Template talk:Infobox person#rfc B19FECB

Hi, I recently edited an English language article infobox to add a picture from commons and found that some of the interlanguage links had infoboxes that immediately picked up the Wikidata Image property e.g. es:Plantilla:Ficha_de_persona and nl:Sjabloon:Infobox artiest. Is anyone working on adding Wikidata to this template? Alex Sims (talk) 08:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

:We don't, because there's no reason we really want to have the image selection for articles take place offsite. Remsense ‥ 论 08:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

While trying to figure out, what exactly happened at d:Wikidata:Requests for comment/Constraints for Germanies, I've read the birthplace guidance on this page:

:* Use the name of the birthplace at the time of birth, e.g.: Saigon (prior to 1976) or Ho Chi Minh City (post-1976).

::[...]

:* For historical subjects, use the place name most appropriate for the context and our readership. What the place may correspond to on a modern map is a matter for an article's main text.

The Weimar Republic was called Deutsches Reich (like the German Empire before and Nazi Germany afterwards). Which of those bullets has priority? Do they mean, that one should use Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany instead of Deutsches Reich in the infobox of an article like Sophie Scholl, because she was killed by the latter or do we stick with "NPOV"/official name here? --Flominator (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

:These countries were all called just "Germany" and that reference is not ambiguous for the times from the German Empire to the Nazi Reich, so that's what I would put in when the birthplace is in a location that still belongs to Germany today. We don't usually write "Federal Republic of Germany" when referring to the current incarnation of the German state, so why should we be more specific for these predecessors? (The "History" section of the article Germany starts with prehistory, not with 1949 or even 1990.) Gawaon (talk) 10:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Ping {{ping|Hutcher}} for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AInfobox_person%2Fdoc&diff=prev&oldid=490073177 inserting it]. --Flominator (talk) 12:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The name of this parameter is creating a lot of confusion on its usage; it's intended to list lifelong, unmarried partners, yet I've seen many cases where editors are using it for fiancé(e)s or people seriously dating. (One example: see article on Zendaya - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zendaya&diff=1267849442&oldid=1267822685 this edit, in particular] - and yeah, this has been done at that article countless times.) Personally, I'm wanting the name of the parameter to be changed (though I don't know to what specifically); at the very least, I'm interested in seeing past discussions about this parameter, and whether a proposal to rename the parameter has happened. MPFitz1968 (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

:I agree that "partner" is vague enough to cause avoidable confusion. I think "significant other" or "domestic partner" would approximately fit the bill and add some helpful context for all the editors who don't check the template guidelines. Risedemise (talk) 11:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:I don't see that word "lifelong" in the template advice. Are you suggesting that should be added? I'm pretty sure there are many unmarried partnerships, which are far from lifelong, but which are still considered "significant". What threshold would we suggest? More than x years? Regularly co-habiting? Have offspring together? Some combination of these? It all looks rather subjective, doesn't it. And we know what these meejah slebs are like - they seem to change partners more often than most of us change our socks? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::They seem to have confused "long-term" with "lifelong", which of course is a big difference. But I think it's safe to say that "long-term" refers to at minimum a few years -- not that that generous interpretation is much of a distinction. Risedemise (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

:I think ambiguity here would be a feature, not a bug. I would say that the comment text explicitly excluding a fiance is the most problematic part of the situation. There are a number of ways in which someone like a fiance could be a partner worthy of inclusion in the infobox, and discussions like are found on the talk page - discussing ways in which they are acting as domestic partners during their engagement is exactly what I would expect in a mature use of this parameter. VanIsaac, GHTV ^contr_about 22:29, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

For the birth_place and death_place parameters, Template:Infobox_person/doc specifies that what should be included is "city, administrative region, country", furthermore stating "it is not necessary to state: New York City, New York, United States when New York City, U.S. conveys essentially the same information more concisely." [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alan_Berkman&curid=23224705&diff=1267648754&oldid=1267447011 This edit] is one of the occasions where User:Nikkimaria removed the borough from Brooklyn, New York City, US as the place of the place of the subject's birth and from Manhattan, New York City, US as the place of death -- all supported by reliable and verifiable sources in the article -- citing the template documentation as justification. Are we limited to only listing city and not permitted to include any more detail? Is there any basis to interpret "city, administrative region, country" to mean that we forbidden to mention a more specific place within a city and is there any reason not to list a borough or more specific neighborhood within a city where that information is available? Alansohn (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

:I think that in a metropolis that has well known and distinct districts/boroughs/arrondissements/Bezirke/Stadtteile/barrios mentioning them in the infobox enhances the its information value for readers. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

:I've always assumed that yes, it does mean we are forbidden from using borough. For large cities like New York and London, I think the borough would be very useful. Certainly more useful than the country! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

:Agree with including the boroughs. Definitely helpful content for readers. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

:The existing guidance is fine. Anything we add to the infobox is potentially helpful to some readers. But, we have to balance that with keeping the infobox at a manageable size and avoiding clutter. They can always find the detail in the article itself. Do we really want Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, London, UK? No, thank you. Edwardx (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

::I would agree. In cases where something narrower than city is particularly noteworthy, exceptions can be made - for example for Mozart there is an article specifically on the building in which he was born. But as a general rule, city is sufficient. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

::There's also suburbs (Chatsworth, Los Angeles) and neighborhoods (San Carlos, San Diego). Where to draw the line? —Bagumba (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

::Was just looking at Peter Yarrow. What would be more useful, to a reader wanting the essentials, there: "New York City, New York, U.S" or "Manhattan, New York City, U.S"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

:::"New York City, US" will suffice. Edwardx (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

:::"Manhattan", New York City, US" would be more helpful to some readers. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

From what I've seen, one of the main reasons behind influenced/influencers being removed was that it was too broad and allowed people to add just about anyone. However, if we change the parameters to only significant (or we could use a similar word) influencers/influenced, that will narrow it down. Could that possibly work? Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• Are their examples of you can direct us to? Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
• :Are you referring to examples on Wikipedia? I'm no expert on the rules, but I'm pretty sure that there's a policy (I forgot the name) stating that information from other articles can't be used as evidence for implementing something, unless that other article is FA/GA. Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

:::You mention influenced/influencers being removed. It is unclear to me what you are referring to. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

::::I was referring to the template parameters "influences" and "influenced", which were deactivated, but perhaps we can activate them again if we add "significantly" behind them to have them apply more narrowly. Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Ok, thanks for the clarification…understood. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 02:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Glad you understand, you're always welcome to share your thoughts on implementing this if you'd like Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

:How would you define "significant" in this context? DonIago (talk) 04:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

::If you're asking about specific criteria, then perhaps we could implement it so that a person could get on there only if there is a reliable source(s) stating not only an influence but that the influence had a significant/notable/important impact.

::For example, if a reliable source said "Da Vinci influenced Michelangelo", then this would not count. However, if it said "Plato was perhaps one of Aristotle's greatest influences, significantly impacting the way he interacted with the world around him" then it would count under this policy.

::I gave a more powerful example there to illustrate why we should consider this, but any source that mentions that the influence was notable and / or expands on the impact could be included, and then again, you're always welcome to revise these ideas -- they're not set in stone.

::Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

:::P.S. Since the infobox is sort of a summary of the entire article, adding it may also depend on how prominently the influence is mentioned in it. Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

::::I think I'd be more convinced if multiple sources making claims that the influencer was significant were required. I'm not yet convinced that this belongs in the infobox rather than meriting full prose within the article, and I'm well-aware that good-faith but inexperienced editors will sometimes add to the infobox without realizing that it's intended to be a summary of the article. DonIago (talk) 06:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::The problem with "significant" is that it's subjective. There was a related discussion three years ago at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Archive 13#Influences/Influenced on Infoboxes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Redrose64 It sounds like the problem they were encountering there was that some people influenced way too many others (like Beethoven), but in that scenario it would probably be more beneficial to insert the movement/era they inspired, such as 12 tone music for Schoenberg and the Romantic era for Beethoven (those specifically are listed in another section, but you get the point). But if there was one person significantly influenced and nobody else, for example, then it may be useful to pinpoint that one person.

::::::Also, I'm pretty sure that deciding whether to include anything on an article requires some sort of subjectivity.

::::::@Doniago We could do it where it needs 2 or more sources if that's what we reach a consensus to implement. As for where to include, the infobox is supposed to have the most notable information in some articles, and sometimes I think it's very clear that one person had a clear influence on another, and that adding that could have more of a benefit than harm. And for the last part, I don't think we should exclude a rule just because some beginners might break that rule. We could also add a discretion message if necessary.

::::::Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I remain unconvinced that this kind of information is so critical to any individual that it merits being placed in the infobox without any context, though if other editors feel otherwise then I wouldn't push against them. Right now, it seems to me better that this is handled in prose, where such information can be placed in its proper context. DonIago (talk) 14:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::What about the earlier examples? Or like on John the Apostle's page listing that he was influenced by Jesus in the infobox? Wouldn't it do more good than harm to list those in the infobox? Wikieditor662 (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::In that example, it's not at all clear what that is actually intended to mean, so no. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::What do you mean by that? Isn't it pretty obvious what it means when it says Jesus influenced John? Even if not, couldn't we add a note that elaborates on it? And if you're 100% certain that we shouldn't include it, then should I remove it from John's page? And should we remove the influences on the other similar pages? Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::No, it isn't obvious what it means. Influenced how? If we need a note to elaborate, that suggests that this isn't something that belongs in the template. I would absolutely support removing it. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::I'll bring it to John the Apostle's talk page and see what others think. Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::By the way, since the influence/influenced section (or similar) is under the page of multiple articles (including multiple popular and widely discussed ones), removing these from all of those articles would likely require further discussion and consensus seeking. Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}

My feeling is that this sort of information is too vague and opinion-based to be a good fit for an infobox. It can be stated in article text, where we can attribute the opinion about who influenced whom to the author of a reference and put it in context, but infoboxes do not really have room to say anything more than a bare fact stated as absolute truth in Wikipedia's voice. Significant influences are not that kind of fact. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

:Are you talking about which influences are seen as significant or for including influences in infoboxes entirely? Because here all influences are banned from infoboxes, while I believe they're allowed for saints and philosophers for some reason. Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

::Both. I think any inclusion of influences in infoboxes, without a much more clearly specified role, is a bad idea. For an example of a more clearly specified and factual rather than opinion-based influence role for which inclusion is appropriate, see the doctoral_advisor and doctoral_students field of {{tl|Infobox academic}}. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

:::As I said to Nikkimaria, even with these exceptions doing this will mean removing the influences/influenced section (or similar) of plenty of articles (in ones with infobox types other than person, such as saint), and I think it will require more discussion in a broader area, do you know where we could do this? Wikieditor662 (talk) 08:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

::::You may need to have the discussions at the relevant Talk pages for the infoboxes that include those fields, as different infoboxes may have different considerations. DonIago (talk) 14:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::Well, it does seem pretty inconsistent... If showing someone's influence on this infobox is too broad and opinionated here, then why would that be any different in any other infobox like Saint or Philosopher? Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::That's exactly the question you would need to ask at the Talk pages for the infoboxes utilizing the field(s) in question. DonIago (talk) 03:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

:I strongly oppose this. We had these fields in the philosopher template, and they were an absolute magnet for tendentious (and sometimes promotional) material not supported by the article—which is, of course, a violation of the guidelines (see Help:Infobox). Moreover, editors sometimes became quite hostile when their inappropriate additions were removed. You can find the discussion to deprecate these fields at Template_talk:Infobox_philosopher#Influences/influenced. Patrick (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Should the various person infoboxes have a line for pronouns, possibly with a recommendation to use it only in cases where this information is lead-worthy? I am thinking of cases like Karen Yeats, for instance. Yeats's use of they/them pronouns is prominent in the article's lead text (with an explanatory footnote) but not visible in the infobox. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

:That sort of explicit parameter feels like it would invite all kinds of edit warring in a way that would be highly unhelpful. Article prose feels like a much better way to explore those subjects for whom pronoun usage is notable, and the implicit usage of pronouns in the article text conveys the same information while being guided by WP:MOS. The inclusion of a cut-and-dry parameter is rather wholly unsuited to precisely those cases where it is most important - where there is a significant backstory or controversy. VanIsaac, GHTV ^contr_about 19:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

:One could argue that, when they can be clearly sourced, pronouns are as simple a piece of data as the name of the article subject, which makes them ideal for the at-a-glance usage of infoboxes. CapitalSasha ~ talk 03:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

:These are best left to be explained in the lead or the body of articles, not the infobox. Aquabluetesla (talk) 09:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

::Given the unique quality of being communicated directly by virtue of having running prose, I almost see this as an infobox-proof attribute. Remsense ‥ 论 09:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|Proposer has been blocked and there was little support for their suggestion. Schazjmd (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}}

I believe the inclusion of these parameters are wholly unnecessary. They only serve to pigeonhole notable people, particularly women, into spouses and parents and nothing else. I think they should be removed. It’s not encyclopedic, or relevant to the articles this user box is used in Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 08:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:Or perhaps replace by more generic "notable relatives", making more clear that people should only be listed if they are also notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

::sounds like a pretty good idea, but we need consensus Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 08:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

::Agreed! 456legendtalk 08:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose – Is it proposed that these parameters should be dropped from this infobox only for male subjects? It is a misapprehension that spouses and children are pigeonholed by infoboxes of male subjects. Many articles for those spouses and children also have infoboxes that mention their husband, father; see the articles on Virginia Woolf/Leonard Woolf, Clara Schumann/Robert Schumann, Marie Curie/Pierre Curie and their families. How else should those connections be shown concisely and comprehensively? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
• :You misread my topic. I said particularly women, not men. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 23:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::So Marie Curie should be omitted from Pierre Curie's infobox, and Pierre should remain in Marie's? WP:SNOW. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
• :::Not SNOW. It will help fight gender bias on Wikipedia because women are commonly, solely discussed and known as a man’s wife or girlfriend and nothing else. The same is not true for a man. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 23:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::::So Marie Curie should be omitted from Pierre Curie's infobox, and Pierre should remain in Marie's? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• MOS:BIO says: {{tq2|Generally speaking, notability is not inherited; e.g. a person being the spouse or child of another notable person does not make that person notable.}} In most cases, it doesn't belong in the lead or the infobox. The fields are often populated with non-notable people.—Bagumba (talk) 12:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose: In addition to spouse and children, we also have parameters for partner, parents, mother, father, relatives, family, etc. (not to mention, baptismal date, honorific postnominals, nationality/citizenship, callsign, and criminal status). We have many parameters that aren't always needed (or used), nonetheless, they can be used by discerning editors when needed. Giving us greater scope to include useful, interesting, or relevant connections seems to outweigh the concern expressed in the above proposal. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
• :that’s the point though. these connections aren’t useful, interesting, or relevant. they just purport gender bias Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 23:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::I'm going to bow out of a broader discussion about what connections are or {{tq| aren't useful, interesting, or relevant}} – although I do believe that we have ample procedures in place whereby such matters can be discussed in both general terms (as part of the many, many checks and balances built into the project); as well as specifically, on a case-by-case basis regarding usage in individual articles. It seems preferable to give editors more tools and options to work with, and let the community intervene in cases where the tools are misused or poorly applied (of course, this is simply one user's opinion). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• :Relevant points from MOS:INFOBOX include: {{tq2|Will the field be relevant to many of the articles that will use the infobox?
  If the field is relevant to very few articles, it should probably not be included at all ...
  How likely is the field to be empty?
  Any field that might reasonably be empty should probably be optional. However, a field that is usually empty may not be particularly useful or relevant.}} —Bagumba (talk) 01:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::MOS:INFOBOX Also says: {{tq|Conversely, very common fields may be included – and made optional...}} (emphasis added). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• :::Yes, there is room for exceptions (and there's anyways WP:IAR). MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE generally advises that less is more: {{tq2| The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance.}} —Bagumba (talk) 12:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Adjacent (and closely related) to your helpful policy and MOS links are also WP:1Q and WP:COMMONSENSE – both of which I find useful from time to time. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Cl3phact0 explains it very well. This has all been discussed many times; there are 39 pages of archives, easily searchable above. Edwardx (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
• As the OP has been blocked as a sockpuppet and their proposal has little support so far, this discussion can probably be closed. If editors believe that is should be allowed to continue, then ignore this message. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• :I have no objection to closing this discussion (especially in light of the above). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{edit semi-protected|Template:Infobox person/doc|answered=yes}}

Hello. My name is Kia Wright. I am the only child of Carl Wright. I want to add Carl Wright's spouse, Shirley Wright, myself as child, and Blaise Vonbruchhaeuser as grandchild. Thevetwright (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

{{Not done}}: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{tlx|Infobox person}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Yeshivish613 (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elon Musk § RfC: Should we use the officeholder infobox?. Some1 (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

There is a content dispute at Talk:Linda Lovelace#Birthplace in infobox, where an editor insists that "Place of birth: city, administrative region, country"...means if the place of birth is anything but a "city"--such at a borough, village, town, or canton--it cannot be included. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Can we add the parameter upright to this template? Valereee (talk) 15:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:It already has it? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::Hm...I just tried to add it in an existing infobox somewhere and it gave me an unrecognized parameter error. Maybe I need to remove the infobox altogether and start fresh? Thanks, Nikkimaria! Valereee (talk) 11:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Well, duh. I was just using it incorrectly. I need a keeper. Valereee (talk) 11:21, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::::{{small|I hear Jordan's quite good??}} Martinevans123 (talk) 11:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|Template:Infobox person/doc|answered=yes}}

Curiousmind88 (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:14, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Does MOS:GEOLINK apply when mentioning the historic name of a country at the time of the event (birth/death). Referring to these changes [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashraf_Ghani&diff=prev&oldid=1284154100] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashraf_Ghani&diff=prev&oldid=1284329438]. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:See {{section link|Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking#GEOLINK_exceptions_for_historical_states}}. Seems there's no clear consensus for infoboxes.—Bagumba (talk) 12:04, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

{{edit template-protected|Template:Infobox person|answered=yes}}

below are simple suggestions for adding default alt text to the infobox by default. these are NOT supposed to be substituted for real alt text written by editors, but this is better than nothing. see MOS:ALTTEXT, especially MOS:BLANKALT, for detail.

Images

{{Text diff

|| image = {{#invoke:InfoboxImage|InfoboxImage|image={{{image|}}}|size={{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{landscape|}}}}}|yes|{{min|300|{{#if:{{#ifexpr:{{{image size|{{{image_size|{{{imagesize|}}}}}}}}}}}|300|{{{image size|{{{image_size|{{{imagesize|}}}}}}}}}}}}}x200px|{{{image size|{{{image_size|{{{imagesize|}}}}}}}}}}}|sizedefault=frameless|upright={{{image_upright|1}}}|alt={{{alt|}}}|suppressplaceholder=yes}}

|| image = {{#invoke:InfoboxImage|InfoboxImage|image={{{image|}}}|size={{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{landscape|}}}}}|yes|{{min|300|{{#if:{{#ifexpr:{{{image size|{{{image_size|{{{imagesize|}}}}}}}}}}}|300|{{{image size|{{{image_size|{{{imagesize|}}}}}}}}}}}}}x200px|{{{image size|{{{image_size|{{{imagesize|}}}}}}}}}}}|sizedefault=frameless|upright={{{image_upright|1}}}|alt={{{alt|Depiction of {{#if:{{{name|}}}|{{{name}}}|{{PAGENAMEBASE}}}}}}}|suppressplaceholder=yes}}

}}

Signature

{{Text diff

||data72 = {{#invoke:InfoboxImage|InfoboxImage|image={{{signature|}}}|size={{{signature_size|}}}|class=infobox-signature skin-invert|sizedefault=150px|alt={{{signature alt|{{{signature_alt|}}}}}}}}

||data72 = {{#invoke:InfoboxImage|InfoboxImage|image={{{signature|}}}|size={{{signature_size|}}}|class=infobox-signature skin-invert|sizedefault=150px|alt={{{signature alt|{{{signature_alt|Signature of {{#if:{{{name|}}}|{{{name}}}|{{PAGENAMEBASE}}}}}}}}}}}}

}} Juwan (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:The first shouldn't be used automatically, as images are not always depictions of the person. See for example the implementations at Zerubbabel Collins or Gary Talpas. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::I think that |alt={{{alt{{{caption|Depiction of {{#if:{{{name|}}}|{{{name}}}|{{PAGENAMEBASE}}}}}}}}}}|suppressplaceholder=yes}} is an implementation that would have a good chance of meeting that problem in most instances. The presence of an explicit caption is a pretty good flag for where an infobox person image might not be some sort of depiction of the actual person, and where it is a depiction of the person, it has a high chance of being better alt text than a programmed default anyway. Having it be the first backstop for missing alt text seems like a good solution to this problem. VanIsaac, GHTV ^contr_about 04:59, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:File:X mark.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Tlx|Edit template-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Anyone else noticed that the infobox image scaling has changed dependent on text viewing size? Not sure what the root cause of this is within the template, this changed around 4–5 days ago. From what I can tell, images now remain the same size regardless of text size, which has messed up the proportions of the infobox and the image size relative to the text. MB2437 22:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:Default infobox image-size did change recently (see phab:T355914). I'm not sure if that relates to the effect you're seeing. Does it also happen with infoboxes other than for people? Could you give some specific examples where you see it happen, and whether you're using the mobile site vs full site? DMacks (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::Using the desktop site, haven't noticed the effect elsewhere as I mostly focus my work on BLPs. Moving from small to large text size increases the image margin either side as the image is no longer scaled with the text. It looks as it should on the standard setting. MB2437 00:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::This seems related to Template talk:Infobox election#Accessibility. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:The default size for all images increased recently. Because most infoboxes scale their images relative to the default rather than specifying an absolute image size, this also changed the size of images in infoboxes. There's discussion ongoing about this at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as an "official website" for a dead person? Should a website be included in the infobox for a dead person?

The infobox generated automatically from Wikidata includes a URL from Wikidata, but I do not see how any one website can be considered "official" after the subject's death (except perhaps in the rare case that it is a site which continues the person's own personal website with their permission or instruction).

I suggest that the documentation for this template should perhaps be amended to clarify that an "official website" will normally only exist while a person is alive.

I note that two of the three examples in Template:Infobox person/Wikidata include a website, although the human-made infoboxes in the equivalent articles Leo Tolstoy and Ludwig van Beethoven do not include websites.

I suggest that the editors working on {{tl|Infobox person/Wikidata}} should be asked to ensure that it does not include an "official website" except for living people.

Any thoughts? I'll mention this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#Should an infobox for a dead person include a website? as well as at the discussion at Template talk:Infobox person/Wikidata (thread name is "Doesn't use template {{tl|URL}}" which I can't include in the link: the original issue of format of URL has been resolved, but this wider issue occurred to me during discussion). PamD 14:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:My opinion is that if the website is controlled by the estate, etc., it could still be an official website. I'd be more apt to consider this valid if the website was originally run by the living person - https://www.tolkienestate.com/ seems like it would be a bit of a stretch to call that JRR's official website. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:I can see that the issue goes further upstream to include "What does Wikidata mean by an official website for a dead person?", and I've raised the question at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property_talk:P856#Can_a_dead_person_have_an_official_website? But setting aside the question of automatically imported WikiData URLs, there is still the question of whether the "website" field of this template should include a "official website" for a dead person, and, if so, what qualifies a website to be so chosen. PamD 14:49, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:Some living people have an official website. If such a person dies, the website doesn't suddenly lose its "official" status. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)