which is a general guideline for either number or names? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

My understanding has been that if we populate this field with a number it should be the total number of children, and that notable children can be listed by name. In other words, we would not provide a number that was just the number of notable children. The wording you provided is a bit unclear. Hopefully what I just said makes sense. :p DonIago (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok. It certainly makes sense to me that if a number is given this should be the total. I had always assumed that if any of the children are notable they should be named. Your interpretation is that they may be named, or just the total number, including any notables, given. A mix of number and names is not permitted. But there is still some uncertainty for me as to whether children should be mentioned at all if they are not notable. The first sentence seems to rule this out. Do you agree? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I would say that if John Smith has three non-notable children then it would be okay to say that he has three children without naming them. If 1-3 of them are notable enough to merit their own article then they likely should be named, but I doubt there's anything saying they "must" be named, because that sounds like overly-prescriptive language. In other words, even if JS has three children who aren't themselves significant, it's fine to mention that he has three kids. Hope this helps? DonIago (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

If that's what this guideline means, then fair enough. I'll stop removing numbers where none of the children are notable. But it's still not 100% clear to me. In any case, the detail should be in the text not just in the infobox. Thanks for your input. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I have updated the unclear language based on this thread. It now reads Typically the number of children (e.g., three); only list names of independently notable or particularly relevant children. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. So that's e.g. "three" as a word with a small t, yes? I'm surprised. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

In my experience we typically use numbers in the infobox. DonIago (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah-ha, not sixty-nine, then. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

There's no ambiguity about the guidance at MOS:NUMNOTES: "In tables and infoboxes, quantities are expressed in figures", so I've amended the documentation to comply with MOS. --RexxS (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Why did |honorific_prefix= and |honorific_suffix= become |pre-nominals= and |post-nominals=, when most other biographical infoboxes use the former names? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Andy. The infobox accepts |honorific prefix=, |honorific_prefix=, |honorific-prefix= and |pre-nominals= as the same thing and similarly for |honorific suffix=, etc. It's just that the documentation only mentions pre- and post-nominals. I don't recall any discussion on favouring any particular form, so it may have just been an arbitrary choice by whoever wrote the documentation (which may have been me, so it really would have been arbitrary). However, I seem to think that parameter names with underscores have been deprecated in favour of ones with hyphens – or was it the other way round? or did I imagine it?

Anyway, if you think a different parameter name in the documentation would be helpful for reasons of consistency, why not be bold and change it? You won't break anything by changing the documentation. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 00:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I realise that both forms can be used, but the documentation was recently changed, as I describe above. I was wondering if I'd missed some discussion that reached consenus for the change. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

It was changed in these edits on 19 December 2017. Presumably to fit in with the theory that {{post-nominals}} could be used. The discussions behind it are probably Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 33 #Style merge of related templates and Template talk:Infobox Christian leader/Archive 3 #Formatting change. --RexxS (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Why isn't there a "language(s) spoken" section for this template? I feel like it'd be a useful piece of information to know. While this may often be easy to make an educated guess on when reading an article, even when articles make no reference to what language a person speaks/spoke, it can often be ambiguous, especially for older historical figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kankyaku (talk • contribs) 19:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

And so it would be ambiguous to try to fill in, and not particularly useful in most cases. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

It's been my experience that you can't trust what people claim about the languages they speak. O3000 (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, which is why we rely on independent reliable sources - just as we do for other properties. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree.. I would find this most interesting, particularly for world leaders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genetikbliss (talk • contribs) 16:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

What may be interesting and what belongs in an infobox are not the same. Besides, articles on world leaders most often use a variant of {{infobox officeholder}} rather than this template. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm having a problem at the Silver Quilty article, where both the parent infobox and the child module are displaying the photo entered. I can't figure out why. Can anyone here help? Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The child template, Template:Infobox CFL biography, fetches its image from Wikidata when the image parameter is omitted. I've added a blank |image= to the article to suppresses the second image, and updated the template documentation. --RexxS (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I wouldn't have figured that out. Flibirigit (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I've seen plenty of times that people are reffered to commonly by shorter version of their full names, while their full names are not equivalent to the birth names. For example, Angela Merkel has the birth name "Angela Dorothea Kasner", while her full name nowadays is "Angela Dorothea Merkel". In some cases, the full name is just stuffed into |other_names=, which does not appear as a clean solution to me. I thus wondered whether it would make sense to add a parameter |full_name= to the infobox, which would only be used if it its content would not equal to that of |birth_name= (or vice-versa), which in turn should already stay empty when it would be equal to |name=. Thoughts? Lordtobi (✉) 09:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

We already have people adding birth name entries that are equal to name - don't think we need another such opportunity, when where absolutely needed other name can be used. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Thanks for your input. I think we can implement checks for both birth name and full name that make them not render shuold their content be equal to name. This way we can prevent some human error. Lordtobi (✉) 12:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Full name should already appear in bold as the first thing in the article itself, I don't know if it's necessary to also have it in the infobox? TSP (talk) 12:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@TSP: Thanks for your input. The field should be used to prevent the full name from being stuck into other_names, where it commonly resides for some reason.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordtobi (talk • contribs)

It currently resides in other_names because it is another name. We should not be creating more parameters when we already have a perfectly good place to put married names like "Angela Dorothea Merkel" – assuming that's important enough to be a "key fact" and therefore included in the infobox. But it's beyond me how anyone can fail to work out that if Angela Merkel's full maiden name (i.e. birth name) was "Angela Dorothea Kasner", then her full married name would be "Angela Dorothea Merkel". Do we really need to explicitly do that working out for them? --RexxS (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Moved from Template talk:Infobox person/styles.css

 – {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Please add /* {{pp-template}} */ to the top of the page per Wikipedia:TemplateStyles#Guidelines since the page is template-protected. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Please provide a sandbox version. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@FlightTime: Template:Infobox person/styles.css/sandbox.css (but it'll disappear in a second since its not actually protected and a bot will remove the template) --DannyS712 (talk) 00:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@FlightTime: Now at Template:Infobox person/sandbox/styles.css --DannyS712 (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll let @Xaosflux: handle this one - FlightTime (open channel) 00:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Nothing controversial about this.  Done --RexxS (talk) 01:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

In accordance with rendering in Template:Infobox family, could we have titles and styles collected to each other (both honorifics), and also in plural? PPEMES (talk) 10:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:Pages to import images to Wikidata, which is populated by this template, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Please remove

<!--
-->{{#if:{{{image|}}}|{{#if:{{#property:P18}}||[[Category:Pages to import images to Wikidata]]}}}}

since I have just closed the CfD for that category as delete - see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 April 7#Category:Pages to import images to Wikidata. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 11:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done --RexxS (talk) 11:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Should the number count for |children= include all children (both alive and deceased)? Documentation doesn't say. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:37, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Since the template has a "disappeared" field, how are we handling persons who reappeared? Should there be a field for that, or are we just generally removing disappearance info when that is the case? -- Kendrick7^talk 23:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

It's in the documentation: "For missing people". People who reappear are no longer missing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

First of all I hope that with this discussion page I have a suitable place for my next request. Otherwise, please let me know where this discussion is better located. As I see this as a general question, I have chosen this position.

