Template talk:Infobox person

I think there's been a small oversight in the infobox documentation that has not affected the vast majority of articles, but has created a rather silly pattern of edits and reversions on the Jonny Kim article, which I have noticed for years before I became a more frequent editor as standing almost completely alone in its formatting of the education parameter.

It currently reads: (n.b. these are unbulleted lists in the respective articles)

The style that most readers are likely familiar with is the following example from another NASA astronaut and Featured Article, Kathryn D. Sullivan:

Richard Nixon's article demonstrates the norm, also consistent among FAs, that parent institution is listed, rather than the specific professional school, etc.

That is, Duke University in lieu of Duke University School of Law, Harvard University rather than Harvard Medical School, etc.

User:Fourthords insists on four distinct differences from the style used in, so far as I can tell, every FA in BLP that contains the parameter, and anecdotally, most articles I have read in the last decade:

• List degree abbreviation before naming institution

• Use periods in the abbreviation of degree (against MOS:ABBREV)

• Abbreviate name of institution (over the years U. of San Diego, Univ. of San Diego, Harvard Medical)

• List specific subordinate school attended (again, e.g. Harvard Medical School instead of the standard Harvard University)

Of those, the first is the only that is directly relevant to the documentation language here, although the remaining 3 might also be addressed in the event that the consensus is documentation language should be altered.

However, this user has, on dozens of occasions of reversion over a period of at least five years, pointed to the language of the infobox documentation ("Education, e.g., degree, institution and graduation year, if relevant.") as prescribing the order of degree, institution. This results in the current format on the Jonny Kim article, which again, has been edited by dozens of editors dating back nearly to the article's creation to be in line with FAs in this category, only to be reverted by a single editor who insists that their view is the established consensus (ironic, in light of the volume of edits to the contrary).

As I see it, there are three paths to resolve the issue: we either need to change the wording of the template, identify and edit all of the affected articles using different order, or determine by consensus here that the infobox documentation is not a prescriptive style guide in light of the overwhelming number of high quality articles that ignore the word order.

I'm not quite sure why it's the Jonny Kim article where this has been insisted upon, but here we are.

The following are further examples of relevant FAs at odds with the infobox template word order:

John Glenn

Harvey Milk

Anthony Fauci (note: not Weill Cornell Medicine)

Rutherford B. Hayes (note: not Harvard Law School)

Hopefully we can achieve a consensus and resolve this matter with some finality. Ihpkt (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

User:GuardianH Mentioning you as I see you were among the editors participating on the talk page. I hope you will read here and provide comment. Ihpkt (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

User:Therequiembellishere you have also been involved as an editor on the Jonny Kim page and this topic may be of interest to you. Ihpkt (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Prima facie, the principal content for |education= would be… the education received/attained by the subject (e.g. a bachelor's degree in underwater basket weaving), which is born out by the instructions: "Education, e.g., degree, institution and graduation year, if relevant." However, "[i]f very little information is available or relevant", the documentation recommends using |alma_mater=, in which the expected content is the school at which the subject studied. If this discussion comes to a consensus that the particular schoolhouse is more important to the subject than the education received, I would recommend prioritizing |alma_mater= and deprecating |education=. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 05:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Fourthords, thanks for your comment, which seems to be a recapitulation of my own summary above to include the quote of the "instructions." You lose me with your recommendation to prioritize alma mater. At no point has anyone suggested that degree attained should not be listed, and this would exacerbate the lack of stylistic uniformity across high quality articles.

My principal concern is how to address the conflict with hundreds of FAs. Of the four discrepancies between those and the education sections you have been involved in editing, could you please offer your view on your interpretation of the policies and guidelines as they stand right now, and the way to ameliorate this stylistic conflict with a significant number of articles going forward?

The reason I frame it this way specifically is that your claim is that this is not a matter of style, but is required by the parameter. If that is true, it stands to reason that hundreds of FAs must be corrected to reflect this.

With regards to the remaining three discrepancies, your edits are the only ones I have encountered across thousands of articles in BLP that abbreviate institutions in the infobox, including to nonstandard abbreviations such as "USN Academy" which reads as bizarre for those familiar with the U.S. Naval Academy, as USN is typically an initialism for "United States Navy" as an example, rather than "Naval." I am also wondering whether it would be considered encyclopedic to omit words from the names of institutions, or how it enhances clarity or is otherwise in the interest of readers to do so. Thoughts? Ihpkt (talk) 06:31, 26 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I concur with User:Ihpkt's proposal to change the wording of the template to conform to actual usage.

I had not noticed that sharp discrepancy and I would like to thank User:Ihpkt for bringing this to the WP community's attention.

The current documentation is clearly improper and should be changed to conform to the longstanding actual consensus usage: school name first, then degree abbreviation. The most likely reason for that consensus usage is that it follows the traditional format for summarizing educational accomplishments on a résumé in the United States: school name, degree, and year.

I also concur with User:Ihpkt that it is odd to abbreviate the U.S. Naval Academy as USN Academy. It is common knowledge in the United States that USN means the United States Navy and not United States Naval. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:22, 27 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Agree with Coolcaesar and Ihpkt. Clearly the documentation should be changed for clarity according to Coolcaesar's comment, but I would also note that the documentation has been misinterpreted by Fourthoulds to mean a literal ordering of the information, as opposed to items that should be included in the parameter. There is a very clear standard as demonstrated by an overwhelming number of articles to be what Ihpkt laid out above. Changing the contents of the parameter to an odd abbreviated version (e.g., U.S. Naval Academy as USN Academy; or the current documentation at Jonny Kim) is disruptive and a fringe format.  GuardianH  21:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Description of suggested change: template documentation of "education" parameter should be changed to reflect consensus usage and prevent further disruptive editing of infoboxes.

Diff:

These changes reflect current consensus usage in Featured Articles, based on an intent to reduce clutter (from listing multiple degrees unnecessarily on separate lines, e.g. Harvard College and Harvard Law School), to enhance clarity (e.g. emphasizing parent institution, as many constituent schools have long names that may be less familiar to readers trying to quickly parse information, such as Penn Carey Law) and avoiding abbreviation. Under the current guidelines and examining consensus usage, it's not clear that readers are served by graduation year in this section, as it is almost never used and has never been clearly relevant in a way that merits inclusion in the infobox, and is a detail best reserved for an 'Early life and education' section.

See consensus on the talk page

Complete removal of the alma mater parameter may be justified. It's not clear what additional information it communicates, but its connotation of fondness and pride does tempt many editors to include complete educational information in that parameter, where it seems it doesn't belong under the documentation as written or as I have proposed it here. But a discussion for another day, perhaps.
Ihpkt (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. The documentation page is at Template:Infobox person/doc.—Bagumba (talk) 03:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Done: Sorry, my first edit of any template or documentation page. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction! Ihpkt (talk) 03:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Ihpkt: No worries, it's not initially obvious. —Bagumba (talk) 04:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Should we condense place names by omitting subordinate countries, for example, Berlin, Germany, Belgrade, Yugoslavia or Moscow, Soviet Union from past to present. After a discussion at Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 38#Adding "union republic" notion to the doc, and this edit. Absolutiva (talk) 22:41, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think subordinate countries should generally be included, because removing them makes the infobox much less informative. Using your examples, for instance:

• Berlin: whether someone was born in East or West Germany makes a major difference in their biography
• Soviet republics: removing them makes the ___location information 15 times less informative - we can no longer tell if someone was born in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Uzbekistan, Georgia, etc but just a vague "Soviet Union". This is especially true for less widely known place names, e.g. (picking a random place) Korostyshiv, Soviet Union would not say very much to many people, whereas Korostyshiv, Ukrainian SSR, Soviet Union would at least let readers see that the person was born in Ukraine.

How I think we should condense place names in infoboxes instead is to remove subdivisions below the level of subordinate countries - e.g. the Oleksandr Syrskyi article's infobox now lists his birthplace as Novinki, Vladimir Oblast, Soviet Union. This is the worst of both worlds as it skips mentioning that he was born in Russia, but instead includes an oblast name that most readers not already familiar with the region wouldn't be able to place. Instead, I think this should be Novinki, Russian SFSR, Soviet Union. We also shouldn't list both subordinate countries and their subdivisions, e.g. Kryvyi Rih, Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, Ukrainian SSR, Soviet Union would be too long, but Kryvyi Rih, Ukrainian SSR, Soviet Union is just right IMO. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 13:32, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Take a look at discussion for Stalin's infobox (also for Putin's infobox as undiscussed), which "Russian SFSR" is omitted to make it concise as per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, stated "...information should be presented in a short format wherever possible, and should exclude unnecessary content". Absolutiva (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for linking these. I do disagree that Soviet republics are unnecessary content, for the reasons I outlined above - Novinki, Russian SFSR, Soviet Union is useful in a way that Novinki, Soviet Union is not, because "born in the Soviet Union" is true of most people from that region who are 35 or older, and adds very little value. I can see the argument for removing Soviet republics when the city is very well-known (e.g. Moscow), but I wouldn't want to create a blanket guideline that subordinate countries should never be listed.

Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the reason for conciseness is to [allow] readers to identify key facts at a glance - I think this would err too far on the side of removing key facts, rather than making them more accessible. If I saw Novinki, Soviet Union in an infobox, I would have to look at the article text to see where that is, defeating the point of the infobox. But this is my opinion, and it would be good to see if there's a community consensus on this. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 17:16, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree with @Helpful Cat. The Soviet republics where those people were born are almost always relevant to the latter's notability (e.g. Mila Kunis, Milla Jovovich, and Georgiy Gongadze). Also, per MOS:INFONAT, we should include the former in |birth_place= if they imply the latter's citizenship (e.g. Vladimir Putin, Mikhail Gorbachev, and Alla Pugacheva). Thedarkknightli (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, this is a great point about implying citizenship, which lets us skip the citizenship field in those cases. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 14:41, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Most Soviet people are considered to be Russian citizens, you cannot just add into |nationality= parameter, see this example. Absolutiva (talk) 21:52, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Most Soviet people are considered to be Russian citizens

Well, no, that only applies to people from the Russian SFSR, not people from the other 14 Soviet republics. (Arguably the likelihood that readers will assume the Soviet Union = Russia is another reason why listing Soviet republics is an important clarification)

Also, per MOS:INFONAT, |nationality= should not be used, but |citizenship= is fine (but citizenship can be omitted if it can be inferred from the birth country). Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 02:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

See edits by a user for these examples of removing "Russian SFSR" from the infobox, it should be concise and comprehensible:

• Special:Diff/1180368251
• Special:Diff/1146990765
• Special:Diff/1136769412
• Special:Diff/1127336855
• Special:Diff/1046908553

Absolutiva (talk) 11:01, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I see that some users are currently doing this. My opinion (since I guess this discussion is meant to gather opinions) is that they shouldn't for all the reasons I listed above, though. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 13:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Not for people born in (or near) the largest cities in historical period (for example, Berlin, Germany, but not Berlin, Kingdom of Prussia, German Empire, because the German Empire or Weimar Republic is the common name for Germany). Everybody knows what capital and largest cities (including Berlin or Moscow) are. Infoboxes should be concise. On the other hand, specifying a small town and administrative division (for example, Gorki-10, Moscow Oblast, Soviet Union, but not Gorki-10, Russian SFSR, Soviet Union) because it forces the reader to follow the link for the town that they might not know. Absolutiva (talk) 03:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I can see the argument for leaving out Soviet republics or other subordinate countries when the city is extremely well-known.

On the other hand, specifying a small town and administrative division (for example, Gorki-10, Moscow Oblast, Soviet Union, but not Gorki-10, Russian SFSR, Soviet Union) because it forces the reader to follow the link for the town that they might not know.

Sorry, I don't really understand this sentence, maybe you could clarify?

I generally think that if we're going to list one subdivision, it should be a Soviet republic rather than an oblast (or in general, a subordinate country rather than a lower subdivision). Let's change your example a bit (because Moscow Oblast is obviously in Russia as you said). I think Gorki-10, Gorki Oblast, Soviet Union tells the reader very little, while Gorki-10, Russian SFSR, Soviet Union at least tells the reader that this place is in Russia. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 14:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

By avoiding the use of Soviet republics, for example, in Maxim Gorky's infobox where he died, in a small town: Gorki-10, Moscow Oblast, Soviet Union should be different by using subdivisions of the Russian SFSR. For the capital city in oblasts, krais and autonomous oblasts, by avoid repeating unnecessary subdivision: Moscow, Moscow Oblast, Soviet Union, so that Moscow, Soviet Union, would be simple and concisely. Absolutiva (talk) 01:35, 18 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

At the very least, let's establish that no further regional clarification is needed for immediately recognizable major cities such as Berlin, Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kiev. (For Berlin, one can use West Berlin if necessary, which is indeed important.) Similarly, for a small town in a large city's area it would be precise and sufficient to specify Moscow Oblast or Leningrad Oblast. And even if RSFSR ever needs to be mentioned, this alone is just too broad, it could be anywhere between Kaliningrad and Vladivostok. It's much less of a problem for the other Soviet republics since they are all much smaller. — Mike Novikoff 16:50, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Again, Thedarkknightli restoring "Russian SFSR" to infobox for Vladimir Putin and Mikhail Gorbachev. Absolutiva 02:05, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree with @Thedarkknightli here; I think "Russian SFSR" is useful in those infoboxes. One can easily imagine a reader with the basic question "Was Putin/Gorbachev born in Russia?", and the infobox should answer that quickly. This is especially true for Gorbachev, as Privolnoye, North Caucasus Krai is not an easily recognisable place; however, I would argue it's also useful and does no harm for Putin, as Leningrad has undergone so many historical name changes that readers could be forgiven for not instantly recognising it. Infoboxes should be useful to readers and allow them to "identify key facts at a glance"; while that means being concise, it also means not removing key facts that are useful to readers. Helpful Cat {talk} 03:05, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

See RfC discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia#RfC: Omission of Russian SFSR from biographical infoboxes. Absolutiva 03:09, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

"Russian SFSR" is not any more recognizable than Leningrad - most readers will not understand that to be the country now known as Russia. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:38, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've got to disagree - I think it's intuitive to many/most readers that the Russian SFSR corresponds to Russia, the Ukrainian SSR corresponds to Ukraine, etc. In comparison, if you don't know a city name, you have no way of placing it. Helpful Cat {talk} 10:20, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

The guidance for |birth_name= at Template:Infobox person states: "Name at birth; only use if different from |name=." This has been interpreted in two ways:

1. Use |birth_name= for the full birth name, unless the full birth name already appears in |name=. Example: |name=Richard Nixon and |birth_name=Richard Milhous Nixon in the article about Richard Nixon.
2. Use |birth_name= only if the name was subsequently changed. This is Absolutiva's interpretation. Examples: ""birthname" is redundant since he never changed it" and "Birth name is redundant".

Which interpretation is correct? Khiikiat (talk) 12:20, 25 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

The second. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am fairly sure the intended meaning is the first one. I have looked at many biographical articles, including many good articles and featured articles, and they all include the birth name in the infobox. Template:Infobox person gives the example of Bill Gates: |name=Bill Gates |birth_name=William Henry Gates III. And Template:Infobox academic gives the example of C. S. Lewis: |name=C. S. Lewis |birth_name=Clive Staples Lewis. Khiikiat (talk) 10:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

We have the parameter "criminal_charges", which is "for convicted criminals only". So shouldn't the parameter rather be "criminal_convictions"? —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 15:45, 2 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Something has gone wrong in the "title" parameter. The text appears extremely large, a different font, etc. etc. See for example: Lisa Su. This is an issue going on with every article with the parameter.  GuardianH  08:34, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@GuardianH: it looks fine to me. Can you post a screenshot of what you are seeing? Also, what is your device, browser, etc? VanIsaac, GHTV ^contr_about 18:48, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Vanisaac Possibly this is an issue going on only with my system (Macbook, Chrome). For some reason, anything in the parameter appears in an enlarged white-only font.  GuardianH  22:49, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I can only surmise it has something to do with the class42=title for that data. Anyone know what's going on there or why it's in the code? I don't know how CSS works on Wikipedia, and it's very badly documented, but that seems misplaced to me. VanIsaac, GHTV ^contr_about 03:39, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Vanisaac: Where do you see this class42=title? It's not in the page wikitext, and not in the HTML that is served either. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

When I use "View Source" for {{Infobox person}}, somewhere around line 125 is "| class42 = title". My understanding is that will format data42= based on the CSS class "title", whatever that is. I'm wondering if that's causing the issue with that line specifically on their device. VanIsaac, GHTV ^contr_about 03:04, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I thought that you meant at Lisa Su. Anyway, as documented at Template:Infobox#Main data and Template:Infobox#HTML classes and microformats, the |class42= parameter is the class associated with the |data42= parameter. The code at Template:Infobox person has:

| label42    = {{#if:{{{office|}}}|Office|Title}}
| data42     = {{{office|{{{title|}}}}}}
| class42    = title

and since Lisa Su has

| title              = {{no wrap|President and CEO of [[AMD]]}} (2014–present)<br/>Chair of AMD (2022–present)

this is as if Template:Infobox was being fed

| label42    = Title
| data42     = {{no wrap|President and CEO of [[AMD]]}} (2014–present)<br/>Chair of AMD (2022–present)
| class42    = title

and the emitted HTML is

<tr>
  <th scope="row" class="infobox-label">Title</th>
  <td class="infobox-data title"><span class="nowrap">President and CEO of <a href="/wiki/AMD" title="AMD">AMD</a></span> (2014–present)<br>Chair of AMD (2022–present)</td>
</tr>

and that's where the class ends up - in the <td class="infobox-data title"> tag. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I feel that class="infobox-data title" seems like it would be a CSS class for formatting article titles in an infobox, and that it would probably be inappropriate for a job title. I think it's probably what is causing the issues for GuardianH. VanIsaac, GHTV ^contr_about 21:53, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

A class is not necessarily used for CSS formatting; some classes have purposes that are totally unrelated to formatting. In this case, the infobox-data is used for formatting (it applies two declarations, text-align: left; and vertical-align: top; to the data cell where that "President and CEO of ..." text appears), but the title class is present for the benefit of external tools, in order to detect the type of data held in each cell - in this case, a job title. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I noticed on Miley Cyrus' page it says her spouse is Liam Hemsworth. (and vice versa) They are divorced and were married for barely over a year. One of these people was really abusive to the other. Google searches for "Who is Miley Cyrus' Spouse" gives her ex husband's name in enourmous 150 pt font with Wikipedia listed as the source. I know the idea is that it says Spouse if there's one and Spouses if there's two or more. I also understand the section is designed to be a list. Can we make it say "Marriage history" or "Former spouse" if there's one person AND a divorce date? Is there a better idea for renaming? A lot of the history of Marriage comes from literal ownership, Mrs. means "belonging to the mister." I don't think people who were divorced want listed under "Spouse" and it's generally confusing. GlowingLava (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

The infobox states both the year they were married, as well as the year they were divorced, directly after the name of the respective spouse. Google AI's inability to glean context is a Google problem, not a Wikipedia problem. The information is clearly and concisely stated, with context provided immediately after the name. Literally within a dozen text characters after the name, you can see that they are divorced. I don't know what else we can do without misleading readers by withholding pertinent information. Talk to Google - they're the ones lying to readers. VanIsaac, GHTV ^contr_about 04:09, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, the Google thing is just an example. The issue is more fundamental to the English language. If someone asked who your spouse was and you said your ex-spouse's name, you'd be wrong. Does the infobox have the ability to avoid this confusion? More than half the marriages in my country end in divorce, the infobox should be able to elegantly handle this situation or be worded as not to cause the problem in the first place. GlowingLava (talk) 06:14, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Should we add a tooltip for the relatives and partners parameters? I frequently see a lot of back-and-forth edits of users adding exhaustive lists of non-notable relatives and partners to infoboxes. The labels would read Relatives and Partners. MB2437 23:42, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Nay. It's semantically redundant, and would imply any other parameter in the infobox somehow needn't be "notable"—i.e. key information on a topic. What's more, given the majority of our readers are on mobile, which has as a rule spurned use of the <abbr>...</abbr> HTML tag, our style policy of avoiding it whenever possible and never using it for bespoke information seems better-justified than ever. Remsense 🌈 论 23:46, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

(It seems to me that infobox inclusion tugs-of-war are more or less endemic to how Wikipedia works, and there's not really any quick fix for that other than educating newer editors about the consensus regarding what information infoboxes are capable of presenting well.) Remsense 🌈 论 23:51, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

The RFC deprecrating the parameter stated it would 'Permit inclusion in individual articles' infoboxes (through the template's ability to accept custom parameters) if directly tied to the person's notability, per consensus at the article.', would someone be able to explain how one can do this? I believe including religious affiliation of ecclesiastical architects is appropriate and within the scope of the infobox purpose. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:48, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Can you link to an article as an example where this would be helpful? In that article, what source identifies the religious affiliation? Johnuniq (talk) 02:57, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I haven't finished writing the expansion but I was planning on using it for Frederick de Jersey Clere, an architect who primarily designed churches, was hired as an architect by an Anglican diocese, member of the synod, and whose most notable work was on Anglican churches.

Architect of the Angels by Susan Maclean identifies him as an Anglican. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:26, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply