Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

“Pronoun” parameter

It is 2023, and it is necessary to provide this in the infobox of those who wish to identify. Why? Today, for example, I got confused when an article referred to the subject as “They,” I reread previous lines and thought it was referring to 2 people only to find out on their Twitter that they use “They/Them” pronouns.

Regardless of your political affiliation or level of sensitivity towards gender, it’s necessary to put a subjects preferred pronouns in the Person Infobox so this won’t happen again. StreetKnockerzEnt (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@StreetKnockerzEnt, See the following previous discussions:

1. Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 36#RfC: Adding a "pronouns" parameter
2. Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 37#Request to add Pronoun parameters under Personal Information section
3. Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 37#Perfered Pronouns

— Archer1234 (t·c) 01:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• The problem is that this parameter invites overspecifying, where editors will supply preferred pronouns even when the subject's gender identity (or non-identity as it may be) is not really a notable part of their life. If the article prose is confusing, then the infobox is not where it needs to be addressed, it should be clarified in prose. It can be as simple as the completely fictional example: "Jamie Bufford (they/them^[1]) is a nuclear physicist at CERN^[2] who headed the imaging program for the Large Hadron Collider^[3][4]. They completed their doctorate in 2014 at the University of Chicago with a thesis on the detection of high-energy cosmic rays^[5]." Or if their gender identity is a significant part of their notability, it probably belongs as a full sentence in the lede along the lines of the fictional: "Jay Charlston (born Jacob Charlston) is an actor and trans activist who rose to fame starring as Ensign Ricky in all five seasons of Star Trek: The Best of All Worlds^[1]. They have used they/them pronouns since coming out as non-binary in 2011^[2]." VanIsaac, GHTV ^cont_WpWS 02:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  A number of parameters "invite overspecifying" (where the actual answer is unknown), including exact date or place of birth or death. One remains free to NOT specify in those cases, or to answer "unknown" if the field MUST be filled in (but what fields truly MUST be filled in)? – .Raven  ^.talk 02:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  Is there editorial guidance about over-specifying in general? It seems like it happens a lot (as Raven points out). Maybe there's on guidance? Or there is, and it's just not enforced or understood? -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  I don't know about broader policy off the top of my head, but good infobox documentation typically discusses when it's best to use/not use a parameter. Of course, many well-meaning editors don't read the infobox documentation... DonIago (talk) 16:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Template:Age

A discussion at Template talk:Age#Inaccurate age shown proposes a change to the way {{age}} behaves. Currently, it always shows a single number of years as a person's age. The proposal is to make |range=dash the default. The following shows an example where a person's birth date is known, but only the year of their death.

• {{age|May 1, 1840|1925}} → 84–85 (current behavior)
• {{age|May 1, 1840|1925|range=dash}} → 84–85 (proposed new behavior; "|range=dash" will not need to be entered)

If this change occurs, it will still be possible to use |range=no to show a single number for the date if needed, like this:

• {{age|May 1, 1840|1925|range=no}} → 85

Please reply here or at template talk if this might cause a problem for infoboxes. Johnuniq (talk) 02:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any infobox problem with that. There may be editors who would have a stylistic problem with that (I'm not one), so perhaps it would help to drop a note at WT:MOSINFOBOX and WT:MOSBIO? – .Raven  .talk 03:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Good idea, I have done that. Johnuniq (talk) 03:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Eminently sensible. I was going to propose this myself (after encountering a case where a "certain" age was presented when no certainty was possible), but I forgot to.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:05, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Request to add 'Salary' parameter

Could we add a Salary parameter to the template? In some instances, a person's salary is encyclopedic information Jack4576 (talk) 01:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

This parameter previously existed and was removed per this discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. I was not aware.

This is a very unfortunate consensus decision by a small number of editors.

Removing 'salary' on the grounds that it might be offensive to some seems to be counter to WP:NOTCENSORED.

Would support adding it back. Jack4576 (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

It was removed more on the grounds of WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE and the near impossibility of keeping the information accurate and updated across zillions of bios. Feel free to open a WP:RFC about restoring it, but I can virtually guarantee you that the outcome will be "no".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Request to add 'Net worth' parameter

Could we add a Net worth parameter to the template? In some instances, a person's net worth is encyclopedic information Jack4576 (talk) 01:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

This parameter previously existed and was removed per this discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. Was not aware, thank you. A regrettable discussion, and on my read, I don't agree with the closer's assessment of consensus, which appeared to come down to a simple numerical vote.

Would be good to have it added again, but a more thorough discussion may be required.

Its pretty baffling to me that Wikipedia has removed such a fundamental piece of information from the infoboxes of public figures. A very disappointing and regrettable outcome. Jack4576 (talk) 03:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to the closer in question. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Looks like a good close of the discussion. Keeping a parameter requires good arguments and a solid majority. Removing a parameter is an easier decision, because the article body can carry the information. If the question came up again, I would oppose adding it. Binksternet (talk) 04:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, looks more like no consensus to me.

I'm not persuaded otherwise by the presence of a numerical majority.

Why would you oppose adding it if it came up again ?

Jack4576 (talk) 04:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I am against adding this. It is relatively uncommon to find RS on the net worth of public figures. The number is often arbitrary. Aquabluetesla (talk) 15:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

That may be the case, however, the parameter can be best used where the number can be identified. It may also be possible to express the figure as a range.

These sorts of difficulties in obtaining information isn't unique to net worth; yet net worth is one of the main things want to find out when searching for information on certain public figures. Jack4576 (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Citation needed for the last part of what you said. That said, I could maybe see it being an optional parameter to be used only when their Net worth was directly related to why they were considered a notable figure. But at best I'd characterize that as a weak support, in part because this may be information that's better characterized in prose, particularly given that net worth is a dynamic figure and $2M in 1975 isn't $2M in 2023. DonIago (talk) 01:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I think its a fairly defensible claim, even without citation, common sense, etcetera etcetera. Perhaps that argument may not sway you, but that is okay Jack4576 (talk) 12:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Really? Because it's not one of the main things I ever wanted to find out when searching for information on any public figure who I wasn't looking up specifically for reasons related to their net worth. DonIago (talk) 03:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm curious as to the net worth of many influential political figures, prominent business people, oligarchs, and members of royalty.

When I navigate to such people's pages (such as when I looked up Gina Rinehart the other day), my reason for doing so isn't usually specifically to look up their net worth. Nevertheless, I would've been interested to see that figure in the infobox. Just as I was curious as to where they attended school, etcetera

Its an interesting piece of contextual information, especially for the bios of powerful people. I'm surprised your response to this is 'Really?'. It seems to me quite intuitive and normal. I'm sure there are many ip users that feel the same; but that's only a hunch. Jack4576 (talk) 06:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

My point is that you claimed "net worth is one of the main things want to find out when searching for information on certain public figures." I don't think that's necessarily true, but also I think making it an infobox field would be problematic for the reasons I've already outlined above, which you haven't addressed. DonIago (talk) 19:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the "on certain public figures" might refer to people either notable for being very very wealthy, or people for whom their level of wealth has recently been brought up in public (or even private) discussion — people do come here to settle their own curiosity, or even debates.

Cf. unresolved "Request to add 'Salary' parameter" above. Recently, watching news about a SCOTUS justice's accepting gifts from a wealthy person who had business before the Court, my wife burst out, "Why don't they just pay justices more?!" I told her SCOTUS justices are among the highest-paid Constitutional officers. She didn't believe me, so I looked it up to show her — here, not on Wikipedia. (They earn more than Senators, Representatives, or the Vice President.) – .Raven  .talk 21:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I do think its true, and I'm surprised you don't think so as to me it seems obvious. Seems we're at an impasse.

Re: "making it an infobox field would be problematic for the reasons I've already outlined above", I don't agree with your reasons. The fact that the figure is dynamic isn't unique to net worth, wealth isn't necessarily all that dynamic, it depends on the person. In any event, a date qualifier like (2023) could resolve that sort of issue. Plus, for especially prominent figures, there are often Wikipedians that are happy to frequently update the figure, as experience has shown

I just don't think your concerns you've raised present all that much of a unique or substantial hurdle in the context of Wikipedia's features more generally; and where it does present a serious issue, the field could be removed as its ultimately optional. It would be a shame if exceptional problems would remove a source of information more generally.

Additionally, I fully agree with what .Raven has said above Jack4576 (talk) 09:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Some people treat infoboxes as a form. In a way, this is true: but the perception as a form can be of one where every field needs to be filled in where possible. So the mere presence of a parameter for net worth could mean that an editor feels obliged to supply a figure, no matter how unreliably sourced. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 05:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

That seems more to be a case of (a) new-user education, and (b) template documentation. – .Raven  .talk 06:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

|known_for= could be used for cases directly related to why they were considered a notable figure.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 13:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Possibly. I'd want a broader consensus on that. DonIago (talk) 03:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

"Relatively uncommon" may well be true, but for an optional parm is not entirely relevant. Even if the only bios it's ever used on are "the ten righest people in the world"... for those 10 infoboxes, a net worth parm would be helpful. – .Raven  .talk 06:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I feel like the "known for" parameter would handle that sort of situation just fine. I would be much more comfortable with those people having something like known_for = $53.6 billion net worth (5th richest in world)<ref>...</ref> than a "net worth" parameter that would elicit badly sourced information being added to inappropriate articles by editors who don't understand that parameters aren't prescriptive. VanIsaac, GHTV ^cont_WpWS 06:15, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh dear. You want only parms that can't be misunderstood? Good luck. Perhaps a good approach might be working on the infobox template documentation to clarify that this swath of parms over here is optional, while those over there are mandatory (which comes down to... article subject name/title?) – .Raven  .talk 06:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

This horse was beaten to a pulp in that RfC. By no metric can anyone say that there is consensus for such a silly parameter. ~ HAL333 02:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm opposed, all I can see with this is a "Can of worms". - FlightTime (open channel) 02:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it detracts from this debate to call the parameter 'silly'. There were plenty of well-respected editors in the last debate that saw good reason for its inclusion. You may not be swayed by their opinions; but they are at least, defensible ones. Jack4576 (talk) 12:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Let's avoid adding back junk parameters to the box. Moxy- 01:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Describing this parameter as 'junk' is not helpful. Well-respected editors are not of your view. Jack4576 (talk) 02:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

And they are free to expound on why they don't consider it junk. But word policing isn't remotely helpful here.

And although the current discussion, which I don't really have a strong opinion of either way, seems to be moving towards rejection of reinstating this parameter, I did want to mention that in my AWB cleanup of the net_worth parameter last year, I retained a log of all of the deleted parameters and their pages. VanIsaac, GHTV ^cont_WpWS 03:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Describing something as unhelpful is not to condemn it as improper, nor is it policing. Jack4576 (talk) 06:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

It assuredly doesn't need to be used in every bio — as many parms don't — but for the sake of where that info is (and should be) included, having that optional parm in the infobox could be helpful. Unless we want to have one fill-in-the-blank-label parm that can be used for all parms not otherwise provided... which would mean editors must manually get the particular formats right.... – .Raven  .talk 05:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• I would be happy to support its inclusion since it adds value to those wealthy indivdual's bio and can easily be sourced to Forbes, the decision to remove it was rather shortsighted.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 18:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Same comment as in the thread above: It was removed more on the grounds of WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE and the near impossibility of keeping the information accurate and updated across zillions of bios. Feel free to open a WP:RFC about restoring it, but I can virtually guarantee you that the outcome will be "no".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

NYC, the center of the universe?

The documentation for the birth place states "Omit unnecessary or redundant details. For example, 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." However, that makes things inconsistent when people have the temerity to either be born somewhere else and die in the Big Apple or vice versa. This came up in Ivan R. Gates, born in Rockford, Minnesota, died in NYC. Why have the state in one field but not in the other? The first six deceased individuals in List of people from New York City are evenly split, while the List of people from Los Angeles, List of people from Chicago and List of people from Boston (from the samples I examined) all seem to have the state included. Is New York City really above other major American metropolises? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Chicago, LA, Boston, Toronto, Vancouver, London, Moscow, Paris, Tokyo, New Delhi, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Beijing, Ho Chi Minh City, Cairo, Nairobi, Stockholm, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Vienna, Berlin, Rome, Athens, Baghdad, Johannesburg, Rio de Janiero, Buenos Aires... etc. There are lots of cities in the US and around the world where it is probably pretty redundant for the infobox to include anything more than the city name. The litmus is somewhere around whether an average adult from the English-speaking world would almost certainly know the city name on sight. They may not know exactly where it is, but they would certainly recognize it as a major world city in any case. After all, calling it Boston, Massachusetts is as meaningful for someone in India as calling it Mumbai, Maharashtra to an American. Since the infobox is supposed to give you only the most important and salient details, it's only when people legitimately need that kind of clarification that it's appropriate to include things like state and country. VanIsaac, GHTV ^cont_WpWS 02:13, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

You're not getting my objection. Why would you have the state in one field and not the other? It just doesn't look right. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

And who gets to decide whether a city is famous enough? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:39, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

To answer the questions, "Why have the state in one field but not in the other? " and "Is New York City really above other major American metropolises?" Because NY is the only name for a metropolis and its state; "New York, New York" is just silly in the eyes and ears of the rest of the world. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Beware pleonasm. Brevity is the sole of wit. Sometimes I think politicians should be taxed by the word. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Soul. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Trimming fluff from infoboxes has become something of an obsession for me of late. "New York City, U.S." or even better, "New York City, US" is quite sufficient. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." Edwardx (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@Vanisaac: @Michael Bednarek: @Objective3000: @Nikkimaria: Everyone seems to have ignored this rule for every other American city I've randomly sampled: Los Angeles, Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Dallas, etc. Only New York City gets a pass, and even that less than half the time. Of the eight people I checked from List of people from New York City, three had no state and five did, including Vincent Alo, who was born in ... wait for it ... Harlem, Manhattan, New York City, New York, U.S. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:11, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Eight is a very small sample. Have fixed Alo. Even if one started removing California, Massachusetts, etc from those city names in the infobox field(s), I think that other people would soon re-add them. So, short of a clear policy diktat, it would likely be a waste of time. Edwardx (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

That's the point. The vast majority of Americans will put in/expect a state. So why is New York City the only exception? Not Los Angeles, not Washington, not New Orleans, etc. Also, the sample size is larger than eight. Remember I also checked various other cities (about six entries each), all with states, plus my long experience browsing through bios. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

See below. Also multiple "Los Angeles"es and "Washington"s. – .Raven  ^.talk 02:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Note, there is a Chicago, Zimbabwe; a Vancouver, Washington; a London, Ontario; a Moscow, Idaho; a Paris, Texas, and a Paris, Ontario; several Baghdads; and numerous Amsterdams, Athenses, Berlins, Bostons, Cairos, Copenhagens, Romes, Stockholms, Torontos, and Viennas. There are also multiple "New York"s, just not multiple places named "New York City". – .Raven  ^.talk 02:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

It's about conveying information concisely. These examples you listed are perfectly clear when the main city is meant. New York is just the most obvious example. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

> "... when the main city is meant." Are we to be mind-readers? If editors see that non-unique placenames omit the specific larger area (e.g. state), then why not for the smaller as well as larger referents?

"New York" (without the "City") is a "most obvious example" of ambiguity – it may then refer either to the city or to the state, or to any of nine other locations: one in Ukraine, three in the UK, five in the USA. – .Raven  ^.talk 09:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I made a mistake. I meant to write 'New York City', which for all intents and purposes is unambiguous. Use of 'Paris, France' is justly ridiculed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

1) As I indicated above, a day earlier: "just not multiple places named 'New York City'."

2) I remember fondly a cherished old lady who used to boast (in jest) that she had been "born in Paris"... always soon thereafter to admit it was the one in Missouri.

3) If in such cases we omit "France" after the name of the Paris there, don't be surprised or upset if others likewise omit the "Arkansas", "Idaho", "Illinois", "Indiana", "Iowa", "Kentucky", "Maine", "Michigan", etc. – .Raven  ^.talk 02:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

You may be interested to read WP:OHTHATPARIS. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Those nine other locations have no claim whatsoever to being primary. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Nor with any of the other city-names. The point was not primaryhood, but ambiguity – as indicated by the need for disambiguation pages.

There's an anecdote that for a while some Japanese-made goods were stamped "MADE IN USA", which was utterly honest — they were made in Usa, Japan. How could customers have known that the "main" or "primary" referent for that name was NOT intended? – .Raven  ^.talk 22:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I just noticed the guideline in the infobox documentation re: New York City and fully concur with User:Clarityfiend on this one. Whomever wrote that guideline is imposing a point of view unfamiliar to the vast majority of English speakers in violation of WP:NPOV (and WP:NOR (no original research) and WP:NOT (WP is not a soapbox)). North American English speakers are strongly conditioned to expect "city, state" (or province) when reading a profile (for example, an infobox in a traditional textbook) and would read "New York City, U.S." as wrong because the traditional usage is "New York, New York". Here is the relevant comparison on Google Ngram Viewer (scanning the entire English published corpus irrespective of dialect). New York, New York has always been very common while New York City, U.S. has always been very, very tiny in the published corpus. This infobox should not impose an arbitrary usage which violates strongly established usage in formal written English. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

> "New York, New York has always been very common...."

The 1977 song, film, and musical play of that title might have something to do with it.

But as a Wikipedia infobox entry, since we usually wikilink placenames there, saying "New York" twice just links us to a disambiguation page twice. Wikilinking the article names for both places gives us "New York City, New York (state)", unsightly unless we pipe at least the latter: ⟦New York (state)|New York⟧ → New York. Piping both names gives us your four-word result, using ten words of source text. I'm sure many editors feel it's safe to shorten it to just the unpiped New York City because (a) it's a unique placename as is, even in plain text; (b) the linked article details where the place is.

Addressing an envelope doesn't afford the advantage of wikilinking. – .Raven  .talk 14:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

But your analysis is focusing solely on what's the simplest thing for WP editors to write with the least keystrokes/characters, not what's the easiest way to communicate a location in an infobox without making readers think "that looks weird." As an old boss used to tell me all the time years ago, "It doesn't matter what you think, it matters what they think!" Good writers composing formal written English always prioritize clarity for their readers, not the amount of work it requires of themselves. Also, for the benefit of foreign readers and younger readers not fully conversant in the complexities of New York geography, linking to both the city and the state helps readers distinguish between the two. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

> "your analysis is focusing solely on what's the simplest thing for WP editors to write with the least keystrokes/characters"

If that were the case, I would have stopped at "four-word result, using ten words of source text", and not gone on to say: "I'm sure many editors feel it's safe to shorten it to just the unpiped New York City because (a) it's a unique placename as is, even in plain text; (b) the linked article details where the place is." – .Raven  .talk 06:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

No, you're still not responding to the key point: the first thought of most native American English speakers, upon seeing a city with no state in an infobox (in a textbook, magazine, etc.), is going to be "that looks weird." Linking and pipelining isn't sufficient, because that requires too much work from the reader. Any time a writer throws their reader off track with an unconventional usage, they have already failed to clearly communicate. (As an attorney, I get paid to communicate complex legal concepts very clearly.) In computer science terms, you've already failed if you force readers to divert from regular parsing into exception handling. This is formal English, not creative English, which are completely different registers. (That critical distinction is pounded into freshmen in English reading and composition courses at top-tier research universities.) --Coolcaesar (talk) 02:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Heads up re future RFC on revision to Template:Infobox person/doc on 21 November 2016

I wanted to give everyone a heads up that when I get around to doing the necessary research, I plan to initiate an RFC later this year (October or November) on this revision to Template:Infobox person/doc on 21 November 2016 which added this language: "Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, it is preferred to omit unnecessary or redundant info. For example, it is not necessary to state: "New York City, New York, United States" when "New York City, U.S." carries exactly the same information for far fewer characters. Countries should generally not be linked per WP:OVERLINK." This text is the ancestor of the current text in the infobox documentation which states: "Omit unnecessary or redundant details. For example, 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."

The edit summary references a then-ongoing discussion at Talk:Donald Trump, which is archived here. The editors involved in that discussion at that time did not recognize that such a drastic change to this infobox's documentation should have been pushed through an RFC first (preferably, advertised on the village pump) to establish broad consensus. And now we have editors relying on this text in the documentation to put "New York City, U.S." in infoboxes (for people like J. Robert Oppenheimer who were born in or died in New York City) when the natural usage for most Americans would be "New York, New York, U.S."

To restate the relevant portion of the argument I expressed above in the discussion under the topic initiated by User:Clarityfiend: The first thought of most native American English speakers, upon seeing a U.S. city name followed by U.S. with no state in an infobox (in a textbook, magazine, etc.), is going to be, "that looks weird." Linking and pipelining isn't sufficient, because that requires too much work from the reader. Any time a writer throws their reader's parsing off track with an unconventional usage, they have already failed to clearly communicate.

Because the "city, state" usage is so strongly taken for granted in American English, I have never needed to research it. If anyone knows of a source that has already done the homework (as in compiling the prevailing styles prescribed in the various style guides), please feel free to post a link.

I intend to follow up on this at some point, because (1) I think it's preposterous to omit the state and (2) if there is yet another insidious movement afoot in American English style guides to borrow yet another bad idea from British English which I was unaware of, I should try to be aware of it. (By the latter, I'm referring to the Chicago Manual of Style's foolish decision to adopt the British English convention of dropping periods in abbreviations.) Coolcaesar (talk) 02:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Not aware of a source reviewing this aspect of various style guides, but from what I've seen in the style guides themselves the present recommendations appear common - eg AP Style or ASA. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The shortening causes too much churn from drive-by editors who, not knowing the technicality, expand it. Per WP:PROPOSAL:

Most commonly, a new policy or guideline documents existing practices, rather than proposing a change to what experienced editors already choose to do.

It'd be one thing if it was already common practice, but it wasn't (and still isn't?), hence the back and forth. And why was a specific infobox singled out. Why not all geo names, in all tables? The scope was too narrowly solicited and discussed.—Bagumba (talk) 04:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

More on NYC

Understood the use of "New York City, U.S." in the case where New York City is the place of birth. Would it make sense as an exception to use the borough in NYC when it is known, like Brooklyn, New York, U.S., instead of the broader New York City? That specificity seems more useful for a reader glancing at info in the Infobox. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 20:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Resting place is a softener

Jane Doe
Burial place	her backyard

We should change it to something like "grave site" per WP:EUPHEMISM. Connor Behan (talk) 06:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times; see archives. Have you tried |burial_place=? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. That doesn't seem to acount for people in columbaria, above-ground tombs, and other options that aren't "burial". Not sure what a more generic term would be that isn't the obnoxious "resting place" emphemism.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

The instructions under "Inline lists" state: Do not use <br /> markup to create fake lists, as in: Item one<br />item two<br />item three.

The example of an infobox for Bill Gates uses <br /> in the boards parameter. Please replace this with a suitable inline list template.

Thank you.--76.14.122.5 (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Adding "union republic" notion to the doc

Hello. I've made a small additional detail for birth/death places regarding union republics, like in the USSR. As the regions were first subordinate to the union republic, then the union itself, both of them have to be shown. Like Moscow, Russian, USSR or Baku, Azerbaijan SSR, USSR — Toghrul R (t) 07:24, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I think you mean "Moscow, Russian SFSR, Soviet Union", since "Moscow, Russian, USSR" doesn't make sense in English (has a dangling adjective "Russian" with nothing to modify). That said, I think this change bears discussion. I can imagine both pro and con arguments for including this level of detail.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Simplifications for birth dates, death dates and age

Hi all. I have been noticing that it is rather slow and tedious to enter the birth dates, death dates, age, and on top of that, figure out which date formula to use ("1 March 2024" or "March 1, 2024"). Would it make sense to simply add these parameters?

• birth_m (for month)
• birth_d (for day)
• birth_y (for year)
• death_m (for month)
• death_d (for day)
• death_y (for year)
• date_formula = "dm", "md", "df", "mf" (whichever optional choices that make the most sense)

That may feel like a lengthy queue of data, but so is entering that same data to templates within this template. -- Puisque (talk) 13:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

If you had suggested this fifteen years ago, it may have been adopted. But with almost half a million transclusions at the present time, this really isn't going to happen. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

{{Death-date and age}} is much simpler to use than {{Death date and age}}. Maybe the documentation overleaf should mention that. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

{{death date and age}} supports easy syntax such as

• {{death date and age|24 Feb 1993|12 April 1921}} → February 24, 1993(1993-02-24) (aged 71)
• {{death date and age|Feb 24, 1993|Apr 12 1921}} → February 24, 1993(1993-02-24) (aged 71)
• {{death date and age|24 February 1993|April 12, 1921|df=y}} → 24 February 1993(1993-02-24) (aged 71)

Sorry but it looks like I never got around to update the template's documentation. Johnuniq (talk) 08:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

After you do, the WP:TEMPLATEFORK at {{death-date and age}} should be TfDed (or TfMed, if there's a feature to merge in).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Category:Pages using infobox person with education and alma mater parameters

Is it possible to create a tracking category for pages using infobox person with education and alma mater parameters? Khiikiat (talk) 14:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Criminal penalties

This is just a basic and obvious modification proposal. Under parameters there is "criminal_charges" plural and "criminal_penalty" singular. My suggestion is to change "Criminal penalty" to "Criminal penalties". Hopefully I shouldn't have to explain why this would be beneficial. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Education and alma mater parameters

Hey, there. I've been wondering about something: does the "education" and/or the "alma mater" parameters apply to universities (for example, the Stephen Hillenburg article has the "alma mater" parameter for his universities, while the Hugh Jackman article has the "education" parameter for his universities)? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I guess I'm not sure what you're asking? It seems to me that the infobox documentation sufficiently explains the difference between the two params? The short answer is that either can be used. DonIago (talk) 02:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I see. According to this edit on the Tara Platt article by Therequiembellishere (talk · contribs), the editor's summary states "[the] alma mater [parameter] is deprecated". However, as indicated on Template:Infobox person#Parameters, the "alma mater" and the "education" parameters are included. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I see no evidence that the alma mater parameter is deprecated. Short of hearing from Therequiem, I would feel free to revert any non-constructive edits made based on that claim. DonIago (talk) 07:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Here's what the documentation says:

|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 (not addition to) |education=, and will often consist of the linked name of the last-attended institution of higher education (not secondary schools). It is usually not relevant to include either parameter for non-graduates, but article talk page consensus may conclude otherwise, as perhaps at Bill Gates.

Generally, this is how I apply this guidance:

1. Use |alm mater= when listing the last higher-education institution from which the person earned a degree/was graduated.
2. Use |education= when listing more than one higher-education institution or when including details like degree, year, field of study, and/or location of the institution
3. Do not use both |education= and |alma mater= in the same article.
4. Include only higher-education institutions; no primary, secondary, K-12, sixth form, etc. Only post-secondary institutions, which could include trade schools, acting schools, etc.

Notes

 — Archer (t·c) 03:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I would use alma_mater for most actors and entertainers, and education where their profession is more academic in nature. In cases of both, if there's something notable and different like actor Ken Jeong having an MD, you can put that in education. Honorary degrees? Probably not for either. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 02:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

“Website” after “military career”

See the infobox for Neri Oxman. The placing of the website section makes it seem like the website is directly connected to the military service. This is particular so on mobile. Is there a good way to fix this? Thanks Brianga (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• You could switch the order of the modules, so her scientific career details come after military. But I wonder if having a dividing line between modules wouldn't be a good idea anyway. VanIsaac, GHTV ^cont_WpWS 04:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

'Children' parameter

I propose that we include something like - "This parameter may be used for biological, adopted, foster, or step-children" - in the 'Explanation' column for the "|children=" parameter here, similar to that of "|parents=". - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Would we expect that the guidance remain that the number listed be all-inclusive (i.e., no breaking out the number of each type and only listing the names of those who are notable)? For example, would either of these be acceptable?

| children = 5, including 2 step-children

or

| children = 3, plus 2 step-children

or would we prefer just the total:

| children = 5

At this point, I am not lobbying one way or another. I am just asking a question.  — Archer (t·c) 17:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest that specifying one of those is probably more problematic than leaving it undefined. The reason is simply that the answer to the question of whether step-children should be mentioned and how should be should reflect sourcing, not whatever arbitrary parameter definition we say. Does the subject talk about their 5 children, then go on to talk about them making a distinction between bio and step-children? Then the "5, including 2 step" formulation would best reflect that. If sources quote them as saying I have three children and two step kids, then "3, plus 2 step" is best. If sources show that they don't make the distinction between their bio and step kids, then "5" is all you need. And if the sources show that they talk about their 3 children, even though they are married to someone with two additional kids, then the parameter should just say "3". Number of children is not an objective fact, it is a subjective interpretation where the most important perspective is the article subject's own characterization of their family as found in reliable sources. VanIsaac, GHTV ^cont_WpWS 07:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I've just arrived to check if the documentation had a view on this, after seeing an edit of an infobox children field from "2" to "2 (adopted)", by an editor who felt this was a factual correction. Would be good to see a clarification. Belbury (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Autocomplete the template with wikidata

In the spanish version of Wikipedia, when I add the equivalent template, it automatically autocompletes with the data obtained from Wikidata (if there is any), but I'm trying to do the same in the english version, and It doesn't do it. Ivanmarribas (talk) 12:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

The page in that I'm trying to add the template is "Alain Deneault". His Wikidata entry. Ivanmarribas (talk) 12:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

The community rejected it some years ago. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you know where that discussion took place? I'm wondering if it wouldn't assuage those kinds of concerns to have a bot that autopopulates a template, but only on request. VanIsaac, GHTV ^cont_WpWS 20:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't. The problem centres around the verifiability policy in conjunction with the living persons policy - pretty much all information about a living person must be sourced in the article itself, which is not possible if some of the information is pulled from Wikidata. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

And the problem of vandalism that does not show on watchlists unless enable stupefying large feed of Wikidata. Johnuniq (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Placement of "Sir"

Currently the parameters mandate that the title "Sir" be placed in the honorific_prefix field. I am not a fan of this. It leads to, for example, Keir Starmer being described as "the Right Honourable Sir", which just sounds silly. "Sir" should go alongside the individual's name, just as "Lord" does in the infoboxes of peers (e.g. Lord Byron). Zacwill (talk) 11:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

The Keir Starmer article doesn't use this template. Most of the peers appear to have their title instead of their name in the template header. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

And there's nothing "silly" about grouping the titles/prefixes together. Just because you would casually refer to this person, in person, as "Sir Keir" doesn't mean that every mention of their name on Wikipedia has to be fused to a "Sir" prefix.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I think you've landed on the reason why these prefixes should be treated differently. "Sir" is widely used even in colloquial speech, whereas "the Rt Hon." and similar honorifics never appear outside of the most formal circumstances. Zacwill (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

WP isn't written in informal speech. And there are other things used informally to formally, such as "Dr[.]", "Prof.", "Rev./Revd", etc., which we do not treat as "magically attached" to the name. I really don't understand what the obsession is with treating "Sir/Dame" as uniquely calling for special handling. There's nothing particularly special about it, and all this special pleading is tiresome (years and years of tiresome, without ever consensus going in the direction of giving those titles unique treament).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

This "obsession" is reflective of normal British usage. The 19th-century scholar Henry Yule, for instance, was a professor, a doctor, a colonel, and a knight; his ODNB article identifies him as Yule, Sir Henry, treating the "Sir" as part of the name but ignoring the academic and military titles. To be clear, I am not arguing for Starmer to be referred to as "Sir Keir" in every context in which his name appears; I'd simply like to see his title displayed properly in the infobox. He is not "the Right Honourable Sir ... Keir Starmer", he is "the Right Honourable ... Sir Keir Starmer". Zacwill (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

"Normal British usage" in a running sentence has nothing to do with what infobox line a datum is put on in an infobox. In a normal British English sentence, all of the titles someone could have and which were used in the sentence would be put on one line, so there is no special exception to be made here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth I agree with Zacwill. A discussion on this subject is taking place here Talk:Ben_Key. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 22:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree. It looks ridiculous. We bold the title in the first line, so why not in the infobox? The honorific_prefix field should be used for honorifics such as The (Right) Honourable and for ranks, not for titles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:01, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

See Template:Infobox saint/testcases. On Wikipedia, we bold the title/prefix "Saint" in the first line (as per MOS:BOLDSYN), but not in the infobox. It is counterintuitive, but well-established as an infobox-related practice on Wikipedia. Prefixes in the main body and prefixes in the infobox do not have to look the same. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's at all "well-established". It's merely liked by a few editors. It's illogical, inconsistent, looks weird and makes no sense. In any case, we're not talking about saints here. That's an honorific that is only applied in a religious context and is not always used (e.g. Thomas More is usually referred to as Sir Thomas More and not St Thomas More, except in a Catholic religious sense). "Sir" and "Dame" are titles that are always applied. Once John Smith is knighted he is always Sir John Smith in the future unless he chooses not to use it (which is rare) and reputable media outlets commonly use it to refer to him. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

'"Sir" and "Dame" are titles that are always applied' is just patently false, though. They're commonly and traditionally applied in British writing, less commonly applied in other Commonwealth writing, and almost entirely eschewed otherwise. And several subjects to whom they pertain disdain them in their professional life, while various others (whatever their personal preferences) are usually referred to without them, even in material that post-dates the knighthood/damehood (as just one example, Emma Thompson; see GNews search which starts with newer material at the top, and includes British publications – some of them eventually use Dame in the article body but are not using it in the headlines). "I like to use them" or "the materials I mostly read like to use them" doesn't quite to "they are always applied".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

They're commonly and traditionally applied in British writing... Generally, we're talking about Britain here, since the vast majority of knights and dames are British. And most British publications use them. Very few people who have them do not use their titles. Actors are not usually credited using them on screen, but they are usually referred to using them by the British media. As an example, obituaries of Sir Michael Gambon: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. "I don't approve of titles" and "America doesn't use them so Wikipedia shouldn't" (which appear to be the two basic arguments against their use if we boil things down) are not really valid arguments. The fact is, in the country with which they are most associated, they are pretty much always used. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The key words here are "most", "few", "not usually credited", "usually". And the fact that you can find an example of British press being deferential in a particular obit is meaningless; we already know that the British press is mostly defferential when it comes to titles of this source, but they do not dictate how to write an encyclopedia for a global audience, and even they are not uniform about it (even within the same publication, much less across all of British publishing).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Deference has nothing to do with it. It is not "defferential" (sic) to display a person's name and titles correctly. Zacwill (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Your views on the British journalism industry are of no relevance here. Atchom (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I also completely agree with Zacwill. "Sir" should go alongside the individual's name. It looks particularly inappropiate, when separated out, if "Sir" is the only item on the preceeding line. Dormskirk (talk) 13:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Are those in favour of this stupid documentation clause really unable to see how ridiculous this looks? Or is it just pure dogma? And given the clear lack of enthusiasm for it in this discussion, does Omnipaedista really have any mandate (other than aforesaid dogma) to go around changing all these infoboxes? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

If you mean this version of the article and its infobox, it looks eminently, 100% sensible to me, with the actual name clearly separated from all of the both pre- and post-nominal titles of all sorts, exactly as it should be. If you move "Sir" to the same line as "William Horwood" it looks like his birth name was "surname: Horwood; first name: Sir; middle name: William". While not many native English speakers would be confused into thinking that, especially about a British subject, "Sir" is actually an uncommon given name (e.g. in the American South where a lot of people are given riculous "title names" like this; I had an uncle in Mississippi literally named Prince John Campbell, I kid you not), and a string that simple is virtually guaranteed to be a valid given name in a variety of non-English languages.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The changes by Omnipaedista look premature to me: this has not been concluded yet. Dormskirk (talk) 14:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

They were entirely compliant with the template documentation. "Someone isn't doing what I wish would be done if my proposal to change things actually had consensus" doesn't make someone complying with how it is actually done now "wrong" or "premature". The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate a WP-wide consensus to do what you want to do instead. No one should do what is not the current norm just because you want to engender a new norm that diverges from it. You seem to have the idea that if you don't like something then everyone has to stop doing what you don't like. WP doesn't work that way. If you want to make a WP-wide change in how this template is documented and used and what parameters it has, for what purposes, then you should open a proposal at WP:VPPRO to implement a change. That would be the appropriate venue, since such a change would affected many thousands of article across all sorts of topics, and is in spirit entirely contrary to the advice to MOS:HONORIFICS to avoid undue use of or attention toward such titles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

When this issue was raised at Talk:Ben Key you said that it should be discussed here, and now that it's being discussed here, you're saying that it should be discussed somewhere else. Make up your mind please. Zacwill (talk) 06:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I specifically said "and advertise it at WT:MOSBIO and WT:BIO and WT:BLP where the biography-focused editors, not template editors, are", but no one did that, so this discussion is not going to have sufficient WP:CONLEVEL to make a change that could impact many thousands of articles, with only a tiny handful of people commenting, and it mostly being the same handful of people pushing for special treatment of "Sir" who always do, and the same handful of people who oppose them. This is a long-term circular discussion, which has not WP:TALKFORKed over to WT:MOSBIO and turned into another circular debate. This is never going to be resolved until it's put up for a site-wide RfC that people in large numbers actually see and participate in. In the interim, the consensus has not changed MOS:BIO says what it says and the template documentation says what it says.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why a relatively minor change to a template's documentation would necessitate altering MOS:BIO. From the way you're hueing and crying, you'd think that we were arguing over something a lot more significant than where exactly a word should go. "Sir" already appears in infoboxes – we just want to display it in a more logical way. Zacwill (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

But only a tiny, tiny number of people so far, who have been beating this dead horse for years against overwhelming ooposition, think that what you want to do is "a more logical way". There is nothing logical about having a parameter for pre-nominal honorifics and a parameter for the name yet moving one of the pre-nominal honorifics into the name parameter. That is illogical by definition. And such a change would affect thousands of articles across innumberable categories, as well as inspire doing the same thing with other titles, so yes this abosolutely should be a prominent RfC and not a WP:FALSECONSENSUS attempt at a talk page virtually no one watchlists. Or the stick should just finally be dropped.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be unaware that the header in the infobox lists the name by which the individual is commonly known, not their full name or birth name. The birth name is further down. So the header name has nothing to do with birth name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not unaware of any such thing. |name= is for their name, not their name with pre- and post-nominal titles glommed onto it. These parameters are really, really, really obviously separate for a reason and mean what their names say they are and what the documentation says they are used for. No amount of "I wish the template was different because it doesn't suit my personal preferences" is going to change that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Your reply would have more force if you did not mistake "hon suffix" for "name". Atchom (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you also get confused when you see, for example, Margaret Thatcher referred to as "Baroness Thatcher" in her infobox? Does this give you the impression that her Christian name is "Baroness"? Zacwill (talk) 16:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Not me personally, but it could easily confuse non-native English speakers. "Baroness" and other pre-nominal titles belong in |honorific_prefix=. It is quite literally why the parameter exists. That article's infobox usage is clearly against both the template's documentation and MOS:HONORIFICS and the very purpose of the infobox's |name= parameter whis is to give their WP:COMMONNAME and agree with the article title. It's an outright abuse.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

You have a very low opinion of non-native speakers' intelligence. I don't think this could "easily" confuse them at all. Also, every single infobox pertaining to a peer is structured like Lady Thatcher's. Are you going to impose your idea of what an infobox should look like on all of them? Zacwill (talk) 06:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with intelligence. Beginning to intermediate ESL people not deeply exposed to the British titles system are not apt to recognize the string "baroness" (not a common word), and it will simply look like another Western given name. This is complicated by the fact that outside of Britain there actually are people with names like "Baroness" and "Duchess" and "Duke" and "Princess" and so on. Actually even within Britain for that matter; Sacha Baron Cohen is English and is not a baron. It's real and fairly common (especially among certain communities, like African Americans in the US South). I had a real-life uncle (now deceased) named Prince John Campbell. See also King Vidor. But this is largely beside the point. The |name= parameter is for giving the name (the common one, the article title) in the infobox, it is not for ginning up honorific forms of address that are not used by virtually any sources anywhere to refer to the subject. The Thatcher infobox and the one at Christopher Guest are farcical trainwrecks.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

As I said, every single infobox pertaining to a peer is structured this way. See David Cameron, Benjamin Disraeli, Bertrand Russell, Lord Tennyson, John Buchan, Betty Boothroyd, etc. etc. This has been the consensus way of doing things for a long time. Zacwill (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Just a patently false statement. The very first peer that popped into my mind, Sean Connery, has his pre-nominal "Sir" title in the parameter for pre-nominal titles, exactly where it belongs, and there are plenty of other cases. The fact that a small number of editors are going around on a WP:FAITACCOMPLI spree of trying to push Sir/Dame out of the parameter that exists for it and wrongly into the name parameter to establish a WP:FALSECONSENSUS for their deferential preference, against both the documentation of the template, against the obvious purpose of the parameters, against the meaning and spirit of MOS:HONORIFICS, and against the basic principle that the infobox name and the article title should not confusingly mismatch, is the very reason that a site-wide RfC needs to address the question. This has become both a content and behavioral dispute at this point.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The fact that you think Sean Connery is a peer makes me wonder if you should be engaging in this kind of discussion at all. Zacwill (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Just a momentary terminological brainfart. My central point is that using a "slow-editwar" fait accompli approach to abuse the template parameters for a group of these people based on their social-status classification (peers in the case you actually brought up) is not how actual consensus is established. We do not do this parameter abuse for knights (except where some of the Fr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) pushers have recently being doing it there, to make them more like peers), and we do not do it for royalty. There is no reason to do it for the peers class in between them, except as a PoV-pushing wedge to eventually also do it to knights and royalty. The only reason the British peers articles mostly are abusing |name= to give titles instead of names is that a small number of editors have obsessively forced them to be this way without an actual site-wide consensus to do this at all, and against the documentation of the templates, and against MOS:HONORIFICS saying not to use them, though they can be mentioned somewhere in the article. It's very telling that pages like List of life peerages (2010–present), etc., are built in tables that have columns reading "Name" and "Title", and there is no confusion between them; the titles are where they belong, in the Title column. The only place where this confusion occurs on the entire system is in peer (and a few knight) infoboxes, all because of the "to hell with the guidelines and the documentation, I'm going to treat this like my personal blog and do whatever I like" behavior of a tiny handful of single-minded users.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The slow edit war comes from users such as Omnipaedista who have been systematically changing the infoboxes then claiming that this was how it was meant to be all along. MOS is clear: "Sir" and "Dame" are treated as part of the name and bolded in the lede with the person's name. The infobox "name" field explicitly refers to it being common name. Atchom (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The topic was "MOS:SIR, Knighthoods & Damehoods are name changing titles, much the same as peerages, should the MOS be updated to reflect this?" The answer was clearly no. --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The lack of consensus on the MOS proposal does not mean that your position commands support. It's not hard. Atchom (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

"Bolded in the lede" does not mean "bolded in the infobox." The template documentation still says what it says. --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

"template documentation pages, and essays have not gone through the policy and guideline proposal process and may or may not represent a broad community consensus" Atchom (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

As I just said: the topic was "MOS:SIR, Knighthoods & Damehoods are name changing titles, much the same as peerages, should the MOS be updated to reflect this?" The answer was clearly no. So the template documentation of Infobox person has already been discussed. What has never been discussed is your edit here. --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

We are supposed to be a global encyclopedia. Pandering to the subset of people from one particular country who desire to offer extra deference to some other people who, by accident of birth, donations to a political cause, or getting to be famous for singing, acting or sports is not how a global encyclopedia should operate. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

There is a parallel discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Honorifics in infobox_headings. --Omnipaedista (talk) 04:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Bastun's comment that we are supposed to be a global encyclopedia. --Omnipaedista (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

After far too long in searching and asking for it, I have not found the discussion where consensus was reached that established the documentation in the first instance. The argument that the documentation must be mindlessly adhered too, and can't be changed is a WP:FAITACCOMPLI style argument. Such a global policy surely has receipts? Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 04:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The documentation of the relevant template (Infobox person) has been indicating that |honorific_prefix= is to be used for these titles since at least November 2017‎. For the past 6 years, no one seems to have changed this bit of the documentation. This is the deafening silence of consensus (WP:SILENCE). You are invited to open an RfC at WP:VPPOL in case you think otherwise. --Omnipaedista (talk) 05:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The documentation in question was added on 12 June 2007, here: [6], and appears to come from thin air. The fact that this same/very similar topic of conversation keeps coming up suggests that Wikipedia:Silence and consensus isn't a valid argument. Surely the receipts exist, otherwise the whole suggestion that this is community wide consensus is itself baseless. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 05:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Nford24 see here and here. For what it's worth I think "Sir" should be part of the name in the infobox and would vote accordingly if there was another RfC, but unfortunately it was a pretty clearcut result. ITBF (talk) 09:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The 2022 RfC had no consensus; but the long-standing usage before Omnipaedista began his attritional warfare was for "Sir" and "Dame" to go into the "Name" field. That is the status quo and Omnipaedista's mass-edits does not override that. Atchom (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@Omnipaedista: I beg to differ regarding your claim of a "deafening silence of consensus". I would suggest the fact that you have recently systematically gone through hundreds of New Zealand biographical articles and moved "Sir" or "Dame" from the subject's name to the honorific_prefix parameter of the infobox shows that the longstanding practice for editors of New Zealand articles is that "Sir" or "Dame" is part of the name field in the infobox, just as they are placed in bold as part of the subject's name in the lede. I wholeheartedly agree with those contributors to this discussion who have contended that honorifics such as "The Right Honourable", "The Honourable", "Her Excellency", etc., belong in the honorific_prefix parameter, but "Sir" and "Dame" do not, and concur with their explanations for this. It was suggested above that this is a single country issue, but clearly it is not. Indeed, it would be impossible to find a country further from the United Kingdom than New Zealand. It is unfortunate that earlier RfCs on this issue were not alerted to Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Article alerts. Paora (talk) 11:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I do not think that the editors proposing a change to the longstanding template documentation have demonstrated a change in *wikiwide* consensus. If these editors think they can change consensus, they are invited to open an RfC at WP:VPPOL as suggested above. Local consensus (WP:LOCALCONSENSUS) cannot override community consensus. —Omnipaedista (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

See this example of local-consensus enforcement: [7] --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The correct place to have a discussion about Infobox person is here at Template talk:Infobox person, not at Village Pump. If all proposed changes to templates etc took place at Village Pump, it would be completely overwhelmed. It is quite clear from the discussion above that there is no consensus on this issue. Dormskirk (talk) 14:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

But it was through the Village Pump that we got rid of the controversial |ethnicity= and |religion= infobox parameters. --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

