Just to clarify (and since the closer recommended further discussion), I don't see a consensus above that if someone's ashes are stored at a columbarium, or were scattered at some specific place, that this would not be appropriate to use this parameter for; the only difference is whether the body is "intact" or not (and, given embalming, autopsies, etc., no bodies are "intact", at least in modern, Western burial). The problems with using "where someone was cremated" as "resting place" are a) it's the same thing as treating "where someone was embalmed before burial" in that way, which might even be a different country, and b) it serves no encyclopedic purpose (the reason we include "resting place" information at all is that some gravesites are of public, mostly spiritual/honorary interest; these reasons don't apply to body-processing facilities used on the way from the transition from freshly deceased to "final resting"). The problem with including simply "cremated" as "resting place" is that the content does not match the parameter (it's essentially the same debate about, and already concluded against, including "atheist" in the "religion" parameter. PS: I was going to raise a euphemisms concern about the name of this parameter, but perhaps that should be another discussion, and I don't feel as strongly about this as some other editors do.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

If there's a confirmed, sourced location for the cremains, even something as generic as, say, "Ashes scattered in the Pacific Ocean", that's wholly appropriate. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 03:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Late to this, but not to the wider debate: I've made the point many times before that "resting place" is not a euphemism. It uses the past tense of "to come to rest", in other words to stop moving. Consider: "The ship came to rest in a deep ridge on the ocean floor". "His marble came to rest two inches from its target". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Still a euphemism in my book. It's a metaphor for "buried" or 'remains scattered at". By your reasoning, the bed someone died in, or battlefield on which they were shot and died, is their "resting place", that being where they came to rest. Coming to rest and being laid to rest are different things, and "being laid to rest" is a euphemism. "Resting" is a euphemism, the exact same one used in "we had to put the dog to sleep". It's the same metaphor as "sleeps with the fishes", "the dirt nap", etc., etc.: a likening of death to a never-ending slumber (or not never-ending, depending on one's spiritual beliefs, if any). [To clarify earlier comment: I do feel strongly that this is euphemism; what I don't feel strongly about is some other editors' insistence that we must at all costs avoid all forms of euphemism, a view that gets pushed at WT:WTW quite frequently and in my view a bit excessively.]  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that any blanket no-euphemisms policy is silly—the more common its use, particularly globally, the more likely a euphemism would be considered acceptable encyclopedic language. That said, in this specific case, I find "resting place" to be like "passed away"—crafted specifically to mollify the sensitive and, therefore, not encyclopedic. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 21:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning that I made the effort to implement the |burial_place= parameter, which displays "Burial place" as label, as an optional alternative to |resting_place= for those editors who prefer not to use the latter? Obviously, it's only usable when a burial occurred. --RexxS (talk) 22:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I would only repeat that the parameter is not relevant so much as how it's rendered. Also, the instructions for its proper use need added clarity. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, |burial_place=Somewhere renders as Burial place Somewhere, as an alternative to |resting_place=Somewhere, which renders as Resting place Somewhere. I'm not sure what else I can offer to meet your concerns. If you're offering to update the documentation to reflect the outcome of the RfC and to clarify the proper use of the parameters, I'm sure we'd all be grateful. --RexxS (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

You're exactly right, and that's exactly what needs to be addressed. Several of us have offered suggestions, and I think the result will be some variation thereof. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 23:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Your book is faulty. Get a new one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Based on the suggestions by myself and others, and the comments thereto, the most logical (and least disruptive) response is, I think, to leave intact the parameter and change how it is rendered within article space. Some updated ideas:

• Burial data—while still technically inaccurate, the use of "Cremated" would not be a complete fallacy;
• Post-mortem data—makes virtually anything that follows accurate (though it's admittedly clunky);
• Disposition of remains—also allows virtually anything on point, but at least one editor finds this "gruesome, grisly, and positively silly";
• Burial/interment/cremation—as pointed out above, too damned long;
• Burial site—addresses only the euphemism "resting place" and would, like doing nothing, require that "Cremation" be removed (again) from infoboxes.

The instructions at the template page would need to be addressed only if one of these suggestions—or a better one from another editor or the discussion resulting therefrom—is implemented. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 23:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing to fix. It's not broken. And "resting place" is not a euphemism. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Per the RfC above, change Place of burial, ash-scattering, etc. to read Location of burial, ash-scattering, etc. If no location, leave blank. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 00:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. The documentation page is not protected. Izno (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, fuck me. I keep forgetting about the separate doc pages ... 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 01:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd really rather not. What part of the RfC do you feel came to this conclusion? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Q: Should the "resting place" parameter be used for "Cremation" such as used here?

A: It seems pretty clear, with decent arguments on both sides, that the nos have it.

That bit, I guess, as that's the conclusion of the RfC. Although I have no idea how that conclusion relates to the edit request. --RexxS (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

"Following the ..." might have been better language; but it was clear that, whatever the outcome, clarity was necessary, and the actual outcome supports the changes. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 19:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The documentation recomments using the "relatives" parameter to list the members of the extended family (like brothers/sisters, uncles/aunts, etc.), however a lot of instances intuitively use the "family" parameter, which was intended for noble family or house or any notable family with its own article, like Kennedy family. Can "family" be added as an alternative keyword for "relatives" and the actuall keyword renamed to "house", "clan" or something similar to avoid the confusion? --92.242.59.6 (talk) 11:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're confusing the label displayed with the name of the parameter, there's nothing called 'keyword'. If you're suggesting changing the name of the parameter from |family= to |house= or whatever, that could be done, However, it would then need a bot to check all 210,00+ pages that use this infobox and change the name of the parameter where used in those articles as well. I suspect that may be too big a job to justify your solution to an error that might be alleviated by better documentation. --RexxS (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid better documentation won't help at this point, because there are too many incorrect uses of 'family'. Most of these uses are for listing relativces, so I'd think it would be much easier to reassign this name as an alias for 'relatives', then correct a few instances where 'family' actually indicated a clan or a royal family, because most people typically don't have one. --92.242.59.6 (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no mention of an ethnicity parameter in the template documentation, but it can still be used (e.g. Jessica Jung). Is there a consensus for when and how to use this parameter? Random86 (talk) 02:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

That parameter might not be around for much longer - there's been lively discussion about deprecating it, as it proves more troublesome than helpful.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

We have had a request here at the Teahouse that Infobox person list Spouse in the singular rather than Spouse(s), seeming to assume that people have multiple spouses even when there is only one. Template:Infobox royalty does this. As we can see at Henry VIII of England the list of his six spouses is labeled "Spouse". I am making a similar request for Partner(s) for the same reason. StarryGrandma (talk) 04:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@StarryGrandma:  Not done - Consensus or least several days passing with no one commenting on your proposal would be needed for such a change.

Personally, I would oppose the change because (s) means on optional plural. It is that way because former spouses are listed there by date. I suppose it would also be useful in the case of a polygamists, but it doesn't assert that.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I would oppose this. The request seems to be purely the result of a grammatical misunderstanding. "Spouse" alone assumes one spouse only. Spouse(s) does not imply multiple spouses, but only allows for the possibility of more than one, and the natural assumption of that is not at the same time, but a person who's been married more than once.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I oppose as well any change to the template. Although this is requested for good faith reasons, this seems to me as veiled vanity. People do choose to remarry after having a spouse die, which does not in the least imply divorce or any negativity. Fylbecatulous talk 12:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I would support the change to simply "Spouse". Compare {{infobox opera}}, |librettist=. In many cases, there is only one. When there are more, it's easily visible, see for example Carmen. There was a discussion on the template talk before dropping the "(s)" as unneeded. (I noticed this only now.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: prior discussion at Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 14#Spouse, Spouses and Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 27#Plural/singular input options--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Are currently used for scientists etc. but there seems to be no consistency as to whether a source calling people an "influence" is required, and this leads to "micro-essays" in infoboxes. See Richard Dawkins where the assortment proffered seems to be subjective opinion rather than simple objective fact. IMO. Should "not objective fact" fields be discouraged in infoboxes? Collect (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes. --RexxS (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Distinctions, decorations, honours, honors, accolades and awards seem to be the most common terms for this information in biographical articles. This discussion naturally also applies to titles in the contents other than the parameter of this infobox. All of them have pros and cons. On the ground of netruality, I would advocate "Distinctions". Why? Not everybody considers them decorations (term implying aesthetical value). Not all consider them honours (and yet get to avoid the discussion of preferences for "o" or "ou"). The term accolades, although connoting a broad sense today, inevidently has a specific historical etymology. Awards, lastly, complicate the matter by risking to limit the possible contents, considering that all distinctions aren't really awards as such. So, all in all, I would advocate "distinctions" as the most strict and neutral yet broadest term for the relevant information. Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Is the parameter only to be used for political persons? Presumably not (because the template's note does not say so), or, otherwise, I never would have added information to Gabe Newell's article in the first place, so I need to find out about it. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

This archive may be relevant for the discussion. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 21:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Ping me when you reply to this discussion. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I've weighed in on this somewhere before, Gamingforfun; darned if I can remember where, though. My thought is that it should be included only when there's a legitimate, demonstrable correlation between an article's subject and the readers' understanding of who that person is/was. For example, a party spokesperson is a definite yes, even if never elected. A highly documented outspoken celebrity such as Charlton Heston is a definite yes; I'd also call Alec Baldwin a yes. Other people will be somewhere in a large gray area. Absent such a correlation, though, inclusion serves only to dilute the parameter's purpose, IMO. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

How would folks feel if I moved this entire discussion to Template talk:Infobox horse person and left a link here? It's really not directly relevant to {{Infobox person}} at the moment. --RexxS (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Works for me. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Where a claim about a person is not made nor sourced within the body of any article, should such claims then be allowed in the infobox? [1] shows my opinion thereon. Collect (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

How does removing sourced information improve the article? I can't understand why you didn't simply add the information and reference to the body of the article. If you want to ask the question "is |net_worth= a useful piece of information for the Barbra Streisand infobox?", then the appropriate place to ask is Talk:Barbra Streisand. --RexxS (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes. When the appropriateness of an infobox item is debatable, its absence from the prose weights against including it in the infobox as anything important enough to list there usually merits discussion in the text as well. However, there's no firm guideline, and counterexamples abound. Take height, for instance: for athletes, it's clearly encyclopedic, yet repeating it in sentence form would be an exercise in verbosity. I suggest you open a thread at the article's talk page. Rebbing 19:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Please see Category talk:Biographical templates usable as a module#Adding new infobox templates. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 13:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

How should someone's "nationality" or "citizenship" be described in the infobox if they are a permanent resident, but not a citizen, of that country? I am referring specifically to a dispute involving the late professional boxer Trevor Berbick. As an amateur he represented his birthplace Jamaica and that part is not in dispute. As a pro, however, he was based in Canada for most if not all of his pro career. He was a legal permanent resident (landed immigrant) for most of that time but never chose to apply for Canadian citizenship. He was generally known as a Canadian boxer for that time period--for example holding the Canadian heavyweight boxing championship. But according to reliable sources he never actually held Canadian citizenship, choosing instead to remain in Canada as a non-citizen permanent resident. Should his nationality be described as Canadian? Dash77 (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Two points:

1. Any piece of information that's not straightforward is unsuitable to be included in an infobox. It's fine to discuss Berbick's citizenship and nationality in the body of the article when there is space and time to explore the nuances and provide the references that explain the information. But it really needs more than a single word to do that, so I'd recommend you leave it out of the infobox.
2. There was a recent RfC on the inclusion of 'ethnicity' in infoboxes, which also discussed the 'nationality and 'citizenship' parameters. The opinions expressed there are worth a read when you are uncertain about what is appropriate to use for those parameters.

Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

And, am I correct that parameters left blank simply do not appear, so there is no need to fill them, as they will not clutter the final product with blank fields? Montanabw^(talk) 00:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

In a normal infobox, that's correct. (A Wikidata-enabled infobox may behave differently, but that's another story.) The only problem with putting something like |nationality= is that editors may take it as a request to supply a value for the field. If that's not what is intended, it's probably best to leave it out altogether. In my experience, short, concise infoboxes are more likely to survive a pogrom by the anti-infobox brigade. Andy may disagree with me on some or all of that, though. --RexxS (talk) 00:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, leaving in empty infobox parameters is very frequently interpreted as "this information is missing, please add it, even if you're not sure or don't have a source", and is the proximal cause of a great deal of the infobox-related strife. For this reason, I delete empty ones on sight, and do not add them when adding an infobox.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

But, leaving in empty infobox parameters is very frequently interpreted as "this information is missing, please search for a reliable source so that is can be added"? It may already be in the article. It does save skipping back constantly to the template description to check what's missing? I do agree, though, that blanks can prompt some newer editors to assume they know what "nationality" means and to add a best guess. I know that some editors think supporting references in the infobox are useful, while others think they are just clutter and that the contents of the infobox should always be supported, with the source(s), in the article itself. What does MoS say about that? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Parameters set to blank in an infobox might have three different meanings that I'm aware of: (1) "Please fill in the value of this if you can find it"; (2) "This field is not to be used in this article - please leave it blank;" or possibly even (3) Fetch the value of this field from Wikidata (I don't know of any implementing that meaning yet). In other words, you just don't know what the editor intended. One solution is to upgrade to smarter infoboxes. The Module:WikidataIB contains calls to suppress named fields, which can be used to upgrade existing infoboxes. By supplying, for example, |suppressfields=nationality, ethnicity in a given article the infobox would never display nationality or ethnicity in that article, and the intention would hopefully be made clear. I'm sure other solutions are possible, but we would be far better off implementing some solution, rather than leaving folks to guess. As for MoS, it says what we tell it to say - by that I mean it's meant to document accepted practice, not lay down rules. If practices differ fundamentally, then MoS should be silent on the issue. Personally, I think any statement that might be challenged should be referenced, including in the lead and infoboxes, but I'm not offended if others hold different opinions. --RexxS (talk) 12:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking outside the box, there. (Could you mention that "rules" bit again to Stanton? Thanks.) Martinevans123 (talk) 12:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

spouse(s) should be removed as a parameter from the Infobox person TemplateData. spouse(s) is not recognized by the template itself and throws an error. The fact that spouse(s) is listed alongside (and ahead of) spouse means that the correct parameter (spouse) cannot be input in the visual editor, and thus adding spouse necessitates a trip over to the source editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plandu (talk • contribs) 01:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done -- John of Reading (talk) 06:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

As per WP:IMGSIZE, we should implement changes which respect a user's preference to use the base image size of their choice. The default is "220px", but a user can set this to other values, such as "400px". Instead of a hard coded size for an infobox image, "upright=#.##" should be used, as is implemented in Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence, which transcludes Module:InfoboxImage. The way Infobox aircraft occurrence does this in practice (the precise syntax is in the template at that location) is to use an upright value if present (otherwise defaulting to 1/no modification), then fall back to use size/image_size if explicitly declared - but designated as a deprecated parameter which should be deleted or migrated to an 'upright' - and otherwise fall back to user preferences or site defaults if neither are present. See above template for suggested/workable implementation. Skybunny (talk) 05:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@Skybunny: Can you mock it up in the sandbox? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ahecht: Argh, I see the problem. It was added almost a year ago, and nobody ever documented it. OKAY! I've just added the docs (go have a look!) I did notice that there's a signature_size (for the signature image) so that probably should have a companion parameter which is preferred (that is, something like signature_upright). Skybunny (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Question, if the article title has a persons first and last name, for example Jon Smith, can the birth_name parameter inside the infobox include his middle name, example: Jon Alexander Smith? Or should it be left blanked? I have seen that it is a common practice to insert the middle name in this parameter. Now if he had no middle name, then of course to leave it blank. Tinton5 (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The question is not whether it *can* include the middle name, but whether it is *worthwhile* to add the birth name parameter just to repeat the middle name, which is given again in the first line of the Lead. If the birth name were completely different from the article name, then the birth name would be of interest, but to add it to the infobox just to show the middle name again in the box is not helpful. See WP:INFOBOX. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to get someone else's opinion if you don't mind, thank you. Tinton5 (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Eh. I agree that, in most cases, birth_name shouldn't be used just to show a person's middle name because it's typically trivial and adding it needlessly clutters the infobox as it's stated in the lede. However, if you're already showing birthdate and birth place, it doesn't add much visual clutter to stick birth name in that block as well, so, in that case, I think it's appropriate. (See, for example, Flannery O'Connor.) Rebbing 19:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@Tinton5: I'd agree with Ssilvers' general preference to keep infoboxes concise as far as possible. It is difficult, however, to judge whether something is worthwhile, because we really don't know for sure what visitors to an article are looking for. Another way of looking at the question is to try to get some estimate of what constitutes common practice on Wikipedia. If you examine a number of articles from Pages that link to "Template:Infobox person", you'll get some feel for how common it is to include the |birth_date= parameter where the subject has a middle name. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with User:Ssilvers' reading of the overleaf guidance: |birth_name= should only be used if it's different from the subject's current name, and I mean really different. Mentioning the middle name of Jon Alexander Smith who is generally known as Jon Smith only clutters the infobox – which is meant to present concisely the most important biographical facts; same for Flannery O'Connor. I disagree with User:RexxS (who presumably mistyped when he mentioned |birth_date=) that inspecting current usage is a valid guide in this question. I've seen too many infoboxes where the subject's name is repeated identically. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• Only if substantially different and if notable (we often exclude birth names per WP:BIRTHNAME). Use editorial discretion but err on the side of nit using it. For just a middle name, don't use. That can go in the lead sentence instead. EvergreenFir (talk) 08:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a filmography option listing count of films the actor has acted in by industry? I mean like 400 Bollywood movies, 300 Hollywood movies etc. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 09:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

In the documentation on the religion parameter there is a note that says "Religion should be supported with a citation from a reliable source". This notice should be removed because the manual of style says that reference tags shouldn't be in infoboxes (WP:INFOBOXREF); these references belong in the body text. Also requiring statements to have sources should be obvious.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Given the sensitivity of the issue, the warning makes sense. However, it could be changed to "Religion should be supported in the article with a citation from a reliable source". --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the manual of style doesn't say "that reference tags shouldn't be in infoboxes". The text of WP:INFOBOXREF is:

• References are not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere or if the information is obvious. If the material requires a reference (see WP:MINREF for guidelines) and the information does not also appear in the body of the article, the reference should be included in the infobox. However, editors should first consider including the fact in the body of the article.

In the case of religion, the consensus is that references are required, so the documentation probably ought to read something like "Religion should be supported with a citation from a reliable source in the infobox, unless the citation is already in the article text". --RexxS (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Should the agent parameter be used for actors? This is often used on Korean actor pages. Also, "notable works" is often used to list films and TV series, and "awards" is used to put the number of awards they have received. See Lee Min-ho (actor, born 1987) and Kim Ji-won (actress) for some examples. I don't see these parameters being used this way elsewhere on Wikipedia. Is there consensus on how to use these parameters for actors? Random86 (talk) 06:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

No. The only use for such an item is commercial, and as the information is not particularly encyclopedic or of general interest to readers, it should not really be used t all. Collect (talk) 12:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking for the "agent" parameter. Anyone else have an opinion on how these parameters should be used? Random86 (talk) 22:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Would it be possible to get a maintenance category going for this template that indicates pages that use {{Infobox person}} but do NOT use {{birth date and age}} or {{death date and age}}? I would like to start cleaning those up but need a tracking category to make it happen. @Frietjes, Jonesey95, Ahecht, and Magioladitis: you four have all recently edited this template so I would love your thoughts on the subject! --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Zackmann08 there is always the chance that this infobox uses other similar infoboxes or cases where adding these infoboxes is not an option. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: Can you explain? I don't follow... --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Zackmann08, I am assuming you want this conditioned on using |birth_date= or |death_date=? if not, you can just use https://petscan.wmflabs.org/ Frietjes (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Zackmann08 Check Plato for instance. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: Ok now I gotcha. That makes sense. I guess some crazy regex could be use to check if they are supplying a CE date?

@Frietjes: that would be my thought yes. That is an interesting idea. I'll look into using pet scan. Thanks! --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Zackmann08, for example, this scan. Frietjes (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Frietjes: Gotcha! The scan has to be a bit more complicated then that because of the multiple different birth date templates... HERE is what I came up with. Something you might want to look at is this discussion. I found that there is both a {{birth date and age}} AND a {{birth-date and age}}. The only difference is that one can take the date as one parameter. So.... {{birth date and age|1990|1|2}} = {{birth-date and age|January 2, 1990}}. Seems like there has got to be some way to make both formats work for {{birth date and age}}.... --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Zackmann08, Here's a couple of searchs that you could use as well, search 1 and search 2 that might be a good starting point articles worth updating. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Have you automated the process, or are you going to do it by hand? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I've never understood why this one is so low down. In my opinion it would better placed right up next to birth name, date and place. —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Why? It's rarely used (and from what I've seen, even more rarely used correctly) and isn't particularly important in most cases. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, why have it at all then? —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Good point. Get a consensus here and we can remove it. --RexxS (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I actually did use this for once on this new article: Katelynne Cox. The reason being, reliable sources seem to be in conflict as to whether she was born in Camas, Washington or Portland, Oregon. The bio on her website says "born and raised" in Camas, but at least one third-party source says Portland. Because of that, I have left the birth place parameter blank and simply given her current residence (Washington, D.C.) and what is clearly her hometown, Camas. If nothing else, this parameter is helpful if we are not exactly sure where the subject in question was actually born, but we do know where they were raised.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• Remove it The above post is a prime problem with the field. What does the term mean "Where a person was born?" - "Where they grew up?" - "Where they live currently?" This is one of those fields where the info is better discussed in prose in the body of the article. MarnetteD|Talk 04:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• Well, 3family6's post is essentially the point I was trying to make. Doesn't it look odd having no birth town given and "Home town" all the way down at the bottom of the biographical section? An alternative case is if someone was born in one place but grew up somewhere completely different; the formatting in that case also looks more than a bit odd. If we do retain such a parameter it would be more logical to have it further up by the birth details. That said, I can't say I disagree with MarnetteD's post that this is probably something better done away with an dealt with in the prose. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Even birth_place is difficult, do we mean the town of their parents legal residence when they were born, or the location of the hospital or taxicab where they popped out of their mother's uterus. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

My understanding is the latter, which is why birth statistics are often distorted by where the local maternity hospital is. —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Remove it we have the field "residence" for living people. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Doc says "Use the format Name (married 1950–present) for a current spouse, and Name (married 1970–99) for former spouse(s)." But that's not how this field is usually used I don't think. I see a lot of "m. 1959" and also use of template:marriage, which produces the same thing. I have used the documented format only to have it changed by another editor. Is this still the recommended format, and if so why? Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Is there consensus to remove degrees-earned from the Education or Alma_Mater fields in the template? User:Therequiembellishere is actively removing them and leaving an edit summary "removing clutter", see this edit and this edit and this edit. Naming an institution without the accompanying degree does not serve the reader. I noticed it at Franklin D. Roosevelt when I looked to see where he went to law school. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

This is something Masageee33 has been continually blocked for doing. The general usage that I know of involves putting institutions in alma_mater and the degree and degree program in the education field, if they are specifically known. This has been the general standard since I've been here for nearly 10 years. Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see. So if we only know the institution we use the Alma_Mater field. When we know the degree and even the year, we use education. Is there a consensus on including the year? I see a mixture of use and non-use. You are saying the right thing, but the above edits show you are just removing the degrees instead of changing the field name to "education". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

In my experience, I don't usually see both fields used. Normally I see the institution with the degree in the education field or just the institution in the alma mater field. Graham (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, me too. Sorry if my wording suggested otherwise. I have never seen both used. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I could use some help reversing the deletion of degrees. The editor has not been leaving edit summaries, the only way to tell is if the article is a biography and we see a negative edit count. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see where "deletion of degrees" has occurred. I do see where degrees have been inappropriately added to the wrong fields (such as the |alma mater= field), and then those problematic edits were reverted. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• User:Therequiembellishere is also changing law schools and medical schools to the parent university in multiple entries using piping. Is this proper? As a reader I find it confusing to click on a link and take me to a different entry. I can see doing the piping in the reverse, say, if we do not have an entry for a medical school, display the medical school and pipe to the parent institution. I expect to see a law school or medical school for those degrees, not the parent university: "| alma_mater =[[University of Virginia School of Law|University of Virginia]]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)

I would say that that probably violates WP:EASTEREGG. Graham (talk) 20:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to where such a change was made, or where such an "Easter Egg" was created? The |alma mater= field should only contain the main institution name ("parent institution", I believe you called it), and not the names of satellite schools, branches, specialty divisions, etc. The |education= field, however, can have the more specific school name within the main institution listed. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Am I correct in assuming you intended to direct your question to Richard? Graham (talk) 05:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

You are correct, Graham, but I did borrow your "Easter Egg" phrase. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The guidance from this Infobox page advises:

• |education=: Education, e.g., degree, institution and graduation year, if relevant. If very little information is available or relevant, the |alma_mater= parameter may be more appropriate.
• |alma_mater=: Alma mater. This parameter is a more concise alternative to |education=, and will often consist of the linked name of the last-attended higher education institution. It is usually not relevant to include either parameter for non-graduates, but article talk page consensus may conclude otherwise, as at Bill Gates.

The longstanding convention is to follow that guidance, resulting in the "Alma mater=" field (when used) containing only the name of the institution of higher learning, and the "Education=" field (when used) containing the degrees and fields of study, and optionally the institution and graduation year. When both fields are used correctly, the contents usually appears formatted as it does in the John Roberts article. So to answer the first question at the top of this section: Yes; there is consensus to remove degrees, dates, fields of study, weird font formatting and other "clutter" from the |alma mater= field, but not from the |education= where it is allowed. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not very good with templates but I feel there is a need for an organisation parameter within the infobox, for use in British/Australian/Indian etc articles, in the same way such an option is available at Template:Infobox organisation. This was previously discussed here and consensus seemed to favour such an edit. Could anyone assist with this? AusLondonder (talk) 01:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean you like to have a parameter called |organisation= that displayed a label "Organisation" in the infobox? I see that Template:Infobox organization (the en-gb spelling is a redirect) allows |parent_organisation= as an override for |parent_organization= and adjusts the label accordingly. Although it doesn't offer the option in Visual Editor. I've made the change in Template:Infobox person/sandbox:

{{Infobox person/sandbox
| name = Ernst Stavro Blofeld
| organisation = SPECTRE
| occupation = Master criminal
}}

It seems to work. If nobody objects, I can update Template:Infobox person for you. --RexxS (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@RexxS: Seems reasonable. But how will this work, when the data is fetched from Wikidata - I expect we will need a |language= parameter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

As things stand, it would work with Wikidata only if the editor at the article specifically uses |organisation=FETCH_WIKIDATA within the article. As you say, the alternative would be to equip the template with a |language= parameter and use it to determine the form of each label that has a difference in spelling between en-us and en-gb (or others). My preference would be for the latter, as a longer-term and more flexible solution, but it would require a major effort to convert existing articles, unless the current mechanism is also retained. --RexxS (talk) 13:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

As nobody has raised any objections in the last week or so, I've amended the template to include the alternate parameter. --RexxS (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Is there a general guideline somewhere on how to decide which biographical infobox should be "first" and which ones should be lower in the article or modules? In particular, {{infobox person}} and {{infobox officeholder}} seem to have virtually the same function, with different layout. For example, how should editors decide whether a particular human was a tennis player, scientist, politician or "just a person" if they have done all three through their career? I have not found a guideline or essay to help decide. --Scott Davis ^Talk 02:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Why can't the parameters that appear here appear in each of the 20 other biographical infoboxes? That way the field names are standardized. Some templates are missing spouse=, children=, parents=. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Because of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and WP:OWN issues. The work-around is to use this infobox, with one of the others as a module within it, or vice versa. If you have a specific example, I'd be happy to show you how. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Better yet, I'd like to see module embedding documented somewhere, either here or with a link from here. Last time I tried to do this I gave up in frustration after being unable to find any docs. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I wrote Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes/embed in December 2013. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I see that page is linked from just about everywhere except here. Can we put a link to it from the "module" line in the Parameters table? Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I would need to see how to do that, I have never seen an example of it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Kendall-K1 and Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Done and done. Is that OK? If not, remember that the documentation can be edited by anyone, so feel free to improve it. --RexxS (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Now if we just had a generic way to do this for all infoboxes that would really be something. Template:Infobox building, for example, uses "embedded" instead of "module". Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Work - albeit painfully slow - to standardise infoboxes, and other templates, is ongoing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

For reasons I can't understand, this template is erroring over "years active". If I preview an article using the parameter (it was Willa Holland I was looking at), I get

Warning: Page using Template:Infobox person with unknown parameter "уears_active" (this message is shown only in preview).

and the page is categorised into Category:Articles using infobox person with unsupported parameters. The code looks right in the template, though, so I can't see why it's not showing up.

Could someone take a look? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 18:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The problem was that the "у" in "уears_active" isn't a "y" but a Cyrillic Уу. It was introduced by some vandalism (diff), which was partially fixed (diff): it's easy to see how the editor didn't bother backspacing over the "у." Rebbing 20:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Aha! Thank you! — OwenBlacker (Talk) 23:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, is there a reason why the template prefers that |native_lang_name= contain the two-digit ISO 639-1 code for a native language rather than just having us format |native_name= as:

|native_name = {{langx|ml|ഇന്നസെന്റ് വറീത് തെക്കേത്തല}}

|native_lang_name= doesn't seem to produce any on-screen information, so it's unclear why we're bothering to use it.

Malayalam: ഇന്നസെന്റ് വറീത് തെക്കേത്തല

Gives readers a crucial piece of information that

ഇന്നസെന്റ് വറീത് തെക്കേത്തല

is lacking. "What the hell are those squiggles? [checks page source] Oh, it's Malayalam!" Thoughts on this? Can we change this or is there a highly-technical reason why we can't? I see that the instructions say that we can format the native_name parameter with the {{lang}} template if there is more than one native name, but that seems completely arbitrary, considering that there is no on-screen benefit to native_name_lang. If there are two native languages, suddenly we need to know what they are? In India, there are dozens of native languages: Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, Hindi, Gujarati, Punjabi, Kannada--so while we could easily infer that a native name in the infobox of someone from France is French, that's not so clear in other nations. (Assuming that was the rationale for the guideline.) Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Malayalam: ഇന്നസെന്റ് വറീത് തെക്കേത്തല is not a name. The ISO code from |native_lang_name= is used in the emitted HTML. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Pigsonthewing, I don't understand what you mean, specifically the part about the ISO code being used in the "emitted HTML". If you could please explain that to my non-technical brain, I'd appreciate it. I understand that "Malayalam:" is not a name, but 1) we are encouraged to format it that way if there is more than one native language per the template instructions. So it's not obvious to me why "Malayalam:" should be included if there are 2 names, but not 1. 2) If "Malayalam:" doesn't appear near the native script, it seems that we're ignoring an opportunity to explain to casual readers what the squiggly writing is. Yes, they can infer that it's a name, but in what language? Isn't that an important piece of information to be specific about? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Replied at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Question about native_name parameters of various infoboxes. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Please note that the {{Infobox person}} template does not recognise any parameter named |native_lang_name=, so if you are using that, there will certainly be no difference in what you see. The correct name for the parameter is |native_name_lang=.

Now, assuming that |native_name_lang=ml is what you are actually using, there is no visible effect, this is true; but the web page that is displayed by your browser does differ in one invisible way when |native_name_lang=ml is present, compared to when it is absent. Web pages are not plain text, otherwise there would be no formatting, no semantics. The various sections, blocks, paragraphs and phrases are marked up using HTML, and the effects of this markup need not be visible to a human reader, but can be very important to a machine reader - such as your web browser. The page as a whole is given a language - we use the tag <html class="client-nojs" lang="en" dir="ltr"> to specify that the page is in English and has a left-to-right direction. Within the page, anything that is not English (or not left-to-right) should be marked up appropriately. This language markup might be used by (for example) screen reader software in order to pronounce the words in a suitable manner.

In HTML terms, the infobox is a table, tables have one or more rows, and rows have one or more cells. When |native_name= is non-blank (let's say that it is |native_name=ഇന്നസെന്റ് വറീത് തെക്കേത്തല, a row is added to the infobox containing two cells: the first is a "header cell" containing the text "Native name" (there's some invisible markup right away - the space between those two words is not a regular space, but a non-breaking space); and the second is a "data cell". If |native_name_lang= is blank or absent, the data cell will contain the HTML <span class="nickname">ഇന്നസെന്റ് വറീത് തെക്കേത്തല</span> which displays as ഇന്നസെന്റ് വറീത് തെക്കേത്തല; whereas if |native_name_lang=ml is present, the data cell will contain the HTML <span class="nickname" lang="ml">ഇന്നസെന്റ് വറീത് തെക്കേത്തല</span> which displays as ഇന്നസെന്റ് വറീത് തെക്കേത്തല. The presence of the extra attribute lang="ml" may make no apparent difference in this case, but in some languages it can be crucial. I have seen this happen with some Punjabi names, where the appearance of some letters differs according to whether the name is marked up with <span lang="pa">...</span> or not. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Further to the above; if you have multiple values, you should not use markup like:

{{langx|ml|ഇന്നസെന്റ് വറീത് തെക്കേത്തല}}

but you should use:

{{lang|ml|ഇന്നസെന്റ് വറീത് തെക്കേത്തല}}

This renders as ഇന്നസെന്റ് വറീത് തെക്കേത്തല. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The template documentation mentions that this template tracks Wikidata:Property:P18, except there is no default image pulled through from Wikidata. Is that something we could / should add? Having just set |image = {{#property:P18}} on Carly Chaikin, it is just that simple — it would only require changing |image={{{image|}}} to |image={{{image|{{#property:P18|}}}}} and it should Just Work™, right? Is this desirable? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 11:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Sadly, it won't just work. Despite image (P18) being set as a single-value property, exceptions are allowed (a list is at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Database_reports/Constraint_violations/P18#Single_value ). There are many people who have two images on Wikidata and by default that will result in a failure to show an image in the infobox. A current example would be Ramón Barros Luco (Q1294) - if you paste |image = {{#property:P18}} into the infobox at Ramón Barros Luco and preview it, you'll get an error because {{#Property:P18}} returns Barros Luco2.jpg. One way to fix it is to make one of the mages on Wikidata a preferred rank (as is done at Bob Dylan (Q392), for example), but that still means the fix would have to be manually applied in the Wikidata entries for an unknown number of articles. You can probably imagine the frustration of an editor who works on an article suddenly finding that somebody else (on another site) has added a second image and it's now broken the infobox on the Wikipedia article that they curate. --RexxS (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

What parameter should be used in order to insert the teachers and pupils an academic character have had? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there's a specific parameter for those, because it is not common for teachers and pupils of academics to be key facts in their life, per se, although some exceptions will exist. In Socrates, the parameters |influences= and |influenced= are used to mention influences like Anaxagoras and disciples like Plato. --RexxS (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Those parameters are deprecated in this template - you could use {{infobox academic}} instead. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Infobox scientist has doctoral_advisor, academic_advisors, notable_students, and doctoral_students. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Would like to invite any interested editors to comment at Template_talk:Infobox_adult_biography#Proposal:_Remove_weight_and_height_parameters_from_Infobox_Adult_biography. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Does this look like a reasonable addition?

| Websites = <!-- if person has more than one official website (esp. if more than one occupation is listed above) -->

In some cases a subject has two noteworthy occupations and two corresponding official websites, each with its own set of biographical details and milestones. If the infobox lists only a single official website, many uninformed readers may be misled into thinking that the subject regards his other occupation as unimportant. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Personally I'd rather see the existing parameter modified to support the addition of multiple entries when appropriate, rather than adding another parameter. DonIago (talk) 13:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Could this be addressed by using modules for each distinct occupation? A module for {{infobox scientist}} and a module for {{infobox politician}}, each including the relevant website, for example? --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

A. Dropping redundant, Wikipedia:Weasel word-violating alternative. comp.arch (talk) 14:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

B. An alternative to proposal A. is looking for amended wording to my first change that got reverted; "may be used" seems strange; "should use" better. comp.arch (talk) 14:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a perennial proposal; always rejected, It is not a "weasel word". It is the correct term, as in "come to rest; cease being mobile", not "rest in peace". Furthermore, contrary to your edits, which were correctly reverted, it has no religious connotation, and covers internments other than burials. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Andy is correct, it is the common term for such a location. It does not confer any sort of religious connotation. -DJSasso (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

If you really do mean "internment" I don't see what that has to do with burial. If you mean "interment" I have only ever heard that used to refer to burial; what other types of interment are there? Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

About "come to rest" I didn't think of that, meaning "cease being mobile", and it may not be true, seeing how e.g. the London underground has a non-"policy on the scattering of ashes. We deal with requests on a case by case basis."..[2], you wouldn't need a moving train, for atoms to move (just worms); or scattering ashes at sea. You can consider the proposal revoked, until I look into this more. [I do see eternal home, permanent address, boneyard, necropolis, place of interment and of course graveyard [3] as possible synonyms. comp.arch (talk) 20:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a matter of etymology, not physics. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

"Interment of ashes" is a term-of-art for placing ashes, rather than scattering them - see e.g. http://www.scattering-ashes.co.uk/help-advice/interment-of-ashes/ - this would be associated with a cremation, of course, rather than a burial.

Question for Comp.arch: if we removed |resting_place=, that would leave only |burial_place=, so how would we deal with a subject whose ashes were scattered or interred, but not buried? --RexxS (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Or like an acquaintance (I hesitate to call this person a friend) of mine who had their grandmother's ashes compressed down, converted into an industrial gem and set in a ring. They are now more mobile than they have been for the last 20 years... Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• I propose a pull down menu with options such as "comfy chair" and "cozy warm bed". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Someone is making the argument that rules generated at this template do not apply to the other 35 biographical templates that use the same field, and they need to be negotiated at each of the 35 biographical templates separately (the number may be lower now, since we merge templates as best as we can). The argument is when to use "education=" vs. "alma_mater=" (the singular nourishing mother). The arguments are above on this page, but the changing of the field names has now spread to the officeholder template. Do we really have to relitigate this 35 times? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so. MOS:INFOBOX § Consistency between infoboxes says that parameters should be consistent between infoboxes. Since {{infobox person}} is the most widely used biographical infobox, it seems to me that other biographical infoboxes should defer to it. "Well, we prefer it this way" isn't a good enough reason to disregard the guideline. Rebbing 03:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

It says that parameter names should be consistent, not their documentation. If we want to make the documentation from this template apply to all biographical templates, we should have a more central discussion (ie. not at this template).

The background here is that RAN is edit-warring across multiple pages that use other infoboxes to make |alma_mater= use inappropriate according to the documentation here (eg. by adding degrees or dates). The problem with that is first that those infoboxes don't use this documentation, second that he's trying to convert boxes to use |education= rather than |alma_mater= even when the discussion here hasn't concluded that that should happen, and third that when reverted he refuses to initiate discussion but rather just restores his edit. In other words, while documentation is part of the issue, it's not the only one. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

If you want to redefine |education= and |alma_mater= to definitions other than how they appear in infobox_person, then work to get consensus at the various other biographical templates. Until then they have the same definition that they have here. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

While the usage practices of this template provide a good rule of thumb for others modelled on it, discussions on this page are merely local consensus and cannot be binding elsewhere, if disputed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The description of this parameter is "the last-attended higher education institution" why a single institution? I think we should change it to "the higher education institution or institutions attended". What do you think? --RaphaelQS (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose alma_mater is Latin and is singular and means "nourishing mother", we already have an "education=" field for someone's full education from high school to graduate degrees. We should really just eliminate alma_mater, since the function is duplicated by the "education=" field. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Many people are using the "education" parameter for the secondary school attended (for exemple this is the case with many articles about British subjects) and the "alma_mater" parameter for the colleges/universities attended later, other are using the "education" parameter for the list of diplomas and degrees. I don't see any reason to limit the "alma_mater" parameter to a single institution. Most (if not all) the articles about scientists are listing all the universities attended in the alma_mater parameter. --RaphaelQS (talk) 00:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

That is because those infoboxes were created before the education field was created, or the editors still cling to the old ways. I still use outdated ways of formatting data because that is all I know ... until someone points out a better or newer way. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

This is simply not the case. --RaphaelQS (talk) 00:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Didn't we just discuss this in August? Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

As a bulleted list should they all be capitalized, or just the first one?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 23:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Only the first item in a horizontal list is capitalized. See WP:FLATLIST. Rebbing 01:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

A few minutes ago, I used |module= in an infobox ({{Infobox Muslim leader}}) with this infobox. Usually this causes no problem, but this time, the content was duplicated in the infobox. (Abbas Vaez-Tabasi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) Any idea what has caused this and can it be fixed soon?--Auric talk 00:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done: It was caused because the module parameter was specified twice (data35 and data53) in Template:Infobox Muslim leader. The duplication was introduced on 26 May 2016 with this edit. I've renamed the later parameter to module1. --RexxS (talk) 04:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Would it be possible to make this an alias for the other_names field? It is used in some other infoboxes. Ranze (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

At present, the field labelled "Other names" can be populated by |other names=, |other_names=, |othername=, and |alias=. Are you saying you want to be able to use |nickname= as well as those four? Or did you mean something else? --RexxS (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)