About my idea: Since Wikipedia is one of the best known sources of information, wouldn't it make sense to include (active) social media accounts (Twitter, Instagram, Facebook) of people in their info boxes? Are there any legal problems? Of course, this should be done according to a uniform scheme. I am grateful for further suggestions. Should this idea be adopted, a transformation into foreign-language Wikipedia articles would also be considered. --R eddiotos (discussion) 16:22, 01. May 2019 (CEST)

It's been brought up before, though not especially recently. May be worth reviewing the points brought up here though. DonIago (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Although you are asking about infoboxes the policies and guidelines mentioned here WP:LINKSTOAVOID for external links, particularly numbers 10 and 11, apply. Wikipedia is not here to send readers to the social media sites of the subject of a given article. It is also worth noting that any of these sites can easily be found with a quick google (or other search engines) look up. MarnetteD|Talk 16:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

If I recall, there was a discussion somewhere that resulted in consensus to not include an article's subject's death date in the spouse= parameter if the subject of the infobox passed away while married. Is that still the case? And if so, could this template's documentation please be updated to reflect that? Steel1943 (talk) 01:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

It would definitely be worth including that in the documentation. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 04:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Is it not worth taking the huge comments out the template. Why are they even in when they are already covered in documentation section. They must be manually removed which is time consuming when the template is used. scope_creep^Talk 18:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@Scope creep: Do you mean the 12 places where a blank html comment is used to suppress a newline in the template output while maintaining readability? I wouldn't call those "huge". --RexxS (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I expect the OP is referring to the visible comments in the blank example templates, eg "use common name/article title" for |name=. IMO these are worth retaining in general; given the number of additions that already don't comply with the template documentation, anything that can potentially stem that tide seems worthwhile. However, open to discussion around specific examples that may need to be tweaked or removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The comments in the sample templates (for copying and pasting) do not have to be removed. In fact, they probably should not be removed when the template is pasted into an article, unless the parameters are being filled in. The OP suggests that the comments cover material that is in the documentation; unfortunately, most people do not read documentation, so those comments have been added over the years in order to reduce the number of errors that editors make. Having those comments in an existing article is useful when a new editor comes along and wants to add an image (or coordinates, etc.) but might need some guidance. The OP is welcome to make their own copy/paste version of the template with comments removed, and save it in their user space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 09:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

These aliases:

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I just had to fix the infobox for Jack Abramoff [1] and this would also ease conversions between this template and Template:Infobox criminal. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I would oppose the first of these - charges and convictions are not synonyms. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: No response from OP, disabling request — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@MSGJ and Nikkimaria: My apologies! I don't generally catch a response without a ping. If the first one is objectionable, then I would request it be dropped. However, the second two should be safe. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not in favour, unless it is to ease the merging of some other infobox into this one, or some other good reason. Otherwise editors should read the template's documentation - we can't cater for every conceivable alternative. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Add alias embed for parameter child, i.e. change two parameter substitutions from {{{child|}}} to {{{child|{{{embed|}}}}}} or {{{embed|{{{child|}}}}}}. I saw an example of embedding in the documentation of parameters module*, and incorrectly assumed, that parameter embed is also already present in the template and it is a new name for deprecated parameter child. It seems that parameter child is marked as deprecated not for the sake of deprecation, but for discouragement of its use by incompetent editors, which confused me. —⁠andrybak (talk) 07:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 07:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

There is also {{#ifeq:{{{child|}}}|... near the bottom of the template, around invocation of {{Wikidata image}}. —⁠andrybak (talk) 08:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 08:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Came here because in an article there's been back-n-forth over whether to include 'Brooklyn' in |birth_place= . That pair of changes is just a recent example there.

So wondering at this nit I thought of checking (you guessed it) Donald Trump. I really don't care about the larger issues (state, country, planet) but do care about the smaller bit - 'Queens'. As one comment had it (and yes, comparing with Barack Obama) Honolulu at 360,000 population is a close identification of 'place', but just "New York City" at 8,400,000 is not zeroing in nearly as well as Queens at 2,400,000 population.

I see discussions all over the place in the archives. And with some disparagement of local consensuses such as at Donald Trump. In scanning through the discussions I can't find a final decision regarding large subdivisions within city. Brooklyn and Queens are unwieldy but they aren't unnecessary. Shenme (talk) 06:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Any chance of getting a field for a subject's tribe? Tribal affiliation is a major part of identity for many indigenous people, so it would be good to be able to list it in the infobox. Helenalex (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Moved from Template talk:Infobox

 – T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 00:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I've noticed that some infoboxes end up becoming too wide if a long url is included as the website name. Could a default max-width and wrap be introduced (I guess with a manual override option for if it's really necessary). T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 06:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Evolution and evolvability, please provide a link to an article. Frietjes (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Frietjes: No problem. Example page: David_Goodsell. Also example infobox on the right. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 05:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Evolution and evolvability, URL wrapping problems can be generally fixed using {{URL}}. in this case, adding {{URL}} to Template:Infobox person/Wikidata would trim the https:// from the output, and wrap the URL where possible. Frietjes (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Could it work to place {{URL}} around the |website= parameter in relevant templates like {{infobox_person}}? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 01:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Evolution and evolvability, probably. I would suggest continuing the discussion at Template talk:Infobox person/Wikidata since any changes would happen there and not here. Frietjes (talk) 15:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Possible edit from:

• Current:   | data70 = {{{website|{{{homepage|{{{URL|{{{url|}}}}}}}}}}}}
• Option 1: | data70 = {{url|1={{{website|{{{homepage|{{{URL|{{{url|}}}}}}}}}}}} }}
• Option 2: | data70 = <div style="width:200px;word-wrap:break-word;">{{{website|{{{homepage|{{{URL|{{{url|}}}}}}}}}}}}</div>

Option 1 has the benefit of taking advantage of the {{URL}} template's additional formatting features, but if any editor has already used {{URL}} in the parameter of the {{infobox person}} (|website={{URL}}) this the nested {{URL}} templates will misformat. What do people reckon? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 00:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

{{URL2}} can be used in {{infobox person}} to avoid the issues with nested {{URL}}s. I tried this with {{infobox person/Wikidata}}, but it doesn't work because of the edit Wikidata icon link. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The sandbox at Template:Infobox person/Wikidata/sandbox under label/data66 uses the getWebsite and url2 functions from Module:WikidataIB to return the website from Wikidata. It should also be quite easy to turn off the pen icon for that entry by setting |noicon=true in that line if the intention is to wrap the entire field in {{URL2}}. The small loss of editing functionality is probably not worth worrying about. --RexxS (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I recently removed |children=0 from an instance of this template and was reverted on the basis that "Document says give a number, I put 0 and frankly "none" looked better. Not having children is significant information. How to differentiate it from the fact that the information isn't simply missing? Is "0" the recommended choice here?" (Courtesy ping Usedtobecool). What are people's thoughts on this? My inclination is that it is appropriate to omit in the case of a null value - for example, we wouldn't want to be throwing in |death_date=hasn't died yet, |criminal_charge=none, |spouse=none etc even though those are all "significant information" - but open to other opinions. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "Not having children is significant information." That sounds like a very generalised and blunt judgement. Many couples are not able to have children for all sorts of reasons. But if the having or not having of children is notable in itself, for an individual, this should be explained in the text, not just assumed by dint of an infobox field entry. This question also overlooks the question of children who have died. So I tend to agree with you, Nikkimaria. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The article in question mentions, with a source, that she didn't have any children, so that concern had been addressed. Having it then in the infobox seems appropriate. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Nikkimaria. If there are no children, there is no point in having the parameter. Similarly, if the subject is alive, it is silly to have "death_date = Still alive"; if the subject never went to university, it is silly to have "alma_mater = None"; etc. It does not strike me as appropriate to have "Children = 0" in the article about an actress; that is not defining information. See also WP:Writing about women. Surtsicna (talk) 13:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Of course, in some cases, it might be appropriate to have |children=not too sure how many (not that any particular Prime Minister springs to mind). Martinevans123 (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• Nikkimaria, First of all, thank you for reviewing my article; that happening this quickly was very pleasant surprise to me. Secondly, I didn't revert you. I would never revert someone who's by definition more knowledgeable than me and was reviewing my work for policy compliance. I was only asking a question; and only made that alternative addition because I wasn't sure if the field was removed because the parameter itself was unsuitable or only because the value was wrong, the character limit breaking summary should be a dead give away. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 13:59, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

General comment: I think there are cases where not having children is significant (even if it's debatable in this particular case). And I don't think it's at all like the other obvious things mentioned for analogy. I am not suggesting it's acceptable in all articles. But, in the case of our subject, she's dead, she was 83 when she died, she was nowhere near somewhere people would not have children by choice, she was the third wife of a polygamous husband in an obviously very traditional household, she was living with a granddaughter who was not the child of her child. She was given fire (ritual cremation) by her step-son. Because of this list of facts, someone who's familiar with the culture would find that information interesting; and I thought not having the field would imply the data was simply missing, as there are many details missing from the article. Take this example for instance; a junior wife of a polygamous marriage not having children has at least some significance. So, I wanted to know what the correct protocol is in such a case. (In this case, IIRC, she's still alive, so lt probably is BLPvio now that I think about it. I'll just remove it per "BLP, safe than sorry") Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 13:59, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Here's the diff of what I removed. We can always restore it if it's acceptable. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 14:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm intrigued by your statement "she was nowhere near somewhere people would not have children by choice". Is this because we have her own testimony, recorded in a WP:RS source, saying this; or because this was a cultural norm in her situation; or for some other reason? I guess polygamous marriage is different and so it may be difficult to make direct comparisons. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what the gotcha is, so I'll just answer the question. I used up all my RS's in getting that article there.

As a casual reader, reading the article, I would pretty much know that the reason she didn't have any kids wasn't because she was familiar with the concept of women empowerment to the level of "Womanhood isn't defined by whether you have children" and so decided against it because she had other priorities in life. I would know this because that level of empowerment still hasn't reached the society she lived and died in, forget the 1950's. Of course, I am liable to reach the wrong conclusion in case of fantastic exceptions unaccounted for, but that's just how human information processing is. I wasn't thinking of any other implications/meanings, of which there are many, of the phrase you quoted.

If we keep the bit about living the last years with family that she was related to but not the progenitor of, and the bit about the step-son being the one who gave fire, the information about not having children becomes helpful in answering questions a reader may have. The step-son bit raises questions like -- Where were her own sons? What about daughters-- were they too conservative to claim the sons' duties? The fact that she was living with step-grandchild tells us that she must have had a wonderful family, that she wasn't made to suffer the absence of her own children to take care of her in old age. Stuff like that. When we say she didn't have any children of her own; the reader may take away something like this: She got married to a man who was already twice-married, for some reason, but didn't have any children of her own. Perhaps, she wasn't able to. But she seems to have been a good step-mother, and her step-children seem to have taken good care of her, which even one's own children don't always do. So, even though she didn't have children of her own, she had people who took care of her in her old age and illness; and even a son who saw her through to heaven, after her passing. I tend to agree this isn't all that pertinent to her notability or her acting credentials, but if we are including "personal life" and "early life" sections to biographies, which it seems to me, we almost always do, well, this is her biography. She was a good actor, a legend, and recipient of numerous honours, who in her personal life, was for some reason, married to a man who already had two wives, and although she didn't have any children of her own, she seems to have done a good job raising her step-children and her step-children seem to have done a good job taking care of her in old age and illness, as well as taking care of all the rituals to get her to heaven, which is all a person can ask for, from their kids. The fact that she was a woman has little to do with it. The same is relevant for a man- if he didn't have children, how was his life in old age? who took care of him? who performed his last rites? did he get to have a full life or was he miserable in life as well as death, for lack of children? Stuff is what it is. The subject lived and died in a society where you need children to have security in old age and afterlife. Nothing to do with what we wish life were like. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 22:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Usedtobecool. There was no gotcha. But I think your explanation probably belongs at Talk:Shanti Maskey. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, I was trying to make a case that sometimes an explicit mention of "no children" may be relevant and not just a possibly anti-feminist trivia. I composed this comment after reading the discussion all the way from top. I thought I was addressing all the comments, but if I've failed to mention what's relevant, and gone about soapboxing with the non-relevant, I would appreciate a course-correction. At the end of the day, the original question (I asked in that (non-revert ) summary) remains. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 23:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it's clear now that not having children is indeed a significant fact in some biographies, and omitting it from the infobox in those cases is careless/misleading/unhelpful. A similar case that springs to mind is Julia Gillard where her childlessness was the subject of many public debates. So, in summary, I think User:Usedtobecool's edit is justified. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Gillard's infobox though, at least as of this timestamp, does not include a parameter identifying her lack of children. No one is arguing here that this information should not be mentioned or discussed in the article body, just whether it makes sense to have a null value in the infobox. And if we do think it makes sense to have a null value in the infobox, should it be just for this parameter or for all of them? I would argue that the use of a null value - for any parameter - in a biographical infobox should be a rare occurrence. The explanation provided above re: this specific example is excellent content that should be fully explored and sourced in the article body, where this context can be provided. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Gillard's infobox could properly show |children=none; it's a sourced and notable fact. I'm perturbed by the use of "null value". IMO that's an undefined, empty, or meaningless value. Here, "0" (or "none") is exactly not that. If infoboxes are a summary of pertinent facts, this ought to be included when warranted in individual cases. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

The argument made above by Usedtobecool could reasonably be applied to almost any article, and for that matter almost any parameter. That's too low a bar for "when warranted", as is "sourced". Nikkimaria (talk) 03:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

There's an on-going, slow-motion edit war going on at Lucy Boynton over listing her partner in the infobox. How long does a relationship need to be officially established for it to be included? I couldn't find any details on the matter. oncamera 21:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

It's almost impossible to give guidance as there will be so many varying factors from case to case, although a reliable source stating the relationship would seem to be a prerequisite. I strongly advise seeking a consensus on the article talk page. To encourage that, I've fully-protected the article for now. --RexxS (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Could a pronoun infobox field be added? With more people using neutral pronouns it would be a helpful reference point for both future editors and readers of the page. Lewishhh (talk) 15:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Nah. WP is already rife with drawn-out, uncivil, WP:BATTLEGROUND stuff about this kind of thing (already leading to topic bans). Combining that with the other source of constant inter-editor warfare – infoboxes – is about the worst idea I've seen proposed here in years. >;-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I think there should be more discussion around this idea. Currently, MOS:GENDERID says that a person's gender identity (and by extension a sentence like "This person uses they/them pronouns.") shouldn't go in the lead unless it is significant to that person's notability. Because of this, the gender and pronouns of most transgender people end up in their personal life section. That's all fine and good for someone whose pronouns are widely used/known about. Say, though, someone lands on the article Sam Smith after Googling them - one of the first pieces of information they might want to learn is what pronouns Smith uses. A user who isn't familiar with they/them pronouns or with how Wikipedia decides what pronouns to use for a person in their biography might not understand that Smith uses they/them pronouns just from seeing the lead refer to Smith. To me, this seems like the perfect use case for a pronoun field in the infobox. That said, a change like this would definitely need to have some guidance go along with it. For example, when should a person's page include pronouns in the infobox? I think that pronouns should be included whenever someone has stated what their pronouns are. For instance, Elizabeth Warren (stated pronouns in Twitter bio), Laverne Cox (stated pronouns in Twitter bio), and Sam Smith (stated pronouns in an interview) would all have pronouns included in their infoboxes, but Miley Cyrus (out as gender-fluid but has not stated pronouns), Joseph Lobdell (lived as a man, Wikipedia revers to him with he/him pronouns, but he never specifically stated that he used he/him pronouns), and Barack Obama (obviously uses he/him pronouns, but he's never stated his pronouns) would not have pronouns included in their infoboxes. I think including pronouns in the infobox along with a guidance like this would ensure that a persons pronouns are easy to find in their biography when they are relevant. 李艾连 (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree. At a minimum, pronouns should be listed for people who have explicitly stated their pronouns publicly. Pronouns are important biographical information for many people, and are certainly encyclopedic information. This has also been previously requested at [2]. Gbear605 (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

There is likely to be a problem. Considering that the vast majority of people haven't explicitly stated their pronouns publicly, isn't this just inviting editors to misuse the field by adding the new parameter in cases where a source doesn't exist or is poor? If the subject's pronouns are not key to their notability, wouldn't this be bloating the infobox with trivia? The same argument exists for height, weight, etc. which regularly have to be removed. --RexxS (talk) 17:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd say, as with all things, we should follow the sources and not lead them. Do biographies explicitly state the pronouns of the biography subject? Or do they just use the pronouns? I don't think we should be getting into the habit of writing like "Levivich (born Jan 1, 1900, he/his/him)" (or adding pronouns as an IB field) unless/until that's what the majority of RSes start doing. As of now, my impression is that explicitly stating pronouns is too new and not widespread enough for us to adopt. – Levivich 18:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Not needed in the infobox IMO. For those cases where it is important it should be discussed in prose in the body of the article. MarnetteD|Talk 19:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

We get regular requests to add a new parameter to this infobox, sometimes for use in only a handful of articles. It would be possible to add a generic "extra parameter" field by passing its label and value to the infobox module, for example by adding to the template something like:

| label63 = {{{extralabel|}}}
| data63  = {{{extravalue|}}}

That would allow editors to create their own custom field by using those in an article; for example, something like:

| extralabel = Pronouns
| extravalue = they/them

This would move responsibility for the extra field to the editor, rather than the template designer.

Now, I'm not very keen on the idea, personally, because of the possibility of misuse (although a tracking category could easily be added). Nevertheless I raise the issue because other editors might find it a useful option. What do others think? --RexxS (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not keen either, not unless someone can show a really good need. It just invites an anything goes approach where people will argue that since extralabel exists, it must be ok to use it, and anyone wanting to remove it must prove that the usage is inappropriate. Call me jaded... Johnuniq (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Given that Category:Pages using infobox person with unknown parameters currently has about 4,750 pages in it, there are more editors adding unsupported parameters than gnomes can keep up with. Adding a parameter like this is just asking for more maintenance work. Editors will insert all sorts of junk in there, like religion, height, weight, hair color, ethnicity, and other stuff that has been argued about on this page for years. No thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

This would not work on crowd-sourced Wikipedia. People seem to add more trivial info (sometimes vandalism) to inboxes than they do with prose. As it is, we have too many existing parameters that go against WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE.—Bagumba (talk) 04:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. |extralabel=Dog's name |extravalue=Fido. To see what happens with a real case of free-form parameters, see how the "blank fields" of {{infobox settlement}} get used. There's no control. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose per RexxS, Johnuniq, Jonesey95, and Redrose64. To add to that chorus: this is a recipe for WP:INDISCRIMINATE trivia, for PoV pushing, and in particular for tendentious efforts to get around the consensus removal of various parameters like ethnicity and religion. And, no, we don't need a pronoun parameter. This obsession with gender-related browbeating really needs to stop. Our article prose, by the way it is written, will already make it clear what the appropriate pronoun is, in encyclopedic, general-English terms. The last thing we need is some parameter that will mostly be used to "advertise" made-up non-English like zir and hirs and whatever.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:00, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Agnes Geijer is being placed in Category:Articles with missing wikidata information rather than Category:Articles with missing Wikidata information (capitalising Wikidata) and I assume it's something to do with this template being called but can't see immediately where it's happening. Can someone help? Le Deluge (talk) 12:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

The template in question was {{infobox person/Wikidata}}, which is (somewhat confusingly) not this template. I have implemented a workaround there and posted a query on that template's talk page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:infobox officeholder does not show the string native_name if the native_name parameter is filled; instead it shows that native name in a similar fashion (centred, bold, large font) to the English transliteration, without telling the reader that it is a "native name" (the reader will presumably infer this without having to be told, as s/he also has to infer from the English transliteration of the name).

It seems to me that in Template:infobox person, writing the string native_name explicitly violates WP:BLP for many of our articles whose subjects are living people, for obvious reasons of colonial history and some of the connotations of "native" being pejorative. I propose that at least for the moment we make the minimal edit from: | label1 = Native name

to | label1 = In other words, we leave the label blank. Or we could use something like the officeholder code, if it applies without too much change: | subheaderstyle = font-size:125%; font-weight:bold; | subheader = {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{embed}}}}}|yes||{{#if:{{{native_name|}}}|<div class="nickname" {{#if {{{native_name_lang|}}}|lang="{{{native_name_lang}}}"}}>{{{native_name}}}</div>}}}} An example to check right now is Seham Sergiwa, a psychologist who happens to also be a member of parliament, so Infobox person is her main template, infobox officeholder is a module. She's hopefully still a living person, although chances are she was assassinated (see the article for details). Boud (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The heading is informational. Rather than just displaying a string of characters in the infobox, we tell readers what that string of characters represents. You have not provided a reliable source for your implied claim that the phrase "native name" is pejorative. Since it is used tens of thousands of times in articles on Wikipedia, you might want to move this discussion to a more wide-ranging venue, like Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

this was discussed for infobox islands and the result was to remove the label as suggested if |local_name= were used instead of |native_name=. Frietjes (talk) 15:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Suggest to remove param Foreign names can already be in the lead sentence per MOS:FORLANG. However, this is English Wikipedia, so I do not see the need to also overload an infobox with this foreign name. Per MOS:IBXPURPOSE: The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance.—Bagumba (talk) 05:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose the removal of the parameter. This is the English-language Wikipedia, but it's not the Wikipedia-only-for-English-readers-who-are-monolingual-and-monoscriptual. Some readers will know the original script and wish to see the name in that script. The case of Arabic names is an especially strong argument against this suggestion. Not only does Arabic in common written usage omit most vowels, but the pronunciation of some of the consonants varies across the Arabic-speaking world, and presumably within Arabic-speaking countries. Which makes it unsurprising that a person with a well-defined name in Arabic can easily have half-a-dozen different English/roman transliterations in English-language sources (and French/roman transliterations will tend to vary a bit too). There are also many readers in between, who know enough of a non-roman script to be able to search on it, without being fluent. It also seems a bit disrespectful to the subject of an article to suggest that only the English/roman version of his/her name is significant. Boud (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Summary: The Village pump proposal got comments, overt support from several people, and only mild opposition.

Could someone with technical access please make the changes? Either my minimal edit (leave label1 blank) or a better formatted equivalent. Thanks. Boud (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

native_name pointer

This is just a pointer to Template_talk:Infobox_person#Let's_not_insult_the_natives_(BLP) above, which after giving plenty of time for discussion appears ready for someone with editing access to act on. Boud (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 14 December 2019

The minimal edit request is to change from:
| label1 = Native name
to
| label1 =
in order to avoid the risk of the label being perceived as insulting (colonial) (BLP issue) and/or because the rendered result looks better without the label.
For a more detailed discussion see Template_talk:Infobox_person#Let's_not_insult_the_natives_(BLP) and the discussion at village pump, which got comments, overt support from several people, and only mild opposition. One month is plenty of time for anyone to lodge serious objections if there were any. A more sophisticated, stylish way of implementing this BLP fix is possible too - I'm requesting a minimal version that is fairly sure to work. Boud (talk) 10:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC) (copyedit Boud (talk) 10:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC))

A centered subheader under the English name would be better than having right-adjusted data in the infobox table without a label.—Bagumba (talk) 11:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

No objections from me - but someone with editing rights needs to actually do one option or another... :). Boud (talk) 11:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

How would the centred subheader look if the infobox were used as a child of another infobox? Can we see sandbox and mockups, please, because templates with very high levels of transclusions shouldn't be updated until we're absolutely sure the change is correct. If any tweaks needs to be made, it's best they happen in the sandbox to avoid overloading the job queue. --RexxS (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I tried Infobox person/sandbox in Seham Sergiwa and previewed based on the sandbox with these two edits by Galobtter. It looks fine to me. I tried Infobox person/sandbox on Abdalla Hamdok with a preview and it also looks OK to me. Boud (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd suggest adding a testcase to Template:Infobox person/testcases as well, so this isnt broken in the future. Also, what does it look like when |honorific_suffix= is specified?—Bagumba (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I added Sergiwa + Hamdok to the /testcases page - this is a good way of testing. I arbitrarily converted Hamdok into an Esquire, for the honorific_suffix. I guess if a suffix is needed, that should be OK. I also added a Hamdok copy with the |native_name_lang= missing; the rendered output looks the same to me, but the source html has lang="ar" missing. For the sake of readers for whom these hidden attributes are important, I guess a warning in red could be given when editing if |native_name_lang= is missing - or else robots could add those in later. Boud (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

 Administrator note I find there is consensus for this change. RexxS above questions how the change will look in child infoboxes, and I just wanted to confirm that this has been addressed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:31, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@RexxS: Would the generic Infobox person ever be embedded into another (more specific) infobox?—Bagumba (talk) 10:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Here is a list of 800+ articles that use Infobox person as a child infobox. Sheryl Crow, for example. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Interesting backdoor.—Bagumba (talk) 13:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Boud: can you do some tests with Sheryl and confirm that everything looks okay? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 04:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@MSGJ: - Template:Infobox_person/testcases#Sheryl_Crow_with_fictitious_japanese_native_name uses testcase table in the outer infobox, and looks fine, but I don't think that tests the potential flaw. Have a look instead at Template:Infobox_person/testcases#Sheryl_Crow_with_fictitious_japanese_native_name_in_inner_infobox and Template:Infobox_person/testcases#Buzz_Aldrin_with_fictitious_arabic_name. These both appear somewhat odd, because the native_names, which I have inserted into the inner infobox, appear mid-way along the main list of parameters. For these two insertions of a native_name to occur, the Sheryl Crow version would appear to a parameter at the same level as alma_mater; and the native_name in the Buzz Aldrin case is for an inner infobox of which the only original (native ;)) parameters are children, spouse, website, signature. If باسس الادرين really were a native_name for Aldrin's family, then this would make sense, and to me look OK, especially as the hypothetical editor of the wiki source would appear to see this as something more closely associated with Buzz Aldrin's family, and as a separate sub-group to his space career, rather than a native_name of Buzz Aldrin himself.

Template:Infobox_person/testcases#Abu_Bakr will have duplicates of the native name, but that in fact is already the case in Abu Bakr, where the version with the label "native_name" appears at the bottom of the box, and another copy is hacked into the name parameter using the br tag. So cases like this could be argued to already look a bit odd, and fixing cases like this by hand will help remove some cases of hacked name parameters, like this.

I checked a few others on the list like Boris Grebenshchikov and Hirokazu Tanaka; these have native_name in the outer infobox, so no problem is expected; Abdullah ibn Alawi al-Haddad uses {{Infobox religious biography}}, where native_name is already a subheader.

To summarise: there is at least one use of native_name in an inner infobox that is redundant with a hacked name parameter (Abu Bakr), but even without editing, it will still look OK, and with editing, it will be cleaner (no need for the Arabic version both at the top and the bottom); any other uses of native_name inside an inner infobox are likely to be rare, and if they exist (the Crow and Aldrin examples have artificially inserted native_names), would probably make sense with the new layout, and if not, would probably be noticed quickly and fixed. So no 100% guarantee of no complaints, but to me it looks reasonable to make the present /sandbox version live, unless someone can think of more tests to make. [The testcase table itself failed to be useful for these inner infoboxes - but that's a bug in testcase table, not a test of the sandbox version of Infobox person.] Boud (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if it's technically possible, but native name should ideally be disabled if detectable as a child. Editors should keep it in the parent infobox paired with the English version of their name.—Bagumba (talk) 01:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

It's technically quite possible. Something like | data1 = {{#if:{{{child|}}}{{{embed|}}} || {{#if:{{{native_name|}}}|<div class="nickname" {{#if:{{{native_name_lang|}}}|lang="{{{native_name_lang}}}"}}>{{{native_name}}}</div>}} }} will suppress the field if the parameters |child= or |embed= have values – you could refine it by testing for the parameters having the value "yes", which Module:Infobox tests for. However, I'm not sure if that's always going to be a good idea, because it presupposes that the parent infobox processes the |native_name= parameter. As we don't know which parent infobox may be used (and that's open-ended), that presupposition may not always be true. --RexxS (talk) 03:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I have deployed a version of the above test in the sandbox. If I am reading this discussion correctly, our goal is to display the person's name in their native language below the name they are usually known by in English. If this infobox is used as a child infobox, I do not think having the |native_name= parameter from Infobox person display anywhere within the rendered Infobox person template will be useful in achieving that goal. I welcome a test case that shows that I am incorrect, as I may be misunderstanding the goal, the technical function of the infobox, or both. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes. The testcases starting from Template:Infobox_person/testcases#Sheryl_Crow_with_fictitious_japanese_native_name_in_inner_infobox and below demonstrate that native name is not displayed when specified in a child. I'm satisfied.—Bagumba (talk) 05:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I've added Template:Infobox_person/testcases#Lennon/Ono_devil's_advocate_case to test the current version by Jonesey95 at 04:26, 18 December 2019. In this hypothetical case, the editor decided that Yoko Ono's Japanese script name is vital to the article about John Lennon, so s/he inserted 小野洋子 into the inner infobox as native_name, along with spouse = Yoko Ono.

The result is that this gives a misleading result with the standard (existing) template: the reader gets the impression that 小野洋子 is Lennon's Japanese script name, unrelated to any spouse(s) he may or may not have. With our sandbox version, 小野洋子 disappears totally, so the reader is not misled. On the other hand, the reader is unaware of how to write Yoko Ono's name in Japanese. I don't think that this is a problem: the article is mainly about Lennon, not his best-known wife. If his wife is WP-notable, then she can have her native_name in the main infobox on her own article. In the spirit of not overloading the reader with too much info in infoboxes, this effective ignoring of native_name in inner infobox person infoboxes seems reasonable to me. The editor will be annoyed, but if this really is an exceptional case, then a hack using 'br' and including extra text in the spouse parameter will not be blocked by the template (it will be up to editors to discuss its exceptional justification).

Current status: all the test cases look OK to me. Boud (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm proposing we remove the Weight parameter from this infobox. Weight is almost never an encyclopedic, it can rarely be properly sourced to reliable sources, is often the source of fierce and pointless edit wars (see the recent edit history of Brendan Schaub) and, worst of all, it changes frequently during the subject's life. Which weight is this parameter meant to record? Because it's meaning isn't specified, it is almost impossible to populate this parameter in a verifiable way. I think it causes plenty of trouble without adding value and should be removed. It appears it was added here during the infobox actor merge, and looking through the talk page archive it's addition was never discussed and has always been controversial. Thoughts? The Mirror Cracked (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

The Mirror Cracked You forgot to sign your post :-) I would support the removal of the field. I don't know that I've ever seen a number in the field reliably sourced and, as you so rightly point out, it changes during a persons lifetime. MarnetteD|Talk 21:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Support - I can't imagine a single case where weight should be in the infobox. Even in cases where a person's weight is notable (such as people who are remarkably skinny or remarkably fat), the article can state their body type or particular weight points that were notable for them. 李艾连 (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

This is uncontroversial so I'm going to move it forward to an edit request. Sandbox with proposed edit here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_person/sandbox&oldid=925720681 李艾连 (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done despite limited discussion here. Weight parameters appear to be used in about 1,300 articles. In case this is controversial after the fact, I did not renumber the labels. Please adjust the template's documentation to match this change. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Post-support The weight of athletes in certain sports is notable, but their specific infoboxes can handle that. With any other person, the info becomes dated, if it was even notable to begin with.—Bagumba (talk) 04:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Brilliant, that kills the weight also on old permalinks. –84.46.52.55 (talk) 09:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I also want to to give my support to this move. Having this parameter gave our articles undue weight. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Please change the label "Criminal charge" to "Criminal charge(s)" (or "Criminal charges") and the variable "Criminal_charge" to "Criminal_charges". This is necessary because criminals are often charged with multiple serious crimes. 12:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Sceptre (talk) 07:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Sceptre Do we actually need consensus to pluralize something already in the infobox that should have been pluralized to begin with? Also, WP:BOLD. - MrX 🖋 13:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Why does this template need any criminal parameters at all? Seems like {{Infobox criminal}} would be used for most notable criminals. In the other rare cases when it passes BLP and UNDUE muster, the criminal template should just be embedded into this one.—Bagumba (talk) 07:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Bagumba that's not really my concern, although it's probably because some people are known primarily for heinous crimes, and other are known for other things and less heinous crimes. It is in the infobox, so I just want it to be pluralized. - MrX 🖋 13:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Should the Criminal charge label be changed to Criminal charge(s)?

Please change the label "Criminal charge" to "Criminal charge(s)" (or "Criminal charges") and the parameter "criminal_charge" to "criminal_charges" per the results of the RfC above. Please test in the template's /sandbox or /testcases subpages as appropriate. - MrX 🖋 12:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I've updated the documentation and I think I've caught them all, but I'd be happy for someone to check and fix any mistakes I've made. --RexxS (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Some recent edits at Template:Infobox person/doc added some extra autovalue and suggested fields. They apparently cause editors using the visual editor to add extra infobox entries such as in diff which added caption + birth_name + birth_date + birth_place with no useful information. I changed the entry for birth_date because I do not think we should encourage people to add such information unless it is reliably sourced. What about the others? Is it useful for that bloat to build up? Johnuniq (talk) 08:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, some technical details are documented on mw:Help:TemplateData, for an example see mw:Template;special or {{special}} here, it has an optional parameter, and IIRC (after four years) that's just not suggested, let alone required. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 04:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Removal

As a first step I've commented out the parameter in the template and removed it as valid in the check. That leaves us with a temporary marker where the parameter was, just in case. At some future point that can safely be removed.

I think I've removed from the documentation all mentions of residence that need to be removed.

