Template talk:Infobox/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

An additional parameter for an infobox.

Methods for adding a custom parameter to an infobox should be documented. I was able to add the "Designer" parameter to the "ship" or "Ship" infobox for the MV Island Sky. No success in adding a parameter to the "connector" infobox for PS/2 port. The Ship infobox begins with "Infobox Ship Begin" and the connector infobox has no such "Begin". How can a parameter be added to the connector infobox? Thanks, PeterEasthope (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@PeterEasthope: In these edits, you used the technique described at Template:Infobox ship career#Custom fields, which is specific to the "Infobox ship" group. Please note that it says "This is not encouraged, because infoboxes are intended to standardize the appearance of ship articles, but it can be done if needed." It's possible to do it this way because the infobox is built from a number of sections (there are about six or so subtemplates in the "Infobox ship" group); very few infoboxes are built up like that, most are a single template.

PS/2 port uses {{Infobox connector}}, which is one of those that is a single template. If you need to show more information than the template's documentation provides for, you should propose an enhancement at the talk page for the infobox, which is Template talk:Infobox connector. It's possible that the information that you desire to show has been proposed or provided before, and decided against. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The question of a protocol parameter is in the talk page now, PeterEasthope (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Subheader styling

Header One
Subheader
fact A	Foo
fact B	Bar
Another Subheader
fact X	monday
fact Z	saturday
Header Two
More here	Monkey

I am looking to add a subheader to an infobox, like the demo. Anyone knows there a nice style concept for this, in existing infoboxes probably? And what about bad-practice to add style to inline data ... :-( -DePiep (talk) 10:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Header One
Subheader
fact A	Foo
fact B	Bar
Another Subheader
fact X	monday
fact Z	saturday
Header Two
More here	Monkey

Presumably, the issue is that you want to style sub-subheadings differently, which is best done using a child infobox - see the example on the right. Alakzi (talk) 10:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Yep. -DePiep (talk) 10:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 23 June 2015

Please merge the sandbox to remove the labels' inline text-align rule; this is now handled by Common.css. Alakzi (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC) Alakzi (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Seems uncontroversial.  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 July 2015

In the page for West London Synagogue please update the information in the box to the right as follows: President is Stephen Moss CBE Chairman is Jill Todd

JamesRFletcher (talk) 16:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)Jim Fletcher, Vice Chair for External Affairs, West London Synagogue of British Jews

@JamesRFletcher: Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Infobox}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Title outside of box arguments

Once again the issue 'title inside/outside of the infobox?' pops up here. I do follow the infobox style. To convince more editors, can someone give links to good explanations? It's about whitening the page design, AFAIK. Like with margin and interline whitespace settings. -DePiep (talk) 12:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Parameter "header-when-not-empty"

I propose to add parameter |headerN-cond= to the meta module:infobox. It is same as plain |headerN=, except: it only shows when it has data the header's section below has data row(s). (para name 'headerN-cond' is just a suggestion)

• Set yourself in the seat of an editor, programming {{infobox foo}}. You added |header10=bar set. Now there is |data11={{{somedata11|}}} (for the article editor to fill), that may be empty. We know an empty data row will not show. But header10 always shows!

In many infobox situations a conditional header-show is required: when no data, don't show the header.

So why not have: make a check in module:infobox whether there is data in the headerN's section? Think: {{infobox foo}} has |header10-cond=Hbar10 and |header20-cond=Hbar20. Then, when data11–data19 is empty, header10-cond does not show.

(In other words: the header behaves like a labelN does: don't show when there 's no data). -DePiep (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

How would you set the condition? Should it depend on any label/data up until the next header, or only apply to to the following (label/)data row, or be somehow 'programmable' (by yet another paramenter)? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 22:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I think, today, a headerN is for all data rows dataN+1=, ..., dataM-1=, till the next headerM. So if all data dataN+1=, ..., dataM-1= are empty, the conditional headerN-cond should not show.

(Were we in 2005 now, this could be basic behaviour in infoboxes). -DePiep (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

- So I'm answering: "Should it depend on any label/data up until the next header?" with "yes". (it's complicated ;-) ). Minor note: it's for when dataX are filled only, not labelX; obvious I guess). -DePiep (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the fact that I have to list every single parameter in an #if statement for the header is cumbersome. a particularly intense example is header5 in {{infobox school}}. it would be great if I could say |header5cond=6-177 or |header5cond=6 to 177 instead. having it even more automated would be great, but in this case, I don't want it to be triggered for anything after 177. Frietjes (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Like --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 20:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Edgars2007, then you prefer Frietjes' sub-version to enter the condition explicit, to entering the header-text? -DePiep (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it would be nice. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 08:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Could be nicer. See below. -DePiep (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. You introduce a diff in detail. I see that you describe the condition itself to be entered ("don't show header5 when data 6–177 are all empty"). To me this looks more complicated for the editor working on {infobox foo}, plus the sure risk of neglected maintenance/updating. While, I proposed to allow |header5-cond=School information that will automatically know to check all datarow numbers until a next |header178=. -DePiep (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

in the {{infobox school}} example, there is no |header178=, but I do not want the header to be triggered by the footnotes, or bottom images. Frietjes (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand that. Of course there is no data178 or higher so there is no issue.

My bone is: why should the template-editor (using module:Infobox) have to research & enter the condition itself instead of using a conditional parameter that can & does check automatically? In other words: |header30-conditional= knows it has to check |data31= ... |dataM-1=. It is plain there in the datan numbers, and a code-puzzle for that editor. (In other words II: |header30-conditional= checks |data31, 32, ..., M-1= like today |label10= checks |data10=). -DePiep (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

??"Of course there is no data178 or higher so there is no issue"?? check the code for template:infobox school, there is data178, data179, and data180. Frietjes (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Irrelevant. My point is that the infobox template itself can check whether there is data in the dataN numbers that are below a specific header. Only logic is needed, no extra input. My proposal is to add this logic to the lua code, and use that as an option for the template editor (applying generic meta {{Infobox}}) to use |headerN-conditional= (instead of todays |headerN=). I won't make examples because they seem to distract people. -DePiep (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@DePiep:: Frietjes is trying to point out that your proposed solution would not work on {{infobox school}} because the header is only relevant for rows 6-177, yet would always display when data178 is present. So you'd need some other method to indicate the end of the header's remit. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Good point (I missed that 178+ point; thought it was about end-of-infobox). Solution 1:Well, in that case don't edit {{Infobox school}} instancesitself, keep using old school |header5=Information and the datacontent-check as is done now (please now take a look at the required code). Solution 2: Not as a feature request, but the new code could have this desired side-effect: use |header5-cond=Information and add |header178-cond=<blank> to {{Infobox school}} (+shift higher numbers), and maybe the condition may be checked. Non-solution, 3: I don't support to require add & maintain(!) the rowcode, conditional row numbers, as Frietjes proposes. Too dependent on maintenance. Note: about this infobox design, I wonder if it is OK anyway to add those 178+ data rows below the header "Information", given that they are generic. Maybe leave out "Information" header completely. -DePiep (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Well I support either solution 1 or 2 above and support this feature request in general. It might be worth looking at the school infobox in more detail because we may be able to add footnotes as a dedicated parameter (or just use below as advised in documentation) and I'm not sure what those pictures are doing at the bottom of the infobox? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

OK. Name pattern |header1-cond= up for improvement. Detail: we can leave the specific {{Infobox school}} design issues behind for another thread. Oldschool |header5= will stay, unchanged, so no effect. New |header5-cond= is added, so only for new usages. -DePiep (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Template:Infobox cat breed does this (to hide the "Breed standards" header/section when there are no published standards, e.g. for a historical breed or a landrace), and does it in template code, not Lua. It would be more efficient in Lua, and would require less hand-tinkering. If a new breed standard parameter is added, it also has to be added to the test for that heading.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

That's the point. That's about the only way to do it. What I propose is to add that {{#if:{{param1|}} .... |Headertext}} to infobox meta code. -DePiep (talk) 15:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Implementation discussion

Just need to find someone willing to code this :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Yep. That should be the easiest part :-). -DePiep (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Mr. Stradivarius:: would this idea be easy to implement? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

It sounds possible, but perhaps not easy. However, it's not the way that I would do it. My preferred way would be to convert the individual infoboxes to Lua using an infobox-builder meta-module. The meta-module would keep track of header rows and data rows - it would only add data rows that had data, and only add header rows that add data rows, much like Module:Infobox would in the proposal here. Using an infobox-builder module would have simpler code than doing the same thing in Module:Infobox, and the results would be faster. It would require effort to convert individual infobox templates, but their conversion is probably overdue anyway. Ideally we would do this in mw:Extension:Capiunto, but it still hasn't been approved for use on WMF wikis. I'm tempted to write my own Module:InfoboxBuilder if it doesn't happen soon. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Most of that went over my head. This template and its associated module are the meta-template, so anything technical should preferably here rather than in the individual infobox templates. Converting those to Lua would just make them harder to edit by non-technical editors. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I like the considerations, but I am not happy relying on future or promised software. I sense there is no blocking problem to add it to the meta module. -DePiep (talk) 13:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The blocking problem is that you need someone to code it, and you can't force someone to do it your preferred way when they don't think it's the best way of doing it. (wikt:Beggars can't be choosers?) I'd like to hear more details of Mr. Stradivarius's idea and how it would work in practice. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

That's not blocking I'd say, no design or technical negative. Just postponing. -DePiep (talk) 11:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I pinged WP:Lua/requests permalink. -DePiep (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

How to populate the title attribute in spans and table cells?

Hi, as far as I see it, infobox does not currently support specifying any values for the HTML standard attribute title="text" for spans or table cells. If specified, browsers will show a popup help bubble displaying the given text while hovering the mouse over the corresponding span or table cell.

Background is that sometimes the entries (headers, labels and data entries) in infoboxes are a bit short and it would be great if somewhat more verbose text versions or additional explanations etc. could be given for interested users without having to add a lot of footnotes etc.

Syntaxwise, the title="text" attribute works like id="" or style="", so it should be straightforward to add to the existing code without any compatibility problems. This would give us optional title1=, title2= etc. parameters alongside the header1=, label1=, data1=, header2=, label2=, data2= etc. parameters. We'd just have to take care not to confuse these parameters with the already existing set of parameters for the infobox title.

Thanks. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 August 2015

Hello the name of the Principal on the Lismore High School page needs to be changed to Mr Nigel Brito-Babapulle thank you

SafeonSocial (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@SafeonSocial: Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Infobox}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Script errors?

There have been script errors happening with the film infobox the past couple of days. Has this happened with other types of infoboxes? Thanks, Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@Erik II: Yes, the problems appear to have affected all Lua modules, although it is now fixed on the MediaWiki side of things. If you see any more script errors, a purge should make them disappear. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 139#Script error for more details. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Stradivarius, thanks for the link to the thread! Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Non-linked text next to images

It appears that non-linked text next to an image in this template is rendered higher than linked text (see ‘Rank’ here for an example; I also inserted the text and image into the main infobox at Aristotle and got (in a preview) the same thing, so I'm assuming the issue affects all infoboxes on Wikipedia). Is this a purely technical issue, or does the template code simply have to be changed? Esszet (talk) 00:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

"title" and "above"

By virtue of the fact that it is placed inside the infobox, |above= has come to be used in lieu of |title= by people who find it to be more visually appealing. However, |above= is marked up as a regular header cell, and not a table caption, like |title=; therefore, not only do infoboxes which use |above= suffer semantically, but they also fail to satisfy WCAG 2.0, and, by extension, our accessibility guidelines. To overcome this, I propose that |above= be converted into an inside-the-box caption, and thus be made mutually exclusive with |title=. As a first step, we’d need to add tracking to the module to identify infoboxes which use both |title= and |above=. Alakzi (talk) 23:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Help - busted infobox motorcycle club

Sorry, I don't know where to post this. There's an odd problem with a particular infobox combined with the URL template illustrated here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_motorcycle_club/sandbox&diff=686274909&oldid=607468585 ... could somebody take a look? - Brianhe (talk) 04:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I see what the problem is. The documentation tells people to wrap the URL with {{URL}}, but the template already wraps the argument with {{URL}} by itself. It's done twice, so it doesn't work. How about if we change the documentation to tell people to use a bare URL? —hike395 (talk) 06:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Yep, changing the documentation for Template:Infobox motorcycle club sounds like the best course of action. Template:Infobox itself doesn't do any URL processing, so no changes are necessary here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done Fixed the documentation, found only one instance of infobox that actually used {{URL}}. Fixed. —hike395 (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Creating an extra parameter by using the 'extra' field

Hey. Could someone help me with this, please? It is regarding infobox parameters. Thanks in advance. Rehman 23:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Denomination placement

Per Scott Davis above, let's move the output placement of |denomination= so that it appears as <religion> (<denomination>) rather than on a second line. Any objections? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Support. Can this discussion also have |denomination= added to {{infobox officeholder}} which appears to be used as an alternative to {{infobox person}}, on the assumption that the two will not be effectively merged for a long time, if ever.--Scott Davis ^Talk 21:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Question:Let's say that someone has a religion of Pastafarian and a denomination of Gluten Free, which would appear as Religion: Pastafarian (Gluten Free). If someone only fills in the denomination field, would it appear as Religion: (Gluten Free)? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

No - it's pretty easy to code that if |religion= is blank then we have |denomination= on its own line and no religion line. So in that case, Denomination: Gluten Free, nothing else. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

In that case, Support. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

RfC announcement regarding the infobox on Bernie Sanders

There is a current RfC underway regarding the infobox on Bernie Sanders at Talk:Bernie Sanders. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

How to italicize names of works with parentheses in the title?

How do we italicize names of works with parentheses in the title? I am looking at The Afterman (Live Edition), Our Color Green (The Singles), and Pony Down (Prelude), each of which is an album with a parenthetical word or phrase as part of the title, so the whole title, including the parenthetical portion, should be italicized.

I have tried various combinations of parameters and italicizing the title of the album within {{infobox album}}, but I have been unable to make the article's title display properly. This is a problem; we are misrepresenting the names of creative works in our article titles.

For what it's worth, (un)arranged marriage works fine. I am unable to find any articles for books with this problem, but parentheses in book titles are much rarer than those in album names.

I found this post from the archives, but I did not see a link to a successful example. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Is my edit at The Afterman (Live Edition) a good enough workaround? The archived thread suggests we add support for |Italic title=all, which I agree would be better in the long run. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

That works (it was the one combination I didn't try, apparently) as a workaround. It would be good to have the infobox module support full italicization, since this is probably happening in other types of articles as well. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

{{{title}}} isnt centered in movile view

{{{title}}} isnt centered in movile view[1]. Is it a bug, or a technical reason for that? If technical it should be added to the /doc. Christian75 (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Minor bug

Test heading

If you add |bodyclass=mw-collapsible (or have your user JavaScript inject that class), the "[hide]" tool is run directly up against the heading text; there needs to be some spacing in there with padding or margin. The "[hide]" should also be made notably smaller. I've provided a demo to the right.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Stripping out parentheticals

Is it now forbidden to parenthetically mention denomination in infobox, as at Ted Cruz? And to parenthetically note "converted" as at Robert Novak? And to parenthetically mention a year at Magdi Allam?Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not aware of it being forbidden, but I'm not a fan of those kinds of parentheticals. As per the above RfC, I'd be inclined to leaving the field blank in such cases. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The RFC above concluded that "In all infoboxes in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the |Religion= parameter of the infobox." Since a demomination is a nonreligion, and "converted" is a nonreligion, and a year is a nonreligion, it appears that they would all be forbidden using this parameter. Curly, why wouldn't they be forbidden? As you know, we recently had a related discussion at Bernie Sanders. Are you saying that we ought to completely blank the religion fields in Ted Cruz, and Robert Novak, and Magdi Allam?21:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Anythingyouwant (talk)

The consensus above appeared to intuit equivalence in the terms religion, denomination and sect for the purpose of the religion parameter in infoboxes. That seems to mean that if you want to write "Islam (Sunni)" or "Christian (Presbyterian)", you should just write "Sunni" or "Presbyterian" with the appropriate hyperlink, and possibly citation links. Looking at the particular articles you mentioned, I find the "converted" misleading in Robert Novak where the text says he was agnostic before conversion (however the year might be helpful), but the conversion wording would be helpful in Magdi Allam infobox. I think these conversations seem to be going overboard at writing black line rules to override individual article consensus, especially for some aging cross-bencher in the USA upper house who recently joined a major party. --Scott Davis ^Talk 21:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Even aging cross-benchers in the USA upper house who recently joined a major party deserve a top-quality infobox.  :-) In the Cruz article, if we replace "Christian (Presbyterian)" with "Presbyterian" then I'm afraid we will have constant changes by editors who rightly point out that Presbyterian is not a religion. I have modified the parenthetical in the Novak article to say "(after 1997)". For Magdi Allam, I have changed it to say "(Islam before 2009)".Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree entirely, which was why I did not support the proposal in the recently-closed RFC. I also agree that including both a religion and denomination is useful information in many cases. Your infobox tweaks on those articles look good to me, too. Thanks. --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed that {{Infobox person}} has a denomination parameter, which appears to be rendered on the line below religion. I guess it's a different conversation to have it rendered as "<religion> (<denomination>) instead, but that is a better solution than only putting Presbyterianism in the religion field. --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes only deals with nonreligions, and as of the time I am writing this the three examples Anythingyouwant gave appear to be religions. The RfC gave a handy list of examples of religions and nonreligions just so everyone who !voted knew what they were !voting for or against, and all three of the pages Anythingyouwant listed are listed in the "examples of religions" section. Of course a parenthetical that makes the entry a nonreligion would not be allowed in the "religion = " entry, not because parentheticals are not allowed but because nonreligions are not allowed. The RfC does not address parentheticals, only parentheticals that make the entry a nonreligion, such as "Jewish (nonreligious)". --Guy Macon (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

So your position is that, if a person self-identifies as being of a particular organized religion, but also self-identifies as not being active in that organized religion, then putting "inactive" in parentheses would change the whole thing from a religion to a non-religion? I have no intention of diving back into the Sanders talk page discussion about this, but I honestly don't understand how your position follows from the RFC. I am an inactive attorney right now, but I'm still an attorney --- or so I thought.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

We cannot derive "non-religion" from "not active in religion". Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you about that, Curly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, perhaps you are familiar with the phrase "Assumes facts not in evidence"? You say "if a person self-identifies as being of a particular organized religion" but you are referring to a person who does not self-identify as being of a particular organized religion. As the RfC says, "The determination if something is a religion or a non-religion should be based on reliable sources and not on the personal opinions of Wikipedia editors, per WP:No original research." Thus this is a content dispute (we disagree about what the sources say) not a dispute about how to interpret the RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, if you want to assert that a person's religion is not X even though that person says "Religion: X" then I really cannot respond further.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Again. you are arguing for your side of an article content dispute on a page where such discussions are not appropriate. You appear to be unable or unwilling to follow the instructions at the top of this page ("This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Infobox template"). --Guy Macon (talk) 06:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Guy, I posed a hypothetical "if a person self-identifies as being of a particular organized religion" and then you connected it to a particular content dispute: "you are referring to a person who does not self-identify as being of a particular organized religion." So my comment was perfectly appropriate for this page, whereas your response at 01:23, 3 February 2016 was not. In any event, I will now take the well-trodden path of those who have departed the current Wikipedia religious war. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Transparent attempt to re-frame a content dispute as a hypothetical is transparent. You wrote "Okay, if you want to assert that a person's religion is not X even though that person says "Religion: X" then I really cannot respond further" but that isn't what I wrote. It is a transparent attempt to get me agree that Bernie Sanders at some point in time said "Religion: X" when he never said or wrote that -- an anonymous Sanders staffer did. On the Bernie Sanders talk page you wrote "BLPCAT doesn't say that a statement at one's website is not self-identification" but WP:CAT/R is quite clear: "Categories [and infobox entries] regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion".

To humor you, I will answer the transparent hypothetical: If a person self-identifies using direct speech that "Religion: X" applies to him (and that is a big if) and X is a religion (Jewish in some contexts such as appearing after "religion", Christian, Baptist) and not a non-religion (no "religion: atheist" or "religion: Non-practicing X,) then we list his religion as being X in the infobox. This is all explained in Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes and Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 28#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion with the first RfC containing a handy list of examples that nobody disputed during the RfC. And no, neither common usage or the two RfCs listed above define a denomination as a nonreligion. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no comment about the Sanders-religion-in-infobox issue. My hypothetical was that "a person self-identifies as being of a particular organized religion, but also self-identifies as not being active in that organized religion...." (emphasis added). I don't think your attempt to "humor" me addressed the latter part of the hypothetical. Anyway, this conversation has become pretty stale. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Riiiiight. and by an amazing coincidence you just happened to pose this "hypothetical" question right after making and sticking to the factually incorrect claim that Bernie Sanders self-identifies as being of a particular organized religion and also self-identifies as not being active in that organized religion. And by an amazing coincidence you just happened to use as a "hypothetical" example the exact same wording as the citation that you have been incorrectly (not direct speech) claiming is an example of Bernie Sanders self-identifying. Sorry, but my credulity cannot take the strain.

Again, if someone actually self-identifies using direct speech as being of a particular organized religion (Saying "I am Jewish" does not count; "Jewish" is also an ethnicity) and also self-identifies as not being active in that organized religion then the religion normally goes in the infobox (but not always; see the "lapsed catholic" discussion below). According to the consensus of the RfC and MOS:INFOBOX no "(non-practicing)" parenthetical is added. That sort of detail belongs in the body of the article, not in an infobox entry. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, or why you've chosen to respond to my February 3 comment over a month later, or what significant distinction you see between "non-practicing" versus "inactive". Whatever, I don't really care at this point. I do take umbrage at your questioning my honesty. Look, if someone disagrees about a particular fact pattern, it is perfectly legitimate to ask that person what position that person would take if such a fact pattern existed. Are we through now?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

But is this the "right page" anyway? This is for improvements to the {{infobox}}. It is not the place for general discussions about infoboxes whether or not they use this template (that would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes). This conversation seems to be narrowing down that it should just be at Template talk:Infobox officeholder, since that seems to be the only template that is in dispute. Nobody has complained about the religion values being used on {{infobox railway line}} (which also uses {{infobox}} underneath) as far as I know. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The non-religion in Infoboxes RfC took place here. If there's some complaint of the venue, that complaint has come awfully late. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I work with several individuals who self-identify their religion as "lapsed Catholic". I doubt there is an organised religion of "lapsed Catholic", but it would be disingenuous to describe them simply as "Catholic" just to satisfy a blanket rule that says that supplementary adjectives is not permitted in the infobox (assuming the details are described and cited in the text). --Scott Davis ^Talk 01:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

"Lapsed catholic" could be a religion or a nonreligion. If the sources said "X calls himself a lapsed catholic; he was raised catholic, but rejected the teachings of the church at the age of 12 and never looked back" it would be likely be considered a a nonreligion. If the sources said "X calls himself a lapsed catholic; he still prays every day and occasionally attends mass but hasn't been to confession in the last few years" it would likely be considered a religion. It all depends on what the sources say. If you can't tell from the sources, then for X putting any religion in the infobox would likely be giving it undue weight. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Scott Davis: The answer to this "dilemma" is clear and obvious: leave the field blank. Why this determination to fill it in? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Aren't there enough current discussions without reviving one from a month ago? I don't have a "determination to fill it in". I lean towards a succint summary of the salient points of the article in an infobox. This discussion was one that appeared to be trying to make rigid rules for everything to remove the discretion to allow each article to be sensitive to its subject's unique situation. Thus, I drew an example that I used to attempt to demonstrate that it is not easy to impose a firm rule on every situation. Neither of the colleagues I was thinking of are likely to become notable enough to have Wikipedia articles about them. If they did, I might well find that there were sources to discuss religion of one of them in the article, and hence seek to include it in the infobox, but not the other. This conversation appeared to be seeking to limit what was allowed to be said in the infobox of the one who might have reliable sources that include discussion of religion, instead of permitting it to be determined in that article's talk page. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

This is what I'm saying: leave them both blank, with the onus on those who want to include it to make their case that doing so would be appropriate. That would put an end to a lot of arguments. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Strong agreement. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)