Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Infoboxes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
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]
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
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:
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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.
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, GHTVcontWpWS15:15, 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]
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]
@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.
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=?
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]
Request to Add a Parameter for Native Place or Hometown
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.
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 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]
Use the name of the birthplace at the time of birth, e.g.: Saigon (prior to 1976) or Ho Chi Minh City (post-1976).
[...]
For historical subjects, use the place name most appropriate for the context and our readership. What the place may correspond to on a modern map is a matter for an article's main text.
These countries were all called just "Germany" and that reference is not ambiguous for the times from the German Empire to the Nazi Reich, so that's what I would put in when the birthplace is in a location that still belongs to Germany today. We don't usually write "Federal Republic of Germany" when referring to the current incarnation of the German state, so why should we be more specific for these predecessors? (The "History" section of the article Germany starts with prehistory, not with 1949 or even 1990.) Gawaon (talk) 10:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The name of this parameter is creating a lot of confusion on its usage; it's intended to list lifelong, unmarried partners, yet I've seen many cases where editors are using it for fiancé(e)s or people seriously dating. (One example: see article on Zendaya - this edit, in particular - and yeah, this has been done at that article countless times.) Personally, I'm wanting the name of the parameter to be changed (though I don't know to what specifically); at the very least, I'm interested in seeing past discussions about this parameter, and whether a proposal to rename the parameter has happened. MPFitz1968 (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Specifying birth/death place within a city
For the birth_place and death_place parameters, Template:Infobox_person/doc specifies that what should be included is "city, administrative region, country", furthermore stating "it is not necessary to state: New York City, New York, United States when New York City, U.S. conveys essentially the same information more concisely." This edit is one of the occasions where User:Nikkimaria removed the borough from Brooklyn, New York City, US as the place of the place of the subject's birth and from Manhattan, New York City, US as the place of death -- all supported by reliable and verifiable sources in the article -- citing the template documentation as justification. Are we limited to only listing city and not permitted to include any more detail? Is there any basis to interpret "city, administrative region, country" to mean that we forbidden to mention a more specific place within a city and is there any reason not to list a borough or more specific neighborhood within a city where that information is available? Alansohn (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that in a metropolis that has well known and distinct districts/boroughs/arrondissements/Bezirke/Stadtteile/barrios mentioning them in the infobox enhances the its information value for readers. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've always assumed that yes, it does mean we are forbidden from using borough. For large cities like New York and London, I think the borough would be very useful. Certainly more useful than the country! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The existing guidance is fine. Anything we add to the infobox is potentially helpful to some readers. But, we have to balance that with keeping the infobox at a manageable size and avoiding clutter. They can always find the detail in the article itself. Do we really want Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, London, UK? No, thank you. Edwardx (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree. In cases where something narrower than city is particularly noteworthy, exceptions can be made - for example for Mozart there is an article specifically on the building in which he was born. But as a general rule, city is sufficient. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've seen, one of the main reasons behind influenced/influencers being removed was that it was too broad and allowed people to add just about anyone. However, if we change the parameters to only significant (or we could use a similar word) influencers/influenced, that will narrow it down. Could that possibly work? Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to examples on Wikipedia? I'm no expert on the rules, but I'm pretty sure that there's a policy (I forgot the name) stating that information from other articles can't be used as evidence for implementing something, unless that other article is FA/GA. Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the template parameters "influences" and "influenced", which were deactivated, but perhaps we can activate them again if we add "significantly" behind them to have them apply more narrowly. Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you're asking about specific criteria, then perhaps we could implement it so that a person could get on there only if there is a reliable source(s) stating not only an influence but that the influence had a significant/notable/important impact.
For example, if a reliable source said "Da Vinci influenced Michelangelo", then this would not count. However, if it said "Plato was perhaps one of Aristotle's greatest influences, significantly impacting the way he interacted with the world around him" then it would count under this policy.
I gave a more powerful example there to illustrate why we should consider this, but any source that mentions that the influence was notable and / or expands on the impact could be included, and then again, you're always welcome to revise these ideas -- they're not set in stone.
P.S. Since the infobox is sort of a summary of the entire article, adding it may also depend on how prominently the influence is mentioned in it. Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'd be more convinced if multiple sources making claims that the influencer was significant were required. I'm not yet convinced that this belongs in the infobox rather than meriting full prose within the article, and I'm well-aware that good-faith but inexperienced editors will sometimes add to the infobox without realizing that it's intended to be a summary of the article. DonIago (talk) 06:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64 It sounds like the problem they were encountering there was that some people influenced way too many others (like Beethoven), but in that scenario it would probably be more beneficial to insert the movement/era they inspired, such as 12 tone music for Schoenberg and the Romantic era for Beethoven (those specifically are listed in another section, but you get the point). But if there was one person significantly influenced and nobody else, for example, then it may be useful to pinpoint that one person.
Also, I'm pretty sure that deciding whether to include anything on an article requires some sort of subjectivity.
@Doniago We could do it where it needs 2 or more sources if that's what we reach a consensus to implement. As for where to include, the infobox is supposed to have the most notable information in some articles, and sometimes I think it's very clear that one person had a clear influence on another, and that adding that could have more of a benefit than harm. And for the last part, I don't think we should exclude a rule just because some beginners might break that rule. We could also add a discretion message if necessary.
I remain unconvinced that this kind of information is so critical to any individual that it merits being placed in the infobox without any context, though if other editors feel otherwise then I wouldn't push against them. Right now, it seems to me better that this is handled in prose, where such information can be placed in its proper context. DonIago (talk) 14:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by that? Isn't it pretty obvious what it means when it says Jesus influenced John? Even if not, couldn't we add a note that elaborates on it? And if you're 100% certain that we shouldn't include it, then should I remove it from John's page? And should we remove the influences on the other similar pages? Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't obvious what it means. Influenced how? If we need a note to elaborate, that suggests that this isn't something that belongs in the template. I would absolutely support removing it. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, since the influence/influenced section (or similar) is under the page of multiple articles (including multiple popular and widely discussed ones), removing these from all of those articles would likely require further discussion and consensus seeking. Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My feeling is that this sort of information is too vague and opinion-based to be a good fit for an infobox. It can be stated in article text, where we can attribute the opinion about who influenced whom to the author of a reference and put it in context, but infoboxes do not really have room to say anything more than a bare fact stated as absolute truth in Wikipedia's voice. Significant influences are not that kind of fact. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about which influences are seen as significant or for including influences in infoboxes entirely? Because here all influences are banned from infoboxes, while I believe they're allowed for saints and philosophers for some reason. Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both. I think any inclusion of influences in infoboxes, without a much more clearly specified role, is a bad idea. For an example of a more clearly specified and factual rather than opinion-based influence role for which inclusion is appropriate, see the doctoral_advisor and doctoral_students field of {{Infobox academic}}. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said to Nikkimaria, even with these exceptions doing this will mean removing the influences/influenced section (or similar) of plenty of articles (in ones with infobox types other than person, such as saint), and I think it will require more discussion in a broader area, do you know where we could do this? Wikieditor662 (talk) 08:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You may need to have the discussions at the relevant Talk pages for the infoboxes that include those fields, as different infoboxes may have different considerations. DonIago (talk) 14:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it does seem pretty inconsistent... If showing someone's influence on this infobox is too broad and opinionated here, then why would that be any different in any other infobox like Saint or Philosopher? Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly oppose this. We had these fields in the philosopher template, and they were an absolute magnet for tendentious (and sometimes promotional) material not supported by the article—which is, of course, a violation of the guidelines (see Help:Infobox). Moreover, editors sometimes became quite hostile when their inappropriate additions were removed. You can find the discussion to deprecate these fields at Template_talk:Infobox_philosopher#Influences/influenced. Patrick (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pronouns?
Should the various person infoboxes have a line for pronouns, possibly with a recommendation to use it only in cases where this information is lead-worthy? I am thinking of cases like Karen Yeats, for instance. Yeats's use of they/them pronouns is prominent in the article's lead text (with an explanatory footnote) but not visible in the infobox. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That sort of explicit parameter feels like it would invite all kinds of edit warring in a way that would be highly unhelpful. Article prose feels like a much better way to explore those subjects for whom pronoun usage is notable, and the implicit usage of pronouns in the article text conveys the same information while being guided by WP:MOS. The inclusion of a cut-and-dry parameter is rather wholly unsuited to precisely those cases where it is most important - where there is a significant backstory or controversy. VanIsaac, GHTVcontrabout19:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One could argue that, when they can be clearly sourced, pronouns are as simple a piece of data as the name of the article subject, which makes them ideal for the at-a-glance usage of infoboxes. CapitalSasha ~ talk03:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the unique quality of being communicated directly by virtue of having running prose, I almost see this as an infobox-proof attribute. Remsense ‥ 论09:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I believe the inclusion of these parameters are wholly unnecessary. They only serve to pigeonhole notable people, particularly women, into spouses and parents and nothing else. I think they should be removed. It’s not encyclopedic, or relevant to the articles this user box is used in Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 08:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Is it proposed that these parameters should be dropped from this infobox only for male subjects? It is a misapprehension that spouses and children are pigeonholed by infoboxes of male subjects. Many articles for those spouses and children also have infoboxes that mention their husband, father; see the articles on Virginia Woolf/Leonard Woolf, Clara Schumann/Robert Schumann, Marie Curie/Pierre Curie and their families. How else should those connections be shown concisely and comprehensively? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not SNOW. It will help fight gender bias on Wikipedia because women are commonly, solely discussed and known as a man’s wife or girlfriend and nothing else. The same is not true for a man. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 23:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: In addition to spouse and children, we also have parameters for partner, parents, mother, father, relatives, family, etc. (not to mention, baptismal date, honorific postnominals, nationality/citizenship, callsign, and criminal status). We have many parameters that aren't always needed (or used), nonetheless, they can be used by discerning editors when needed. Giving us greater scope to include useful, interesting, or relevant connections seems to outweigh the concern expressed in the above proposal. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to bow out of a broader discussion about what connections are or aren't useful, interesting, or relevant – although I do believe that we have ample procedures in place whereby such matters can be discussed in both general terms (as part of the many, many checks and balances built into the project); as well as specifically, on a case-by-case basis regarding usage in individual articles. It seems preferable to give editors more tools and options to work with, and let the community intervene in cases where the tools are misused or poorly applied (of course, this is simply one user's opinion). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Will the field be relevant to many of the articles that will use the infobox? If the field is relevant to very few articles, it should probably not be included at all ... How likely is the field to be empty? Any field that might reasonably be empty should probably be optional. However, a field that is usually empty may not be particularly useful or relevant.
As the OP has been blocked as a sockpuppet and their proposal has little support so far, this discussion can probably be closed. If editors believe that is should be allowed to continue, then ignore this message. LizRead!Talk!01:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello. My name is Kia Wright. I am the only child of Carl Wright. I want to add Carl Wright's spouse, Shirley Wright, myself as child, and Blaise Vonbruchhaeuser as grandchild. Thevetwright (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
_-_The_Noun_Project.svg){kind=small}
