Template talk:Infobox Latter Day Saint biography

Start and End Dates

I have been contemplating a chance in how the Start and End Dates are displayed. What if it was something like this instead:

{{{position_or_quorum}}}
{{{start_date}}} – Incumbent
Called by	{{{called_by}}}
Reason	{{{ordination_reason}}}
Predecessor	{{{predecessor}}}
Successor	{{{successor}}}
End reason	{{{end_reason}}}
Reorganization at end of term	{{{reorganization}}}

I moved the date to the top (like the political offices) and "Reason" up to separate it from "End Reason". For those who currently hold a position it will read as shown above, but for those with an end date it will show the end date instead. I think this looks better and it will shorten some of the really long infoboxes (not by much), but I'm concerned that such a significant change may be an issue for other editors. What do you all think?--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 15:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

After looking at it when working I see that the (Age X) thing becomes an issue and since almost all usages use this template its a bad idea. Never mind--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 18:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Subheading coloring and flow

Right now it is very hard to scan the infobox, and the order of information is inconsistent with other widely used infoboxes (i.e., right now military service is presented before church service -- the differentiating point of the template -- and personal details immediately follows the picture, so you see Name, Picture, Full Name (kind of repetitive, and again not emphasizing point of template). Here are my suggestions to improve the infobox.

1. Use a noticeable color to offset position subheadings Notice how, for example, the infobox for John McCain is easy to navigate even though he's held several positions. The infobox for Thomas S. Monson, on the other hand, is very difficult to scan.
2. Reorder content I suggest following an order similar to that used in Template Officeholder: Church service > Personal details > Civic service > Military service.

Thank you for your consideration. —Eustress ^talk 05:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't heard back from anyone here... I remain very dissatisfied with the formatting of this template. In addition to the coloring and content order issues, for church presidents the template merely says, "President of the Church" for title--president of which church? I really want to see something like what I've included below. Can anyone make this happen by modifying this template? The code is a bit too advanced for me to try to modify, and I can create a new template and manually insert it one by one on articles, but that would take a lot of time.

Desired template appearance

User:Eustress/Sandbox2

Cheers —Eustress ^talk 15:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see this message. I'm fine with it and will change it.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 19:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't change the Text color to white since they are Wikilinks, which default to blue. I'm working on the order thing now.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 19:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Moved thing an order "Church service > Civic service > Personal details > Military service. I did this becuse I couldn't figure out how to "embed" the Military service with a background color for the title. I also picked a background color for " Personal details", but if you have one you like, I will cha nge it. I really don't care. Template:Infobox Latter Day Saint biography/testcases will show you how it all looks compared to everything else.

As to the issue with "President of the Church" for titles. The problem I see is that is the Title. President of the LDS Church isn't the title of the office, just a "Pope" is the title and not "Catholic Church Pope". I don't see how to change it, but if you have any ideas, I'm more then willing to concider them.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 21:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I had to make a separate sub-template for the military to get it to work.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 17:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Apostle Fields

While I would appear that some of the individuals have redundant fields removing "| position_or_quorumX = LDS Church Apostle" is actually not really accurate. There is a difference between being an "Apostle" and being a member of the Quorum of the twelve. That is why, in the past, this issue was discussed and they were left in (but I cant remember where. However, for example, These individuals were Apostles but never members of the 12. Additionally, you are an Apostle even when you are in another calling such as "President of the Church". That is why the Start and end dates are different.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

There are also cases where person who were not "Apostle" held postions where you would normally be an "Apostle", such as J. Reuben Clark who was Second Counselor in the First Presidency April 6, 1933 – October 6, 1934 then called as an "Apostle" in 1934, but was only in the 12 for a few minutes.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 21:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That is precisely why I haven't removed the fields from the special-case people, but in most cases, the info is repetitive and/or trivial. I think the infobox should be about positions (either ecclesiastical, military, or political), not ordinations (bishop, seventy, apostle). —Eustress ^talk 22:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It is not trivial—they are completely different things. One is an ordination and the other is a calling, and at least within the LDS Church, the ordination is definitely more important, since that is the process whereby someone receives all of the priesthood "keys of the kingdom". Outside of the LDS Church, the calling (membership in the Quorum) is far more important, because it determines who is in the heirarchical order to become the president of the church. The start dates for both rarely coincide. Because of the different meanings and the differences of dates, I think we should keep both and not treat one as if it's "redundant". It's not, in my opinion. (I don't think the same considerations necessarily apply for ordination as a bishop or as a seventy, because the same issues of all of the keys are not involved—seventies do not receive any keys, and bishops do not receive all the priesthood keys as apostles do.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree it is not trivial and because of the different meanings and the differences of dates, I think we should keep both also. This is why they were listed that way in the first place. Additionally we have never limited or defined these fields to "positions" only. That is why the field is called "position_or_quorum". It was meant to be broad in it's inculcation. --ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 22:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of parameter for Find a Grave

I have reverted the inclusion of a parameter for Find a Grave because it is a commercial venture (WP:NOTADVERTISING) and is based on unverified, user-provided content. I don't believe it is appropriate for inclusion in an infobox. —Eustress ^talk 15:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The issue I have with this is that large number of pages already link the Find a grave page using {{findagrave}}. It seems silly to not include this standardized information what pages already use it. All that is going to happen is that the information is going end up right back in the "External Links" sections. I also dispute that it is a WP:NOTADVERTISING as I see no "Advertizing" on that page. It may be a private company, but that doesn't make it "Advertizing". The Find a Grave has proven extremely valuable. Almost all of the pages that include a resting place come from that page. If it isn't accurate, then all that info has to be removed. Additionally a huge number of image come directly from that page.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 16:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

According WP:EL, external links only go in infoboxes when they are official sites, which Find a Grave pages are not. See also Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#Find-a-Grave, which echoes my concerns about reliability. —Eustress ^talk 20:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Alma mater

Is is "Alma mater" the only "Label" wikilined? I think it should be un-linked. There is nothing that makes that label special enough to be wikilinked while the rest aren't.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 16:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

nationality

I think we should remove the "nationality" item from this template. It was a holdout from way back before this templates really in usage and was from List of members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (LDS Church). I think the creators of List of members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (LDS Church) wanted to show that not all Apostles are American or the other way around (i.e. most are). I don't know, but in the end I think that it really isn't needed anymore, for the following reasons:

1. The only place it is used is on List of members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (LDS Church).
2. It's often difficult to determine and is a bone of contention as to what nationality a person is. For example is Marriner W. Merrill (English or Pre-Confederation New Brunswick), Marion G. Romney (Mexican or American), etc.
3. A number of these people have multiple nationalities or were born in a place where they have almost never lived and don't consider themselves of that nationality. For example: Marion G. Romney. He was technically born in Mexico, but his parents were American and only live there a short time. Dose that make him Mexican just because his parents happened to be in Mexico at the time of his birth?
4. It is often the target of Vandals. For example: Brigham Young was changed into a "North Koran" all day on the 18 November 2014‎.
5. Ultimately, it seems unnecessary. The infoboxs included where they were born hometown, but not their "nationality" and the information isn't really needed on the "List" anyway. Why is it needed on this one list, but not on their actual page?

Again, I am not arguing about how to decided what "nationality" with my examples (I don't want the discussion to go off on a tangent). I am saying that I think that "nationality" is confusing, is constantly the cause of disputes, is constantly used by vandals, and the choices is something that really isn't important. If we don't really need it, why have it.--- ARTEST4ECHO ^(talk) 15:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I could make a case for keeping the nationalities, but I would say on reflection that it would make more sense to get rid of the section altogether, listing any special nationalities as notes. Thoughts. --Jgstokes (talk) 07:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. I think it could probably be removed for the reasons given. Birth places are enough. Apart from the fact that most have been American because most Mormons have been American, nationality is not really a central issue for a leader in the LDS Church, and often their nationality is not much discussed in the sources. (For instance, the positions are not filled by formal quotas of certain nationalities, as with some positions in some organizations.) In any case, most of the few who have not been American have eventually naturalized due to their place of residence becoming Utah. (Uchtdorf is a German/American dual citizen now, for instance.) These issues can be covered in the text of the bio articles if it is significant. (You don't want to get sidetracked, @ARTEST4ECHO:? You mean you don't want to argue about whether Charles A. Callis was Irish or British?) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment to Good Ol’factory - No, I don't want to argue about whether Charles A. Callis was Irish or British. (I'm thinking that you were making a joke, if not I'm sorry. I'm an engineer so I had my sense of humor removed). I was just afraid that my suggestion would get drowned out when someone wanted to argue about my own two examples. I have come to think you had that same fear since you made this change.

Comment to Jgstokes - I agree that it would be a good idea to mention any "special" nationality information in the notes. I am not suggesting that we hide that information. I just don't think it is needed on for every Apostles on the only page this information appears on (and we could avoid alot of headaches on who is what nationality). --- ARTEST4ECHO ^(talk) 15:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

It's OK—it was a joke, just pointing out the uselessness of some of the debates that could be had (or in some cases, that have been had). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Update - What I did, in order to take into account special nationalities, is modified the Template:Latter Day Saint biography lists to ignore "American", just like Template:Infobox Latter Day Saint biography and modified Template:Infobox Latter Day Saint biography to treat "born" the same way as Template:Latter Day Saint biography lists.

This won't solve the debating on which nationalities a person is or prevent vandalism, but it will at least removed alot of unneeded information on List of members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (LDS Church) and in the infoboxes.--- ARTEST4ECHO ^(talk) 19:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Re-open

I guess that perhaps we need to conciser doing more. I though that by just removing "American" it would solve most problems and we could leave the rest as it. However, Template talk:Latter Day Saint biography/Dieter F. Uchtdorf has already started with problems with "nationality".

Right now both the infobox and the list template will only allow threw nationalities that are not just "American". If the person has duel nationality, a nationality other then "American", or has a "nationality" that is different then what they were when born, then the templates will allow threw the information.

However, again people like Dieter F. Uchtdorf, Hugh B. Brown and Nathan Eldon Tanner still end up with issues decided what nationality they should be. Good Ol’factory rightly points out, "should they be listed as the nationality that they were when they became an apostle, or do we update it with nationalities acquired until the end of their life?"

I left the "nationality" of non-Americans in as I didn't feel I had a clear consensus on removal of those nationalities. However, I think we need to re-open the discussion to decided if we want to leave it as is, or remove it all together and only address the issue in the article text.--- ARTEST4ECHO ^(talk) 14:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. After examining this some more and seeing how it works in practice, I think I'm still in favor of removing the parameter completely and leaving the issue of nationality to article text. ARTEST4ECHO's compromise of having the American nationality not appear by default was a good idea. But there are still a number of problems, I think:

1. the issue of dual nationals, mentioned above by ARTEST4ECHO—if we default to not listing American, the non-American nationality still shows up, which in the case of Tanner and Brown is problematic, because they clearly were both when they became apostles and remained both until their deaths;
2. the issue of timing—is this the nationality when the person became an apostle, or is it all nationalities acquired until the end of life?;
3. lack of certainty in individual cases (I don't want to debate the individual issues with anyone; I'm just pointing out some of the problems and highlighting that debates certainly could be had over these issues):

(a) many of the early apostles who immigrated to the U.S. from other countries never formally went through nationalization procedures to become Americans, but they served in state and territorial legislatures and even in the U.S. Congress. For instance, George Q. Cannon (from England) was delegate from Utah in the U.S. House of Reps, but he was never officially nationalized as an American. Did he somehow become an American? If one acknowledges that the answer is technically no, we're faced with the fact that there was therefore a non-American serving in the U.S. Congress, which is not permitted by U.S. law;

(b) Callis was born in Ireland when it was part of the United Kingdom. Was he British or Irish? Technically, he was British, but of course an argument could be made that he was Irish;

(c) British subjects who were born in or lived in Canada prior to 1867 Canadian Confederation: are they Canadian? British? English?

All in all, I think it's just far easier to remove these issues from template consideration—templates are usually summaries, and they are not a good way to deal with issues such as these. If they are important enough to be discussed in the article, the article text is the best place to do so. For the majority of apostles, this parameter would not be a big deal. But because it causes problems for the minority, and it would not be a huge loss to remove it, I think we should remove it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Is PD_image allowed or not?

PD_image is in one of the examples, but it still comes up as an unknown parameter when the infobox is checked.Naraht (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

It looks like Frietjes was working on a mini-project to simplify the parameters, but maybe got interrupted. I have restored that valid parameter; if it is to be deprecated, there is a separate category for that. Here's a list of all of the pages that currently include |PD_image=, in case it is useful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Jonesey95, thank you. yes, there used to be data templates for each biography, and not all images were allowed to be used everywhere, so we had to distinguish between image and PD_image. however, now that all the data templates have been substituted and deleted, this infobox should only be used in the subject's main biography article, so there should be no need to restrict image use. I have updated the parameter check to only throw a warning if there is a potential collision, and fixed all the articles on the list provided above. Frietjes (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

If you have fixed all the articles above, |PD_image= should probably be removed from the template and documentation entirely, unless you have some other grand scheme. It is non-standard. Any stray uses of it will pop up in the unknown parameter category and can be fixed easily. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

okay, now removed. Frietjes (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)