2259:
believe that there ever should be a blanket rule saying that any particular group of articles should not have an infobox. I do affirm that, in general, an infobox may be expected to improve an article, and I would normally hope that the burden of politely justifying a decision to exclude an infobox should fall on those who make such a decision. Nevertheless, at the risk of heresy here, I have grudgingly come to accept that one of the vital factors is the attitude of the editors who spend their time attempting to steward a given article. Infoboxes, like all content, require maintenance and it's really not productive to impose an infobox on an article where all of the regular maintainers are opposed to having one. Those are often the cases where the infobox falls out of date and out of sync with new content, thus becoming a source of misinformation, rather than fulfilling its role as a useful at-a-glance summary of key information related to the subject ā a job for which it is the best tool on
Knowledge. The end of the infobox wars will come not with victory for one side or the other, but when all involved sufficiently de-escalate the conflict and are able to put up with each others' sincerely-held views ā even the ones we
6423:
5213:
covered the D-Day landing from a warplane; he did not storm the beaches. In addition, Neil
Armstrong set foot on the moon on July 20, 1969, not July 26. āThe CBS Evening Newsā overtook āThe Huntley-Brinkley Reportā on NBC in the ratings during the 1967-68 television season, not after Chet Huntley retired in 1970. A communications satellite used to relay correspondentsā reports from around the world was Telstar, not Telestar. Howard K. Smith was not one of the CBS correspondents Mr. Cronkite would turn to for reports from the field after he became anchor of āThe CBS Evening Newsā in 1962; he left CBS before Mr. Cronkite was the anchor. Because of an editing error, the appraisal also misstated the name of the news agency for which Mr. Cronkite was Moscow bureau chief after World War II. At that time it was United Press, not United Press International.
3582:. "Ethnicity" and "Religion" are two of those five sensitive topics, and as such, they were not to appear in Infoboxes, Categories or other Templates unless they were a defining characteristic of the article subject. If that information is merely "relevant to the subject" or "relevant to the subject's life story", then it should still be covered in the article, of course, and no one is suggesting otherwise, but that doesn't qualify it to appear in the reserved Infobox field. Because editors have ignored these requirements, and because a person's ethnicity or religious beliefs are frequently complex, nuanced matters not suitably conveyed by a tiny Infobox field, and because these fields are frequently the nexus of disruption and edit wars, the Knowledge community has overwhelmingly decided to remove the problematic fields.
3095:, those numbers are beyond what I expected as well. I also expected the nearly balanced "ethnicity to religion" ratio to be much different, along the lines of 1-to-20. I'll try to put a dent in those numbers, but I've already encountered a couple problems. (1) I see there is now a red label warning in the "edit preview" stage which warns editors that the field will be removed soon, but still the numeric count of articles using the field increases. (2) I've seen field removal reverted, with an editor using the justification that "The Template documentation still says the field can be used, so I'm restoring it." Are we waiting until the tracking categories are emptied before we remove the problematic fields and update the documentation? If so, the task will never be completed. Regards,
1120:: As soon as there's that much difficulty in reaching consensus, it's a sure sign that the inclusion of a particular field like "occupation" needs more explanation than a single word summary can provide, and hence it is unsuitable to include in that infobox. A subject's qualifications are almost never key facts in their biography and having such a field would simply be a magnet for inserting trivia about a subject's exam grades, etc. This proposal is solely intended to circumvent the problem of stating Curtis-Taylor's occupation as "pilot" by giving her qualifications as "pilot's licence" or something similar. We don't create fields in an infobox used on 230,000+ pages just because a handful of IPs don't like the outcome of an issue arising in a single, barely-notable BLP. --
3966:
unlike "place of birth" or "date of death" fields. Infobox data fields are often propagated outside of
Knowledge, and then cached and mirrored without any of the nuance, context or explanatory elaboration found in the body of the articles. As an illustrative test, try searching online for a person outside of Knowledge. Depending on which search engine, operating system and platform format you use, you'll likely see a cached portion of a Knowledge Infobox, with 5 to 12 of its fields displayed, along with your search results. I can't count how many times I've entered a person's name in the Google search box, and, for example, seen Barack Obama's Ethnicity= and Religion= as some combo of Kenyan Islam Black Liberation Muslim Irish American.
4025:
lacking in mirrored sites that only display the
Infobox fields and not the article text. But I and others have indeed noted that ethnicity and religion are complex subjects not conveyable by a one or two word Infobox field. Your observation that "It is understood" (by our readership?) that the same one or two word entry in that field will mean something different in each article, and is therefore nearly useless as a conveyance of actual succinct information, lends support for the removal of the fields rather than detracts from it. In addition, per the MOS on Infoboxes, the expectation of a level of consistency across articles using the same field is not met.
4282:
7207:
7312:
6167:
791:: the purpose of this RfC is to create a test - that of having a Knowledge article in order to be mentioned in an infobox - by the back-door. Whether or not such a test is desirable, this is no way of going about creating that rule. At present the guidance for parenats, children, etc. is to include them when "notable or particularly relevant". If the proposer wants to change that to "has a Knowledge article" and bring spouse into line with that, they should make that proposal openly, not by disguising it through a misleading preamble to this RfC. --
7036:
consider it euphemistic if it offends one's sensibilities. But if it is the useful phrase for indicating the eventual disposal of worldly remains of a life lived then I don't see as how we have much choice but to employ the phrase. We can entertain alternative phraseology but I don't see how we can rule out entirely a phrase that has a history of use to indicate exactly what we want to say in this area. You are whistling past the graveyard if you are condemning "resting place" as somehow no longer useful for
Knowledge purposes. We are not here to
3874:
ethnic group) is not globally-universal", appears to be misstated. Among
English-speaking countries, USA tops the list by a large margin in still making a big deal of people's ethnicity and religion, especially in politics. The "resistance" to such pigeon-holing that you observe is from the Knowledge community, not the "USA culture". (3) There doesn't appear to be an issue with your hypothetical Dead Australian Presbyterian Lay Preacher Politician even before the decision to remove the problematic fields. If reliable sources didn't
6338:: Even if you are correct and it is not a silly euphemism, the word "resting" implies that the state is temporary. A resting place is an armchair. "Place of rest" of "final resting place" would be the correct term and that most certainly is a coy euphemism. Unless you have the misfortune to be buried in certain European cemeteries then burial/disposal of the remains is permanent. I agree with those above, that it isn't really necessary to have info about disposal of remains in an info-box anyway. So let's do away with it.
2899:
If either field remain available to be easily used, they will continue to be misused, in my pessimistic opinion anyway. For article subjects whose religion is legitimately a defining characteristic of their public notability, there already exist religion-specific infoboxes with all the necessary and relevant fields, if I recall correctly. And I've seen that most "Infobox person"-derived templates already have support for manually entered custom fields for the very rare exceptions, if any exist. Regards,
3410:. This is important because there was significant controversy in the Christian hip hop community over this collaboration, and Sims herself said that she regrets how the collaboration turned out. My point with all of this is that this is something significant about Sims, there were two articles written about the collaboration and subsequent controversy, and only occurred directly because of Sims' faith. Maybe that's not enough to warrant the religion parameter, but I thought that it should be considered.--
2946:
see it, is that it is a huge job to ensure that the religion is either explained adequately in the body text or a mechanism is established for re-including religion into infoboxes when it's genuinely significant, whereas it it trivial to do the same for ethnicity. The community quite reasonably shows its expectation, but nobody has taken on the task. I certainly have no intention of volunteering for it. Nevertheless, as a first step, I've removed religion from the list of accepted parameters. --
31:
4177:
7249:
contingency (e.g., being devoured by wide-ranging animals, vaporized, carried off by tornado and never found, interred through wormhole into unexplored sector of universe). If so, once it makes it into
Wiktionary, let's use it. In the meantime, the continued use of "resting place", while imperfect, seems reasonable. Alternatively, we could stop being quite so anal retentive about infobox parameters and force our readers to actually read the "Death" sections of articles.
3117:"head's-up" so that they can work out what, if any, action they need to take. In light of your experience, I've now updated the documentation. If editors revert the removal of religion from an article infobox, that's their problem: the parameter is going to be removed anyway. I don't see any point in waiting for empty tracking categories - their function is mainly to to provide a list for bots to do automated edits, and not to second-guess consensus. --
5161:. The comments section and the trivia sections are posted by users. If you find a mistake in IMDB you submit a correction for review which is rejected or accepted. Even the trivia section is under editorial control. The New York Times is unreliable because it contains about 6 errors per issue corrected the following day. This is really just moving the external link from the external link section to the infobox. It is not using IMDB as a reference. --
4206:
4121:
2376:
5880:"Resting place" is an idiomatic English phrase (at least in British English) that means where the dead body or other remains are put. It has nothing to do with the normal meaning of "resting". I think it was originally suggested for use in the infobox because cremation ashes are not typically thought of a burial (even though they typically are interred, of course, often in a body-sized grave). If the body was buried, I agree with
271:
6027:
2483:
3563:
the biography. I don't see us as being here to suggest to the reader what matters and what doesn't matter. If the sources place adequate emphasis on these dimensions of the person's identity I think we should dutifully pass the information along to the reader, in the
Infobox. Sourcing of course matters. Do sources fairly often mention identity in terms of religion or ethnicity?
5203:: "Knowledge articles were described as containing 4 errors or omissions, while the Britannica articles 3." I corrected 6 dates of birth for actors that were incorrectly stated in EB. I corrected them using primary sources like birth, marriage, and death certificates. There are over 10,000 links to the print version of the New York Times in Knowledge in which corrections are
1174:. Honestly this seems to be an easy decision, adding in "qualifications" is far too vague a topic. For example, if someone took a few years of Organic Chem are they officially qualified as someone who can be trusted for Organic Chemistry? I would hope not. This example can be enlarged as well as shortened, but either way you go, you run into troubles of vagueness.
4010:āyou point out in more than one post that an Infobox field for religion fails to capture "nuance". But this is unnecessary. It is understood that religious identity manifests itself differently in each person. Thus the fact that the name of a religion fails to convey "nuance" does not constitute an argument against the indication of religion in the Infobox.
4041:"Because editors have ignored these requirements, and because a person's ethnicity or religious beliefs are frequently complex, nuanced matters not suitably conveyed by a tiny Infobox field, and because these fields are frequently the nexus of disruption and edit wars, the Knowledge community has overwhelmingly decided to remove the problematic fields."
2317:. Per the reasons listed by others above. If memory serves there is a policy where - when an infobox would only have one or two entries like "name" and "birthdate" - their use is deprecated. I cannot find the link to that at the moment but even if that policy has been changed there should still not be a blanket "must" or "must not" use guideline.
6376:
wish to associate any veneration at all to bodily remains. To many people having a place to go, to remember the departed person, is more important than if there are any physical remains there at all. Ghmyrtle and Gerda makes good points about the separate significance of the graves of notable people, which are often visited by very many.
3442:
Unlike most fields in
Infoboxes which can be filled with very little thought or concern (birthdate, school attended, place of birth, spouses and siblings, etc.), there are 5 special fields which should remain blank and unused unless a bunch of other requirements are met to substantiate that the use of the reserved field is required. (See
525:. Marriages (and sometimes there are several) of public figures are major and highly notable events/parts of their lives, and therefore where applicable (depending on the notability of the article subject, not the notability of the spouse) should be mentioned, with dates, especially if there were or have been more than one.
1196:
avenue to find consensus. Used in 230K+ page is a sensationalist argument, does it really disturb or damage those pages in anyway? Or is the consensus just give up and don't bother, there must be away to describe the subject is sensible way in the context of the article, qualifications provides an additional avenue?
879:. Editors at individual articles can decide whether information about spouse(s) warrants inclusion. I oppose blanket rules that take away the option of individual editors to write the article, in this case the Infobox, as they see fit in accordance with the particulars of the individual article under consideration.
7274:
I generally agree. Its clear there has been a longstanding consensus with 'Resting place' which to my reading indicates 'We should not use this'. The only reason its still there being no one can agree on what to replace it with. Since the only alternatives are 'Replace' or 'Remove completely' perhaps
7089:
I agree that "resting place" is a name for the PC brigade, and is not encyclopedic or suitable for an international audience. May I suggest that we allow articles to use a parameter for the visible title of the field, if it's to be different from the majority (burial), and make articles show "Buried"
7016:
I have yet to see anyone put forward a convincing argument for the retention of "resting place" or even anyone who feels strongly that it should be retained. We have been told that there has been overwhelming consensus for its retention in the past, but we see no evidence of that either. So I suggest
6877:
Could you link to the past discussions you mentioned? I did a search through the archives for the quote "resting place" and of those I've checked so far, the only discussions that seemed to have a clear consensus leaned more in the other direction (though without any clear resolution). What I do see,
5986:
Well it is high time that
Knowledge faced up to death and gave its deceased a decent burial and moved on. "Resting place" smacks of passing on and over, entering into glory and being called to Jesus. all of which are fine if one is a sweet little old lady of 94 living with a cat in Walton's Mountain.
5212:
An appraisal on Saturday about Walter Cronkiteās career included a number of errors. In some copies, it misstated the date that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was killed and referred incorrectly to Mr. Cronkiteās coverage of D-Day. Dr. King was killed on April 4, 1968, not April 30. Mr. Cronkite
4896:
How would we know? By checking, of course. I've just checked. My memory is correct; the Knowledge community has never overwhelmingly arrived at a good decision without at least a handful of unpersuasive naysayers. (And I was so hoping I was blessed with selective memory, as I could really put that
4049:
complex, nuanced matters. There is universal recognition that religion manifests itself differently in each person. It is not even correct that there are "religious beliefs". This is because there are atheists within religions. Though Christianity and Judaism posit the existence of God there is a not
3873:
With that said, I still think you've overlooked a few things: (1) The lead section of that guideline you quoted does indeed note that it applies to "templates normally used in articles", of which Infoboxes are one type. (2) Your assertion that, "USA cultural resistance to naming people's religion (or
3290:
because it's not relevant for most biographical subjects, then that idea should carry to most biographical infoboxes for which religion would not be relevant. Models, actors, probably (but maybe not entirely) politicians, and similar. Of course I'm being vague as I don't know the extent of the use of
3012:
makes sense, so perhaps someone who is familiar with the latter template could comment on any likely pitfalls, and update this template's documentation to help them switch? Once we are reasonably certain we have sufficient guidance to avoid major disruption, I'd be quite happy to disable the religion
2945:
The reason why the two RfCs had different outcomes is that - as Iridescent says - there are numerous cases where where it's essential to the reader's understanding that the subject's religion be known. There could be hardly any where the ethnicity has the same importance. Therefore, the problem, as I
2929:
interprets it above; a note that while there's an obvious consensus to remove the field from infoboxes, there are going to be numerous cases in which it's essential to the reader's understanding that the subject's religion be known (a missionary, a martyr, a participant in a religious warā¦), and thus
6963:
Yes, using co-ordinates in a BLP infobox for place of birth, place of death OR "end place" seems quite over the top. But a separate issue, I guess. And that one seems to breach agreed use of "resting place". But again I don't see one bad case as a good argument to ditch either "resting place" or the
6375:
I'd suggest that for many surviving friends or family, the act of interment, or even sprinkling of ashes, is not generally seen as "disposal"; I'm also not sure that the need to adopt an encyclopedic approach would really require us to see it that way either. But I can understand if some folks don't
3441:
Hi, 3family6. I agree with you that the subject, Natalie Sims, is a Christian, and that fact is "relevant". For that reason, it most certainly should be covered in an article on her. However, that alone is not justification for also activating the special purpose "Infobox field" for her as well.
2898:
The community decided to remove these parameters from the Infoboxes as a solution to some specific chronic problems. We should probably be mindful that we aren't re-enabling those very same problems by implementing workarounds which effectively negate the decision to remove the problematic fields.
2868:
also included some routine cautionary guidance in the closing statement. That guidance applies equally well to the implementation of either RfC decision: ensure that any content which gets removed from the Infobox because of these changes is still present in the body of the article (or in a custom
2461:
Well, not really ā once the parameter is made defunct editors will remove it from infoboxes because the message is clear. As it stands the religion parameter is left in because editors are unsure of whether they should remove it yet, especially because they can still see it in the infobox. Hence the
1738:
I also feel biographical articles should have infoboxes. Have never understood why this isn't a standard for bios in Knowledge. As far as composer articles go, I don't see why those articles wouldn't, either, as their articles are also bios. There are people who like and appreciate factoids about
1623:
to keep infoboxes off of most composer articles, so I am not sure how this conflict would be solved. Nonetheless, here's my point: I believe, while infoboxes are not always necessary, that biographical articles would benefit from the easily accessible and formatted information, and should therefore
7170:
We don't aim for the degree of precision of language that this discussion is arguing for. Our aim is to employ commonly used terminology to approximate that which is known about the disposal of remains. In this case "remains" refers to the last vestiges of a life lived. Human life understandably is
6645:
I have said quite clearly that the terms is neither "coy" nor euphemistic; it is perfectly encyclopedic. That is also what sufficient others have said, that every attempt to change (or remove) it in the past has failed to show any consensus to do so. No new or compelling arguement to do so has been
6053:
My good friend Bill was a keen game fisherman. His ashes were scattared along a line between the island you see far left, and the island you see way off in the distance, far right. Considering we have had more than 21,000 tide changes since then, where is his "resting place"? Ok, I agree we need a
5520:
I'm not clear on the issue, either. As Mr. Norton notes, neither parameter requires a formal degree, and the status of his endeavor was clearly noted. It some cases, where the institution provided a notable event or background for the subject, I can see the inclusion in the infobox. For Mr. Gates
5364:
accept user input, and its editorial staff does not do a particularly good job of verifying this information, which gets added to the database without proper scrutiny. (I can confirm this from personally being the victim of false information which it took moving heaven and earth to get deleted.) It
5329:
Which is a completely pointless comparison. As Volkswagen's (a company, not a living person) website is always going to be relevant for Volkswagen (again, a company, not a living person) regardless of the information it carries as a primary source. IMDB is an unreliable user-generated website which
5299:
All information in an infobox is required to be reliably sourced. IMDB is not a reliable source. EL's have different criteria as you can link to external websites that *may* provide more information to the reader but would be unsuitable to use as a reference. Having an IMDB parameter indicates that
3988:
Infobox field should not have been used. While his religious beliefs may have been "clearly a significant part of his life", as you say, that has no bearing on whether the field should have been used. What mattered, back before the community decided to do away with the field in general Infoboxes,
3978:
it is important, especially in the States. That's why their ethnic and religious claims will be fully claimed and covered in the body of the article. The Infobox fields, however, are for people who do not just "claim" to be in a group, but are actually notable for being movers and shakers in that
3714:
Knowledge is an international project, and while the USA might be the most populous majority-English-speaking country, this is the English-language Knowledge, not just the USA Knowledge. USA cultural resistance to naming people's religion (or ethnic group) is not globally-universal. The guideline I
3525:
that the subject is notable. If the infobox only contained the reason that a person was notable, it would be a couple of lines at most, without birth or death dates or places, and rarely their name or photograph. It is supposed to succinctly summarise the key points about that person/thing, and for
2960:
Thank you for the clearer explanation of your concerns, Rexxs. We disagree that the two RfCs "had different outcomes". The outcomes appear identical: remove the problematic field from the Infobox. However, your point is well-taken that the implementation of those community decisions affects many
2736:
How to implement this removal while ensuring that those cases in which the religion is significant to the article subject is adequately covered either in the body text or in a custom parameter will potentially require a second RFC if a discussion can't agree on a mechanism for an orderly removal of
2564:
displays from this template, (and perhaps at a number of biographical infoboxes?) but there is no presence of this parameter in the template documentation. Was the parameter intended to be removed? If not, there should be clear instructions for this parameter, as ethnicity is a contentious concept.