There are still over 38,000 pages in Category:Infobox person using residence, so there's some clean-up to do, but it's obviously not urgent. It will show up as an unknown parameter in preview mode, so it will eventually be eliminated, but if anybody wants to do a bot run, that would speed things up substantially. --RexxS (talk) 22:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

@RexxS: Is removal of dead code that doesn't affect the display considered a cosmetic change or a minor edit?—Bagumba (talk) 05:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@Bagumba: It's the sort of change that should not be done alone – not because it's intrinsically "cosmetic" or "minor", but because it's not urgent. There's no good reason to hit the server job queue for so many pages just to remove a hidden comment, so it's best done later at the same time as a substantial edit. Hope that makes sense. --RexxS (talk) 17:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

That is a stupid bot job, nine characters residence vs. nine characters home_town. Or use {{{home_town|{{{residence}}}}}}, or any other recipe not ending up with thousands of mutilated BLPs. –84.46.52.176 (talk) 02:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@RexxS: so they should all be removed (i.e. a simple find-and-replace removal of the residence parameter)? DannyS712 (talk) 02:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

It would be better to wait until the holiday season is over and people have had a chance to absorb the fact that residence no longer does anything other than show a warning in preview. Perhaps wait until 13 January 2020 to see if anyone raises a problem. I would hope that a bot can do something other than remove this parameter if it is going to edit over 38,000 articles. I think AWB has the ability to remove parameters as part of its general cleanup, and that might be better. Johnuniq (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Just as a note re: removal, I do have a bot task that is approved for removing deprecated parameters in order to clear out categories. Primefac (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree that there is no reason even to use a bot to remove these and clutter-up watchlists. They can be removed over time when other edits are made to the articles. I would use AWB to remove these eventually, but only if there are other non-cosmetic changes to the article. MB 05:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

There is still documentation in wrapper templates (e.g. {{infobox artist}} to update. Is anyone going to find all of these? MB 05:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Should there be a discussion somewhere about removing |residence= from other infoboxes? I just ran across {{Infobox Twitch streamer}} and there are probably others. {{Infobox officeholder}} has it, but that is so common maybe it should have its own discussion. MB 21:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea of mutilating 38,000 BLPs, and let folks clean it up over the next decades as they see fit, because my suggestion to replace all "residence" by "home town" with a bot failed miserably in my 3rd manual attempt, a province is no town. –84.46.53.207 (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Residence can not be assumed to be the same as a person's home town; in most cases, they are different. There's nothing really too harmful if the "residence" remains in the wikitext. It doesn't harm the reader.—Bagumba (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what was the purpose of this RfC? I'd like to see where folks currently live, it is not necessarily a privacy issue (for comparison, we still have "height", but I killed it in one BLP on demand.) –84.46.53.207 (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

You can read my !vote above, along with everyone else's if you want to see more arguments. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Anon, circa early November 2019, an editor was adding this content en-masse to articles, typically unsourced, but also where there were questions as to whether or not the content was relevant, i.e. adding that content to an article about a person who was not notably from Town X. Does it matter to us that game developer Mohammad Alavi resides in Los Angeles? Or that Sir Charles Palmer resided at Wanlip Hall? The parameter documentation was not clear on its intended purpose, so I asked for clarification. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for info, at least I know how to fix it in most cases, where home_town=… works. Checking that it's also sourced is a good idea. on Jimmy Dore I take "stated" as good enough. If you want that on more templates, {{infobox YouTube personality}} has a residence, just seen on Hannah Witton. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 04:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@MrX: One disadvantage of closing RFCs, you need a plan how to implement it: Template:Infobox artist/doc has to be updated, it spooked me on Kent Tate. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 09:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I have seen a problem on this is site, but when i click edit source button on some page and make some edits on the same page and click show preview it shows that there is a warning message like on many another pages on this site. So it is unlikely that the "residence" parameter will be restored anytime soon, thank you. Salomeeaalexandru899 (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Was that last sentence a question or a statement? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

It was a statement. Salomeeaalexandru899 (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC).

Why is it that there's a |signature= parameter? I feel like this opens up a whole host of identity theft problems and I can't see how it's encyclopedic to include. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I have seen several inconclusive discussions about this, example here which points to WP:Signatures of living persons. Apparently the current situation is that if reliable sources have discussed someone's signature, and if that signature is publicly available, it's ok to include it. I would be happy to see it go. Johnuniq (talk) 03:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

If there is a problem with identity theft, and I doubt it, it's not this parameter but the collection at Commons:Category:Signatures. A person's signature is indeed sometimes subject to discussion in reliable sources, so removing the parameter seems like a one-size-fits-all approach. In any case, without the parameter, signatures will just be added somewhere else in the subject's article. Windmills. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I doubt there's much future for a fraudster who tries to hijack Ludwig van Beethoven's identity, so signatures of long-dead personalities aren't going to be controversial. On the other hand, I've always regarded the signature field as universally trivial, and therefore unsuitable for inclusion in an infobox (which is supposed to contain key information about the subject). --RexxS (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Completely non-educational unless you're some sort of handwriting analysis expert. Should be dropped as trivial decorative junk.--Moxy 🍁 00:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

If the article did have handwriting analysis, the signature image should be next to the relevant text, not floating up top in the infobox.—Bagumba (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed this on a random article, thought about bringing up a discussion here, and can't believe the timing of this one that was just started. My thoughts seem to be closely aligned with a lot of what I see here. I'm not really concerned about the identity theft issue for BLPs, but regardless, it's difficult to see how it's encyclopedic. In that extremely rare case where there's actually mention of someone's signature in the body of the article, the image can be included along with the discussion. Keeping it in the infobox is not an appropriate use of an infobox. What are the next steps here; would we need a full-blown RfC to nix the parameter? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

While being WP:BOLD is an essential part of the 'pedia a full RFC is usually the best way to go with any changes to this infobox. MarnetteD|Talk 17:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

, FWIW the "trivial decorative junk" is also known as an autograph, some hobbies are as strange as editing esoteric templates. –84.46.52.152 (talk) 10:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Add brother property for the Person template nOman 18:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. This case is already covered by the |relatives= parameter. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RfC on birthplace, nationality, and citizenship parameters with matching values.

This RfC has been running for a while but input has dropped off, and right now it's about an even split between the guidelines a) saying nothing at all about the matter, or b) saying to avoid putting the same country in two or three infobox parameters (the other options in the RfC have attracted nearly no support). It's not going to be a useful outcome (just another RfC again some time later) if this closes with "no consensus", so this tie needs to be broken – with good reasoning, not with WP:JUSTAVOTE of course.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, it appears that since the |death_date= and |death_place= parameters are marked as suggested parameters, unsuspecting Visual Editor users are adding these blank parameters all over the place. Two examples here and here. I'm not a big fan of having Visual Editor users unsuspectingly making AWB-like edits. It also seems fairly unnecessary to have these empty parameters in infoboxes where they could remain for 0-100 years; undoubtedly someone will add them when a subject dies. Is this something that can be turned off? Is there consensus for these parameters to be added by default? I opened a discussion at the Visual Editor talk space, but was directed back here. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the harm that is done by adding these valid parameter names along with a substantive edit. Many template documentation pages have, for many years, provided a template example with blank versions of all supported parameters, and editors have been copy-pasting these and filling in values for usable parameters without harming articles. Blank parameters just sit there unrendered, invisible to readers, so they should not be a big deal. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Undiscussed edits on 27 December 2019 added a bunch of suggested/default settings and like Cyphoidbomb I find the automated clutter unhelpful. It's one thing to have the settings available, but once the wikitext is in the article, people imagine they have to fill in the values and they usually use an anything-goes method of unsourced original research. I will remove the changes a little later when I have some time. Johnuniq (talk) 22:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it does any harm. ~ HAL333 02:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The harm is that once death_date and death_place are pointlessly added to an infobox, passing jokers have an easy way to record a fake death. When a reliable source notes a death, plenty of editors are available with the ability to add the information properly, with a proper reference. Why not have a bot add all possible parameters? Another point is to consider how an editor feels when they add a comma or similar, then notice changes to the infobox when they look at a diff. Even looking at the history would be puzzling because adding a comma should be (+1). At any rate, I will remove the undiscussed recent changes. If someone wants them, please start an RfC to consider which parameters should be automatically added. Johnuniq (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

"I don't think it does any harm". And I don't think it does any help. And Jonesey, when a user copy/pastes the parameters from the template instruction page, that is a conscious decision, unlike here. Anyway, I'm not trying to be a big drama queen, but since every editor is responsible for their edits, they should have control, knowledge, and understanding of the changes they make, not have these non-transparent tweaks made behind their back. Perhaps if there were a module built into the visual editor where a user could select from a field of other mundane fixes they could opt-in for, that would be fine, (hell, I'd love something like that for my daily editing) but the current arrangement doesn't suit me as constructive or necessary, since those fields aren't useful at all until someone dies. I think these changes should have been discussed first. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

If an editor intends to add a comma and Visual Editor adds some empty template parameters without that editor's consent, that is a VE bug that should be reported via Phabricator. I didn't realize that is something that could happen, as I opted out of VE while it was in beta and have continued to opt out until it is out of beta. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: I reported the issue here, since I have no interest in the complicated world of Phabricator. Whatamidoing (WMF) indicated that the reason why these parameters were being added, is because they had the "recommended" flag. I'm not the most technically-minded Wikipedian, so I'm not exactly sure what I'm supposed to do with the conflicting info. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Jonesey95, the visual editor is out of beta. If you are concerned about the wording of the line in Special:Preferences, I'm still not interested in making the translators translate a new line just so that it doesn't mention the word beta (especially while I'm still trying to get the Editing team to re-organize that entire section, which would mean yet another change to that line).

If you're adding a comma (i.e., elsewhere in the article), the visual editor shouldn't touch the infobox (and it doesn't seem to be doing so). If you're directly editing the infobox (which is what happened in these diffs), then the visual editor makes the infobox follow the format that's specified on the template's /doc page (which is what it should do). You all will have to decide whether you want to specify the default addition of these empty parameters or not. Volunteer-me might wonder whether we can estimate whether most infoboxes are about living or dead people, and make the decision on that basis. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Cyphoidbomb and Johnuniq. This should be disabled. I'm not sure that any unfilled parameters should be added without explicit editor intent. - MrX 🖋 13:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The infobox renders the label for Amateur radio Call-sign but the article title is Call sign with the hyphenated version as a redirect. I propose that the hyphen in the template be replaced with a space for consistency. --mikeu ^talk 12:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Copy that, Mike Uniform Three-Zero-One. ——SN54129 12:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks in advance for reviewing this request. In the interest of facilitating research and journalistic (investigative/fact-checking) work on historical figures via archival institutions, I'm requesting an "Archives at" parameter which could also draw from the corresponding Wikidata property: archives at (P485). Here's an example of one such Wikidata-integrated infobox on the Catalan Wikipedia for Ella Maillart. The template used here is: Plantilla:Infotaula persona

I noticed that a similar suggestion was raised in early December. That suggestion doesn't seem to have gone anywhere. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE was cited as a reason to be wary of such a change (although the commenter didn't "object to it per se"), implying that archival material data is not a "key fact" that should be captured in the infobox. This is not a comprehensive evaluation for two reasons.

First, archives, where available, hold the sources that help researchers and journalists verify facts about the notable figure in question. This means that while archival detail does not necessarily appear in the body of an article, it nonetheless serves as a key piece of information at a more active level of research—and in that way functions as a key "meta-fact" on a notable figure). Second, institution-level efforts such as this one (Wikidata:WikiProject Archival Description) are increasingly making use of Wikidata, because it helps researchers to be able to query archival information and because Wikidata specifies a single point of entry that can be updated when institutional details change (without needing to manually edit every relevant Wikipedia-end entry...). If archival detail continues to be limited to Wikipedia's external links without Wikipedia-Wikidata integration, we risk making a lot of effort redundant over time.

Concretely, the request is to:

• Add an "Archives at" parameter to Template:Infobox person
• Enable the new parameter to pull from archives at (P485)

Thanks! Utl jung (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Two editors objected mildly to a similar suggestion in December. You need consensus. This might work better as a dedicated Wikidata-based template that can be placed in the External links section of appropriate articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, this would probably be better as a separate template. Pinging Dominic and Nikkimaria, since they participated in the previous discussion. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Examples of possible models: {{Gutenberg author}}, {{Internet Archive author}}, {{Librivox author}}, {{Authority control}}. You might also look through the External links sections of people with archives to see what sort of information editors are putting there, like the name of the archive, the location of the archive, what years it covers, a URL, and other information. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I stand by my previous comment that this would be better placed in the External links section. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all for the feedback. Will play around with a new template; may ping again with updates. Utl jung (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

can anyone explain, why "Infobox person/Wikidata" gives no fields, eg with article of Haljand Udam:

{{Infobox person/Wikidata | fetchwikidata=ALL|onlysourced=no}}
{{Infobox writer/Wikidata | fetchwikidata=ALL|onlysourced=no}}

--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The template requires that content passed through be sourced to something other than Wikipedia, and currently the Wikidata item's statements have only English Wikipedia as a source. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: and others. It is not so easy. I did screenshot, see https://ibb.co/N355j6K To me it seems, that "Infobox writer/Wikidata" somehow gets data which is unsourced and ""Infobox person/Wikidata" couldn't get. Weird--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

It looks like the writer template was coded differently - I've now amended it so it should behave the same as the general person template. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks, Nikki. And thank you, Estopedist1 for raising the issue. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 00:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Can you please add the below grandchildren as my dad the person the page is about would love to see them on there.

Liam Harris, Alexandria Pengelly & Greyson Pengelly JessPengelly (talk) 04:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Infobox person}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Izno (talk) 04:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC)