Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox person

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Parent(s)

[edit]

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]

Edit request 19 July 2024

[edit]

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

Diff:

−
| label57 = Parent{{#if:{{{parents|}}}|{{Pluralize from text|{{{parents|}}}|likely=(s)|plural=s}}|<!-- -->{{#ifexpr:{{count|{{{father|}}}|{{{mother|}}}}} > 1|s}}}} | data57 = {{#if:{{{parents|}}}|{{{parents}}}|{{Unbulleted list|{{#if:{{{father|}}}|{{{father}}} (father)}}|{{#if:{{{mother|}}}|{{{mother}}} (mother)}}}}}}<!--
+
| label57 = {{#if:{{{parents|}}}|Parent{{Pluralize from text|{{{parents|}}}|likely=(s)|plural=s}}|<!-- -->{{#ifexpr:{{count|{{{father|}}}|{{{mother|}}}}} > 1|Parents|{{#if:{{{father|}}}|Father|{{#if:{{{mother|}}}|Mother}}}}}}}} | data57 = {{#if:{{{parents|}}}|{{{parents}}}|{{#ifexpr:{{count|{{{father|}}}|{{{mother|}}}}} > 1|{{Unbulleted list|{{{father}}} (father)|{{{mother}}} (mother)}}|{{{mother|}}}{{{father|}}}}}}}<!--

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]
@Pppery and HTGS: Can the same change be made to Template:Infobox officeholder? Khiikiat (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi Germany in infobox

[edit]

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]

Marriage templates in infobox

[edit]

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]

Arguments for personality characteristics and IQ

[edit]

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

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 contWpWS 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]

Tracking category for |nationality=?

[edit]

I'm surprised a tracking category wasn't added for articles using the |nationality= parameter. Would this be useful in whiddling down articles that incorrectly use it? Remsense ‥ 论 11:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a tracking category would be very useful (for this infobox and the other infoboxes that still have |nationality=). Khiikiat (talk) 12:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request to Add a Parameter for Native Place or Hometown

[edit]

Dear Template Maintainers,

I am writing to request the inclusion of a new parameter (e.g., |hometown= or |native_place=) in the Infobox person template (or other related templates). This addition would allow contributors to specify the subject's native village or hometown, which is often distinct from their place of birth (|birth_place=).

This distinction is especially relevant in cases where a person’s cultural or ancestral ties are associated with a location different from where they were born. Adding such a parameter would improve the template's flexibility and allow for a more comprehensive representation of biographical data.

If creating a new field is not feasible, I suggest allowing existing optional fields (e.g., |notes= or |misc=) to serve this purpose. However, a dedicated parameter would ensure better clarity and standardization.

Thank you for considering this request. I look forward to your feedback and am happy to assist further if needed.

Best regards, Khaatir (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the proposal, with a preference for "hometown". Sometimes a cited source gives a person's hometown but not the place of birth. That situation can lead to confusion because some dictionaries' definitions of "hometown" include place of birth. (Merriam-Webster: "the city or town where one was born or grew up also: the place of one's principal residence") If we had a specific parameter for "hometown", that would clarify that "| birth_place = " should be used only when place of birth is specifically stated in the source. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Teblick I completely agree with your point. Adding "hometown" as a specific parameter would clarify the distinction between birthplace and hometown, ensuring better accuracy and clarity in entries. Khaatir (talk) 03:43, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then how does one classify what a person's home town is? If someone lived one place for a year following their birth there, but lived elsewhere for 20 years straight, what would you call their home town? Hey man im josh (talk) 14:59, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh I have to say the same. Khaatir (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh, I would not attempt to designate a person's hometown on my own. As I mentioned in my previous comment, I'm thinking about sources that specifically state a person's hometown, as in this example. In the situation that you mentioned, "If someone lived one place for a year following their birth there, but lived elsewhere for 20 years straight ..." I would put that information in the article's text, put the place of birth in the infobox, and leave the "hometown" parameter (if one existed) empty. Eddie Blick (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eddie Blick I had a similar experience where, in an article, I added someone's place of birth, but their ancestral hometown was different. Both places are in separate districts. However, someone came along and replaced the place of birth with the ancestral hometown. Concerned about accuracy, I checked the provided references, which mentioned both the place of birth and the ancestral hometown. So, I added both.
The person is an academic, but since the |home_town= parameter was not available in either the Infobox academic or Infobox person, I opted to use the Infobox religious scholar, as they are also a religious scholar. Khaatir (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This parameter existed previously but was removed following an RfC; a new RfC would be needed to restore it. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That RfC addresses all the difficulties I have with the idea of a hometown parameter, and I think they're still applicable. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_person&oldid=1265000890"