Template talk:Infobox person

Would it be good to have clearer guidelines on the usage of the "criminal charges" parameter? Criminal charges appear to be much like wedding engagements. They are short-lived preludes to longterm events: Convictions or marriages (write your own joke :)

Considering charges can be dropped against someone, would making the guidelines clearer to limit charges to only those that actually resulted in criminal prosecution? (Whether acquitted or found guilty.) If not, what examples could there be of someone having a lead-level fact relating to a criminal charge that was dropped and didn't result in criminal proceedings (that are not currently ongoing)? 92.12.76.138 (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

• I'm sorry, but please review WP:RFCTP. This is malformed, as the RfC is not being presented neutrally. I recommend either withdrawing or refactoring this, at which point I would be happy to offer an opinion. I'm also not sure why this is an RfC? Has this question been asked previously and was there any dispute about it? DonIago (talk) 02:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Fixed! Thanks. 92.12.76.138 (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Now I'm confused by what change you're proposing. The documentation for the infobox already states that that field should only be used in the case of convictions, which seems pretty unambiguous to me? DonIago (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oppose – I agree with DonIago above, but just in case: in order,

• I simply do not think it is confusing as described. People generally understand that charges may include convictions and acquittals, et al.
• I don't see how this is different from any impermanent aspect of one's biography. Listing one's employment isn't "being a newspaper".
• Why use language that more specifically gestures towards guilt? Again, people generally understand that charges are just that.
• Depends on the page.

Remsense诉 02:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Updated prop. Thanks. 92.12.76.138 (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, this is confusing. @Doniago is saying this is a redundant RfC because the guidelines already cover what is being proposed (criminal charges should only be listed for convictions), but you then say you oppose the proposals because you think charges should not including only convictions. So... which is it? WikiMane (TP2001) (talk) 13:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

The main guideline here is WP:BLPCRIME. If living people have not been convicted of a crime, the infobox must present them as innocent, i.e. not use the "criminal charges" parameter at all. —Kusma (talk) 12:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I noted this above, but in case you missed it, the infobox documentation already states that this field should only be used in the event of a conviction. I think the IP needs to clarify their concerns and proposal. DonIago (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

How do you explain pages like Dawood Ibrahim, an internationally wanted ganger, which list charges despite there being no conviction because he's currently wanted? WikiMane (TP2001) (talk) 13:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

It sounds to me like that article is using the parameter incorrectly. It happens. DonIago (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Currently, the label for a person’s parents displays as “Parent” or “Parents”, depending on how many notable parents the person has. Does anyone else feel like “Parent”—for those very common cases where only one of the parents is notable—carries too much implication that the person only had one parent? The label obviously carries the implication of “[Notable] parent” to us editors, but the general readership is unlikely to get that.

Potential solution: Where the bio has only one notable parent, and that parent is in the |mother= or |father= field, we could display “Father” or “Mother” instead of parent. Obviously where the situation is less standard (non-binary parent, same sex parents) |parents= and “Parent” or “Parents” would still be used, but for the common singularly notable parent, we would encourage |mother= or |father=. — HTGS (talk) 06:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is there any opposition to this idea? I’d like to sandbox it up, but would hate to spend time to do so if there are good reasons to think it’s a bad idea.

TLDR: Bios with a single notable father or mother will display the parameter label as ‘Father’ or ‘Mother’; bios with two notable parents will display ‘Parents’; bios which want to display ‘Parent’ for any other reason can still do so. — HTGS (talk) 03:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think it is a very good idea. Khiikiat (talk) 11:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oppose. No, I find it intuitive that since the parent or parents are almost always blue wikilinks, only one parent present in the infobox means they only have one famous parent, not that they were raised by a single parent.

Similarly, the lack of siblings, granparents, cousins, etc does not imply that the subject doesn't have any of those, but merely that their every relative doesn't have their own Wikipedia article. Risedemise (talk) 04:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

Please make following changes to the display of Parents label, as described above:

Diff:

The relevant testcases can be seen at Template:Infobox person/testcases#Child Ofparents, in particular the last three.

Apologies for all the nested ifs.

Thank you! — HTGS (talk) 00:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I also think that the test {{Count|{{{father|}}}|{{{mother|}}}}} > 1 would be better replaced by {{Both|{{{father|}}}|{{{mother|}}}}}, but I am not 100% confident, and I figure it is easier for y’all to consider the request when that is how it is already written in the current version. Please anyone correct me if {{Count}} is better than {{Both}} here. — HTGS (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Are there any test cases available yet? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

For count vs both? No. I believe they return identically, but I am far from an expert scripter, and I’m unsure what would be needed to thoroughly test the two. And at this point I would prefer to just address the primary edit request, when the count method clearly works fine, it’s just not as short. (I’m also unsure which should be more demanding for the servers, but I expect that should be negligible.) — HTGS (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose I don't see how this is an improvement. Having Parent as the label, with father or mother included in parentheses following the name, rather than Father or Mother makes far more sense. This edit should be reverted. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  @HTGS: how is this change helpful? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  @HTGS explained why they thought it was helpful in #Parent(s) above — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks Martin. Honestly @Neveselbert, your own comment almost makes my point for me. The options are: 1) label parent + parenthetical mother/father; or 2) solely label mother/father. I just don’t see that a doubling up of descriptors (with one in parentheses) is preferable. — HTGS (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  @HTGS: but parents are mutually inclusive, though. You can't have one without the other, which is why I think it makes the most sense to have them both under one label. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Ohhh I see, this is just a misunderstanding! (I hope.) For clarity: If a bio has both the mother and father fields filled, the infobox displays as you are describing, parents label and mother and father parenthetical, as it always has. — HTGS (talk) 23:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  @HTGS: There's that concern, which I'm glad isn't an issue, but I still don't see how deprecating the Parent label when only one field is filled is an improvement. You can't be a father without being a parent, just as you can't be a son without being a child. So why should this be any different? We don't have a Son label, so why a Father label? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is there a reason why the native name parameter appears in a bigger font than the name parameter on mobile? --Coconutyou3 (talk) 09:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

Please restore this version to include explanation of the Soviet union republics (e.g. Kyiv, Ukrainian SSR. Soviet Union) for infoboxes, that is recently discussed at Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 38#Adding "union republic" notion to the doc. 49.150.12.163 (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Remsense诉 22:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

There was no consensus established there, and I don't really think this requires its own explication in the documentation myself. Remsense诉 22:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Note that I've rangeblocked the OP for block evasion.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

Following this thread on spouses being removed when not notable from the infobox, User:Wozal noted that the visual editor uses the phrase "Spouse(s), if notable" to describe the spouse parameter. As far as I've ever seen for this template (and officeholder, which is also widely used), I've generally not seen non-notable spouses be excluded from the template; some examples: Larry King, Richard Pryor and Stephen A. Douglas. Is there a reason why this generic boilerplate text in the visual editor applies globally to all infoboxes, since some communities of infobox editors have their own niche reasons to include/exclude/limit/expand certain parameters, like spouse. --Engineerchange (talk) 03:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

That thread is referring to a different infobox, {{Infobox officeholder}}. Speaking strictly about the existing documentation, that "if notable" wording is encoded at Template:Infobox officeholder § TemplateData (click show). Each infobox template has its own respective documentation.—Bagumba (talk) 07:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the note of clarity. Will seek options on that page. --Engineerchange (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

What should we include "Nazi Germany" in |birth_place= and |death_place= parameter, for example Adolf Hitler, Joseph Goebbels and Martin Bormann uses "Nazi Germany". 193.203.70.30 (talk) 00:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I usually find it more appropriate to use merely the country name as opposed to the historiographical label for the period, unless there is an important reason to emphasize the period. Remsense ‥ 论 01:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes. Not only do we not need to stess the political regime, it's simply wrong too - there were no Nazis when these three individuals were born. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

(I assumed in the examples it was only being applied to |death_place=. For what it's worth, I would consider these likely cases where the historiographical label would be warranted, but I would hesitate on the biography of a figure not directly related to German politics.) Remsense ‥ 论 09:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The general country name can be pipe linked to the "historiographical label for the period"? But there are several varieties of name for Nazi Germany. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I generally don't recommend piping as such per WP:EGG. As per name variants, I almost always recommend sticking to the article title, which is typically the WP:COMMONNAME appropriate for use in prose and list contexts as well. Also also, the country typically shouldn't be linked in these parameters per WP:SOB.Remsense ‥ 论 09:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't see that as an Easter egg, more just lightly scrambled. But yes, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking is an s.o.b. isn't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

So much so that I compulsively felt the need to correct that to S. O. B.   Remsense ‥ 论 10:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

For some years I've maintained the spouse field in the infobox for the Orson Welles article according to the template documentation. I've reverted many edits that added marriage templates, and I've recommended that consensus be reached here. There is a hidden note in the spouse field that requests consensus before marriage templates are substituted for the present content. On April 24, 2018, I left a section on the Talk page, which is part of the first archive of the Orson Welles article:

Template:Infobox person/doc does not call for the use of Template:Marriage or suggest it as an alternative, per consensus. Please follows these guidelines and do not make changes unless consensus to use the marriage template is reached on the talk page of Template:Infobox person. See Talk:Orson Welles/Archive 1#Marriage templates in infobox.

Yet another modification that employs marriage templates has been made, reverting my own edits to restore it to match the Infobox:person template documentation.

I am posting this in case anyone cares to reach consensus on revising the documentation to include marriage templates, or affirm that the documentation is correct as it is. — WFinch (talk) 02:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I propose to place arguments for Big Five personality traits:

• openness to experience (inventive/curious vs. consistent/cautious)
• conscientiousness (efficient/organized vs. extravagant/careless)
• extraversion (outgoing/energetic vs. solitary/reserved)
• agreeableness (friendly/compassionate vs. critical/judgmental)
• neuroticism (sensitive/nervous vs. resilient/confident)

If each of them can be proved by some techniques, placing them is beneficial.

In addition, a parameter for score of Intelligence quotient is beneficial for that person provided that his IQ is proven. Like Albert Einstein. Cheers. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 12:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Seriously? Today is not 1 April. None of these things can be proved. One might adduce evidence, and even then they might at best merit inclusion in the article. There cannot be a case for including any of this in the infobox. Edwardx (talk) 13:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Edwardx Psychological tests provide scores that are very near to the truth. If any of these tests is applied to the intended person, for example Albert Einstein, then we can include that in the Infobox with referencing to that psychological test. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 13:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

What do you mean by "scores that are very near to the truth"? What sort of p value? And are you referring to reliability or validity? Edwardx (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Edwardx Yes I mean "validity". These tests are almost valid. But with applying other types of psychological test, we can make the previous test "reliable". So placing two tests can make the psychological value valid and reliable.

Please see https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/parenting/moments/5-genius-kids-who-have-an-iq-score-higher-than-albert-einstein/photostory/99929937.cms Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Edwardx For some of the parameters like Extraversion and introversion, the exact value is not important. We can mention that according to research, this person is introversion. Enough! Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

No. This is rife with WP:OR issues. An infobox should contain things that are patently objective, that no person with knowledge of the subject would ever disagree on. If you an article where the subject has actually undergone that type of assessment and made the results public, it can certainly be put in prose. But it absolutely does not belong in the infobox, especially because armchair psychologists will try to insert that information to the infobox where the subject has not been professionally assessed as such. If you are looking at compiling data or categorizing, you can create a template for containerizing and presenting that information for prose presentation. VanIsaac, GHTV ^cont_WpWS 15:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The infobox is for facts, not pseudoscience. I'm half surprised a request for an astrological sign or Chinese zodiac animal parameter hasn't also been made. RachelTensions (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, per original research concerns. This also does not sound like international measures. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 12:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

…I didn’t think a sarcasm tag was needed there. RachelTensions (talk) 12:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

While there are probably people who merit their IQ score being brought up in-article—maybe a person noted for having an extremely high IQ—I can’t imagine any that would make sense to have their score listed without discussion, as is expected in the infobox. @Hooman Mallahzadeh: Can you actually name any notable persons whose infoboxes could make use of any of these additional parameters? — HTGS (talk) 03:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Hooman Mallahzadeh, if I'm allowed to extrapolate across numerous interactions we've had: I recommend you take an introductory philosophy course or get some exposure equivalent to that. Your enthusiasm is commendable, but your proposals often come off as having the blind spots of someone who's overindexing on STEM education to the exclusion of other modalities.

The above is my attempt to be as constructive as possible—as this is a profoundly bad suggestion, but one clearly articulated in good faith. Remsense ‥ 论 03:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Remsense@HTGS I am a graduate in "General Psychology" in M.S. form Payam Noor University. So my proposal might be from someone who is literate in this field. As I know, personality of an adult person hardly changes, and we can specify that by these five big personality traits in a great extent, these traits specify that person's lifestyle.

Specifying a person as "Introvert", we may determine the sorts of his interest he has worked on till now, and may determine what sort of works he would engage in the future.

In general context, we know a person by his "personality", not by how tall or how fat is he. So specifying personality of a person in his infobox, helps to know that person more accurately.

Although it seems a little odd at first, as a graduate in psychology, I really think that placing these personality characteristics is very helpful, so that readers can be familiar with his interests and lifestyle. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 04:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

You are not disproving my point. Remsense ‥ 论 04:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Remsense Seems odd and bad and impractical at first, but I really think that placing them is very profitable and practical. Nowadays, by implementation of Web 3.0, and making the web "machine readable", in addition to humans, machines can profit from placing these big five to interact with people better. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 05:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Hooman Mallahzadeh, perhaps it would be helpful to consider: you have expertise in psychology, but you do not have expertise in writing biographies (or encyclopedias). No doubt you have seen that these are very different fields as they are taught at your institution? — HTGS (talk) 05:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, it seems odd and bad and impractical well after having established an informed perspective considering all of the issues at hand. Remsense ‥ 论 17:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Remsense I don't know why psychological tests like "IQ test" have not taken from all people at age 18? But I really think that taking psychological tests and keeping the results but informing them for celebrities like Albert Einstein and hiding them for general live public is helpful.

Introversion or extroversion of a person gives very much information about the jobs and hobbies that person have engaged and will engage. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 04:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't want to keep saying the same thing over and over: suffice it to say that the initial advice I offered to you in this thread remains the same. Remsense ‥ 论 04:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ok... who provides the reliable sourcing for these types of evaluations? That would be the biggest issue. Secondary would be that you're essentially putting people in a box by adding this type of information, and tertiary would be that it's not useful for, I'd say, at least 99% of folks, and would lead to incorrect conclusions from those unfamiliar with the field. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply