Template talk:Infobox person

For pending merger proposals (2009 to date) see Template talk:Infobox person/Mergers

Parameter known as "partner"

[edit]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 contrabout 22:29, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spouse and children parameters

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

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)[reply]
sounds like a pretty good idea, but we need consensus Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 08:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! 456legendtalk 08:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Is it proposed that these parameters should be dropped from this infobox only for male subjects? It is a misapprehension that spouses and children are pigeonholed by infoboxes of male subjects. Many articles for those spouses and children also have infoboxes that mention their husband, father; see the articles on Virginia Woolf/Leonard Woolf, Clara Schumann/Robert Schumann, Marie Curie/Pierre Curie and their families. How else should those connections be shown concisely and comprehensively? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You misread my topic. I said particularly women, not men. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 23:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Not SNOW. It will help fight gender bias on Wikipedia because women are commonly, solely discussed and known as a man’s wife or girlfriend and nothing else. The same is not true for a man. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 23:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • MOS:BIO says:

    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)[reply]
  • Oppose: In addition to spouse and children, we also have parameters for partner, parents, mother, father, relatives, family, etc. (not to mention, baptismal date, honorific postnominals, nationality/citizenship, callsign, and criminal status). We have many parameters that aren't always needed (or used), nonetheless, they can be used by discerning editors when needed. Giving us greater scope to include useful, interesting, or relevant connections seems to outweigh the concern expressed in the above proposal. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I'm going to bow out of a broader discussion about what connections are or aren't useful, interesting, or relevant – although I do believe that we have ample procedures in place whereby such matters can be discussed in both general terms (as part of the many, many checks and balances built into the project); as well as specifically, on a case-by-case basis regarding usage in individual articles. It seems preferable to give editors more tools and options to work with, and let the community intervene in cases where the tools are misused or poorly applied (of course, this is simply one user's opinion). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Relevant points from MOS:INFOBOX include:

    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)[reply]
    MOS:INFOBOX Also says: Conversely, very common fields may be included – and made optional... (emphasis added). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there is room for exceptions (and there's anyways WP:IAR). MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE generally advises that less is more:

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    I have no objection to closing this discussion (especially in light of the above). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2025

[edit]

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

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

Elon Musk: Infobox officeholder or Infobox person?

[edit]

 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)[reply]

No boroughs in infoboxes...just cities

[edit]

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)[reply]

parameter upright

[edit]

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

It already has it? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Well, duh. I was just using it incorrectly. I need a keeper. Valereee (talk) 11:21, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hear Jordan's quite good?? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

| partner = Miyeon

[edit]
Curiousmind88 (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] 
 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)[reply]
[edit]

Does MOS:GEOLINK apply when mentioning the historic name of a country at the time of the event (birth/death). Referring to these changes [1] [2]. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See 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)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 13 April 2025

[edit]

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

| 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

|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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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 contrabout 04:59, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image scaling

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

"Official website" for dead person?

[edit]

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 {{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 {{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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'd say that yes, it is possible for a dead person to have an official website, but I don't think this is something that can be determined programmatically - it will sometimes be appropriate and other times not. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting question. Fundamentally, having a website does not imply (or require) being alive. In fact, most websites are for non-living entities (companies, organisations, institutions, services, informational resources, etc.). Common sense should apply when determining which websites related to dead people are appropriate and should be included in infoboxes. If the dead person is represented by an entity that is clearly the primary repository of and direct link to that person's life, work, and legacy (e.g., a foundation such as the one included here), then yes, it seems like it makes sense to include that URL (unless there is a separate article for the entity itself, in which case, perhaps that's where the URL belongs). Some of the examples discussed in the links above (Beethoven, Tolstoy) are certainly less clear-cut, and anything that reeks of commercial chicanery or nefarious intent, clearly not. Seems like a matter to be determined on a case by case basis. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Education parameter change request

[edit]

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)

Education

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

Education

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

Education

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

Education Muskingum University (BS)

Harvey Milk

Education State University of New York, Albany (BA)

Anthony Fauci (note: not Weill Cornell Medicine)

Education

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

Education

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]

Edit request 6 May 2025

[edit]

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

Diff:

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.
+
Include subject's educational credentials, typically university degrees. List the full article title of each degree-granting parent institution, followed by degree(s) earned in parentheses, e.g. an alumnus of [[Harvard College]], [[Harvard Law School]], and the [[Kellogg School of Management]] would be listed as: <br> [[Harvard University]] (BA, JD) <br> [[Northwestern University]] (MBA) <br> If insufficient information is available to determine specific credentials attained, the 'alma_mater' parameter may be more appropriate.

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]