You were literally the user who reverted that change. You can't do an edit and rely on it as evidence of third-party enforcement. That is absurd. Atchom (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

What is absurd is that you just proposed different placement for the honorific prefixes for the Infobox you are interested in while disregarding what the documentation of all other infoboxes (including the parent infobox, Infobox person) has been saying for the past six years. --Omnipaedista (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

By the way, the main reason why there was no documentation change after the previous discussion ("MOS:SIR, Knighthoods & Damehoods are name changing titles, much the same as peerages, should the MOS be updated to reflect this?") is that the proposal did not clarify why 'Sir' is not to be treated as an honorific prefix. Even the Wikipedia article Sir says it is a honorific prefix; where is the rational rebuttal of the claim made in the current documentation and our own article about the matter? --Omnipaedista (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

It is getting clear that this is about a specific Wikiproject defying the wikiwide guideline's intent and documentation. This is a borderline conduct issue. If a guideline has been defied without any compelling rationale by a small group of editors (see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS), I would like to think that ArbCom should issue remedies to fix that. The irony is that the people who wrote the documentation of this infobox (by the way, I am not included in them) more than six years ago are being accused of abusing consensus levels. The Infobox person template (effectively, the model for all other biographical templates) is being used on hundreds of thousands of pages and is intensely watchlisted. How can a local consensus be formed regarding Infobox person? --Omnipaedista (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't know which Wikiproject you are talking about and I am almost certain I am not a member of it. You have repeatedly failed to show the consensus you claim exists. You have abusively changed thousands of pages to create new facts on the ground. Half of your arguments don't make any sense, such as when you cited your own actions as evidence of consensus enforcement. Atchom (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

For once I agree with Omnipaedista, there seems to be a conduct issue. Old mate is trying to now gatekeep us (as in clearly more than one editor) from even discussing this topic now. I'd love for you to elaborate on which Wikiproject "defying the wikiwide guideline's".

We also have the right to question anything written on the documentation, Wikipedia:Consensus literally comes with note stating they're not perfect, "template documentation pages, and essays have not gone through the policy and guideline proposal process and may or may not represent a broad community consensus"Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 07:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

For everyone's convenience, I flag that Omnipaedista has been carrying on his editing rampage across Wikipedia. Editors may wish to escalate this. Atchom (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

(outdent) No, please check again. I cited your actions. In any case, 1 person’s opinion is not sufficient to change long-standing common practices wiki-wide supported by both discussion on the parent template’s talk page, and by larger conversations and guidelines wiki-wide. --Omnipaedista (talk) 00:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
These two are your edits and they are in defiance of the parent template's documentation: [8] & [9]. --Omnipaedista (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The above thread and various reverts indicate that many editors disagree with your interpretation, Omnipaedista. There is clearly no established or agreed consensus, and claiming that one exists on the basis of an infobox parameter – a parameter that wasn't exactly in widespread use until your recent edits – is disingenuous at best. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Of course there was widespread use before my edits. The earliest such edit I can remember is by MarnetteD back in April 2015 (the article was "Alec Guinness", an intensely watchlisted article). Within the next couple of years after that edit, most of the articles about knighted celebrities had been changed accordingly and the new common practice was eventually documented in Infobox person's documentation. I only started editing that parameter in late 2020 when I noticed that certain Wikiprojects such as WikiProject Military history and WikiProject New Zealand just defied the general guideline. --Omnipaedista (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

The fact that certain editors have only now discovered (through some of my recent edits) what has been common Wikipedia practice for the past 8 years actually bolsters my argument about a specific Wikiproject ignoring/defying the wikiwide guideline's intent and documentation. --Omnipaedista (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

If it was common practice in 2015 you wouldn't have had to manually edit thousands of pages to make them conform to your scheme in 2023. Atchom (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Ah, so it was added by SMcCandlish, who as we can all see from the discussion above is a vociferous advocate of it. Interesting. Frankly, I can see no actual consensus to add anything of the sort or for your edits. The "new common practice" appears to merely be that favoured by a tiny handful of editors who have enforced their views on Wikipedia, not "common practice" at all. As Atchom points out, there was no common practice at all until you started your editing spree. The fact that only celebrities had in general had their titles listed in your favoured way is actually more an endorsement of Atchom's statement than yours. Generally, only people the self-appointed "enforcers" noticed had their styles altered. Most of those infoboxes created by those of us who work on British biography in general rather than only on celebrities used the other style. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you realize that there was an actual vote involved? --Omnipaedista (talk) 05:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

An RfC by general use is not a vote, if it was, then it was 7-12, however, an RfC uses the weight of argument, and the opposing side really had no clear opposition to the change. The most common point was the lack of understanding that Sir/Dame is a name changing title, but they also had responses like "Argument not strong enough, Don't see a reason to change." which carry little to no 'weight'. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 05:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The bottom line was that your side did not win the argument and that the RfC did not effect any changes, so the template documentation still says what it says. --Omnipaedista (talk) 10:14, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Template documentation is explicitly not evidence of consensus, so having conceded the last point you've no leg to stand on. Atchom (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

(outdent) Atchom just made the following edits: [10]. --Omnipaedista (talk) 09:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

The 2022 RfC is clearly a consensus (at a much higher WP:CONLEVEL venue and with many more participants) against jamming Sir/Dame into the name field, and it is in no way magically overturned by some refuted kvetching on this talk page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The consensus of that discussion was that 'Sir' and 'Dame' are high-grade (as opposed to routine) honorifics, not actual names, and have no place in the "Names" part of the infobox. --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The "RfC" (although it doesn't appear to have actually been a formal one) was never closed and therefore cannot really be used as some form of consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:RFCEND. Please also note that consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity as per WP:CONS. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I am quoting: "If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable." --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The UK government does consider knighthoods/damehoods to be name changing titles, which is often overlooked or just ignored. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 21:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Your argument has not been ignored; it has been refuted in the RfC above. A report issued by a Public Administration Committee does not hold any legal authority in the United Kingdom. Furthermore, it is even more preposterous to suggest that such a report may be used to dictate Wikipedia's policy regarding style. --Omnipaedista (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

It was never refuted at all actually, and is a perfectly acceptable reference. The report literally states "We found that few people have any grasp of the difference between a CB and a CBE, or why some people become GBEs, some KBEs and some are simply Knights Bachelor. Name-changing honours are especially baffling, and carry connotations of social divisiveness." is a direct representation where the last RfC failed, most no respondents don't grasp the fact its a name changing title in the exact same fashion as peerages. Putting Sir/Dame where it belongs would not create any special policy, merely properly fall into line with existing policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nford24 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. The "you are saying a select committee report is legally binding" thing is a strawman and should be treated as such since literally no one is saying that. But it is very good first hand evidence of the relevant body of practice. Atchom (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

If "Sir" is truly a name-changing title in practice then how come encyclopedias like Britannica simply say Alec Guiness or Winston Churchill as opposed to Lord Byron? "Lord" is name-changing in practice; "Sir" is not. I do not think you know what editors are looking for as a reference when drafting the documentation of an infobox. --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh we're deferring to random Britannical entries now? When Wikipedia has our own conventions? The far more authoritative Oxford Dictionary of National Biography includes Sir in the title, but of course that undermines your argument so you don't mention it. Atchom (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Actually it’s a good thing Omnipaedista mentioned the Britanica entries, as both the Alec Guiness & Winston Churchill entires mention “name in full: Sir…” in their version of the info box. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 06:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Yet "Sir" is not part of the title of the article which I would argue is the real equivalent of the name parameter of our infobox. I also think that your are inconsistent here. Britannica editors have "George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron" in the full name parameter of their infobox, but I do not think you want us to have "George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron" in the name parameter of our infobox (instead of Lord Byron). --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The use of the title ‘Lord’ is the informal way to address both a Peer and more specifically a Baron. EB’s article naming policies are definitely whack, however I’m not sure what you’re trying to drive at? Are you now suggesting we want ‘Sir’ added to WP article names? WP’s article naming policy gives preference to the commonly known name of the individual, as it should. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 21:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Let me spell out what I said. What Wikipedia does is this: we use the name parameter of our infoboxes the same way that Britannica uses the name parameter (their article titles) of their infoboxes ("Alec Guinness", "Lord Byron"); but in the lead of our articles, we boldface all the components of what Britannica calls "full name" (so we boldface Sir in the lead of Alec Guiness; we boldface "George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron" in the lead of Lord Byron). I now realize this correspondence has not been spelled out in this thread before; in any case, Wikipedia practice reflects Britannica practice. --Omnipaedista (talk) 10:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

[Citation needed]. Atchom (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Just open the Britannica links I cited above. --Omnipaedista (talk) 10:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

That theory of yours doesn't appear to be accurate. There are several thousand articles listed on Britannica with 'Sir' in the article name - britannica.com/search?query=sir&page=6 Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 05:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Most of those appear to be about people born before the 20th century. As I said above Alec Guiness and Winston Churchill do not include 'Sir' in the article name. The discrepancy in the article names seems to imply that Britannica editors do not follow a consistent policy. Including it or not is a matter of style preference. The relevant Wikipedia RfC has chosen the style you do not like. --Omnipaedista (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Above in an extremely rude and belittling manner you bluntly said that Wikipedia follows the Britannicas style, now you’re saying it only follows the style adopted by a handful of articles out of thousands. The list also includes people born after Churchill & Guinness just so you know. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 21:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

It's almost as @Omnipaedista is making it up as they go along! Atchom (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

What was rude and belittling was Nford24's sentence "The most common point was the lack of understanding that Sir/Dame is a name changing title." --Omnipaedista (talk) 09:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

That statement came from a referenceable government report. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 09:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

You are missing the point of the other side though. Wikipedia-style policy is not governed by government reports. Infobox parameters are just the layout of infobox, not information provided for readers. We could argue for years over whether "Sir" is name-changing or not. The key question is whether specific honorific prefixes go in the honorific-prefix field in the infobox or the name field in the infobox. To settle that we need to cite style guides and other encyclopedias, not government reports. Other editors did not ignore your source in the latest RfC, they just found it irrelevant and you were explicitly told so.

And I just noticed another issue with your style preference. If you were completely consistent with your own view, you would go for the suggestion to include just "Sir" + "First Name" in the name parameter as per Cambridge Dictionary: "Sir": used as the title of a knight (= a man who has been given a rank of honour by a British king or queen), with a first name or with both first and family names, but never with just the family name. Now, what the template documentation says is in accordance to the latest RfC result. Namely, we don't go neither for "Sir First Name" (which is unheard of on Wikipedia), nor for "Sir First Name + Last Name" (because jamming Sir/Dame into the name field is not explicitly dictated by any of the style guides that have so far been invoked by the parties involved), but we separate a stand-alone, high-grade prefix from both the first and the last name.

I never claimed that template documentation is set in stone. I merely claimed that an RfC discussion is necessary when it comes to controversial matters, an RfC did indeed occur, and that RfC concluded with the view that your style preference has not been properly backed up by convincing style-related arguments. --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

"Other editors did not ignore your source in the latest RfC, they just found it irrelevant and you were explicitly told so." Only one respondent to the RfC even made comment on the reference, "the second, more absurd, premise is that UK law or convention governs Wikipedia style policy." For which Cambial made a strange remark given the reference in no way made an attempt to force policy, something you've been told repeatedly, but seems to constantly fall on deaf ears.

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue with the Cambridge Dictionary reference, I don't believe anyone has suggested 'Sir Churchill' be placed into any infoboxes that I've seen. If anything the dictionary reference should be used with a grain on salt given that the definition above suggests 'Dear Sirs' is the correct form of address to multiple men when 'Messrs' is actually the correct title.messrs Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form)

Ralbegen also commented on your source, and the comment was: I don't see why a UK Parliament's select committee report saying that knighthoods are confusing and different people have different preferences about what to be called should bear on Wikipedia style.

Cambridge Dictionary has a style guide for Sir (used as the title of a knight, with a first name or with both first and family names, but never with just the family name). It would be more consistent if your side suggested we use "Sir Winston" in the name parameter of Winston Churchill so that we adhere to referenceable style-guide prescriptions. --Omnipaedista (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Your own source says it's issued with both first and family name. Ralbegen's response I left out because it failed to directly address the point of the reference in that it says 'Sir' is a name changing title, and only responded the my point that most people don't understand how the titles work. Of all the respondents, no one actually declared the reference irrelevant, and If even one person had, there are six people in this thread that consider it relevant. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 21:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Actually, "consistent" was not what I meant, "convincing" is a better word. My point is that most editors can understand why the prefix "Lord" can be included in the name parameter in Lord Giddens because one cannot easily parse "Lord Giddens" if "Lord" (a style for certain ranks of nobility) is visually separated from "Giddens"; in the same vein, most editors could understand why the prefix "Sir" could be included in the name parameter if we went for simply "Sir Winston" (Option A) because one cannot easily parse "Sir Winston" if "Sir" is format-wise separated from "Winston". But since we go for "Sir Winston Churchill" (Option B), we can expect our readers to be able to parse the name even if Sir and "Winston Churchill" are format-wise separated (actually most RfC contributors pointed out that separating "Sir" from "First Name + Last Name" is more helpful to our international readers). I stress "format-wise" because the whole thing is a matter of presentation, not a statement about how important specific prefixes are (that's why I said earlier that this issue is not about knighthood-related "information provided for readers").

Now, you seem to be claiming that we can resolve this debate about style by having a debate about the importance of the relevant titles; that's a category mistake. In any case, the relevant RfC ran for 1 month and 15 days (RfCs nominally run for 30 days) and for whatever reason the outcome was that the 2017 version of the template documentation did not need to be changed. (By the way, WP:RFCEND says, "If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable.") Since you find this outcome unfair, why don't you either open a new RfC (since you want to change the current documentation) or escalate to ArbCom? What we've been doing here for the past few weeks is merely interpreting a past RfC. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

(outdent) Where is my fishing net? I am in need of some trout... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I just notified the editors of two relevant templates: Template talk:Infobox officeholder and Template talk:Infobox military person. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Atchom has been edit-warring on the template documentation pages Template:Infobox officeholder/doc and Template:Infobox military person/doc (without discussing changes in the respective talk pages even though there are relevant threads there now) and simply ignoring what Template:Infobox person/doc currently says. --Omnipaedista (talk) 10:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

It's been 135 days since this topic was created. Could someone briefly summarize the discussion? From what I understand, until this discussion turns into a site-wide RfC that a sizable number of people participate in, the issue will never be resolved. --Omnipaedista (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The topic of this discussion is something I've taken a side interest in through my own editing, but I've only just come across and read through it. Not having participated thus far, I'll take a stab at summarising:

As far as I can see (although please correct me if needed), we're simply re-litigating the subject of this "informal"(?) RfC on whether "Sir" or "Dame" should go in |honorific-prefix= or |name=. From what I've noticed, placing it in |honorific-prefix= is the prevailing convention for British biographical infoboxes, and by extension for most knights and dames on Wikipedia.

As for myself, I don't have a strong opinion as to which is objectively preferable, but I agree that we should ideally have consistency across all knights/dames regardless of nationality. There would however be an argument that this is not significant enough a change such that we should ideally just stick with the most common form in use. Pending a wider RfC or other discussion that allows us to decide on one form, I suggest that we stop edit-warring on this issue. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 16:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, only knighthoods (and by extension damehoods) awarded by the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, Belize, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Tuvalu and the Solomon Islands (all Commonwealth countries) carry the Sir/Dame prefix. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 05:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Baronets. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Baronets are also purely a Commonwealth thing. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 23:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

References

template_name

can we fix it so that template_name isn't added to articles when visual editor is used? Frietjes (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)