2258:
for infoboxes in biographies (or any other topic area). That's because the factors that need to be weighed in making a decision about whether an infobox would improve an article or not are too complex to be generalised as "all biographies should have one". It's equally true, of course, that I don't
835:
Far too over-broad a proposition; marriages can easily be of deep encyclopedic relevance/salience to an article topic, even if one of the spouses does not as yet have an article or namespace--or indeed in many instances, regardless of whether an article is forthcoming. This is particularly true of
6845:
Perhaps you've confused this with another thread because as far as I can see, I've said nothing "unhelpful" or "uncivil". Anyway, as predicted, your response is unintelligible, but based upon your ability to seemingly be offended by just about everything, I can wholly imagine you being the sort of
6475:
If you are "resting", eventually you will be "rested" and get up and do something. The dead are buried in graves and with few exceptions remain there. Resting place in a coy euphemism in the same way that the British say "Chapel of Rest" for a funeral director's morgue. Incidentally, ashes go in a
6264:
when buried (and we should fill it only in the rare cases of general interest, such as a monument on a cemetery where people might want to go). - We then need to find a different new parameter (or several) only for other cases, IF it is needed at all. I try to keep infoboxes simple. I doubt that I
4572:
from an infobox that's specifically about religious people. As for my other comments on the matter elsewhere on the page, I was more concerned that if the parameter was being removed from this infobox on the basis that its use in most circumstances is frivolous, (do we care what religion a notable
3562:
I also agree with Scott Davis. Why does religion or ethnicity have to be "defining"? Aside from rational reasons for the applicability of a religion or an ethnicity to subjects of biographies, readers can have inexplicable reasons for being interested in the religion or ethnicity of the subject of
3535:
I agree with Scott Davis. There are many biographies of persons where their ethnicity or religion is relevant especially outside of the US. In Africa, one's tribe is a defining characteristic of who one is and not just something trivial. In Iraq, whether one is Arab or Kurd, Sunni or Shia, is also
3210:
in closing the RfC probably didn't have much to summarise about denomination, but I suppose we could ask him if he simply assumed that the "overwhelming consensus" to remove 'religion' would apply equally to 'denomination' - for obvious reasons. As for the issue of other infoboxes, despite the RfC
7248:
Arguably, "resting place" is euphemistic, but as far as I know there isn't any other similarly short phrase that works any better. What we mean, I guess, is "place of disposal of mortal remains"ānot exactly svelte enough for infobox purposes. Perhaps someone will coin a new word to apply to every
6830:
Ignoring your usual unhelpful and uncivil remarks, Giano titled this section "The dead are not resting, they are dead and buried" which isn't always true. They're not always buried. But one could say that the remains are always "resting." Just keep it simple. Why change it? It's not anything that
6605:
I have said quite clearly I want to change "resting place" for a less coy and more encyclopedic term - such as "grave", "buried" "commemorated at" etc. If no acceptable term can be found then let where people's remains are deposited be in the text, but not the info box. An info-xox is supposed to
6070:
Well I always feel sorry for people who have been buried entire at sea, just imagine every time the tide turns: you are thrown this way and that, not to mention being poked and prodded by passing fish and sea lions; it must be quite exhausting - anything but restful in any sense of the word. Then
5811:
I agree that "resting place" is essentially a euphemism that we should avoid. If someone is buried, we can use the term "burial place". If someone has been cremated, etc., but the location of their remains is known, we can say "location of remains" - though it's only very rarely likely to be of
3916:
My comment about US culture was that as far as I can tell, in US culture, race, ethnicity and religion are often (not always) used in negative tones, to criticise or put down either the the in-group or the out-group of the label. Yet at the same time, it is important for politicians to be able to
3639:
constitute self-identification? Yet the Infobox at Bernie Sanders does not read Religion: Jewish. All of this wrangling over policy fails to serve the reader because common sense and countless sources support that Bernie Sanders is Jewish. Are we taking a principled stand when we studiously avoid
3116:
I expected the same sort of ratio as you and the absolute numbers to be at least an order of magnitude smaller, but we have what we have. The category populates slowly, so it may even take several days before the number stops going up. I placed the warning note in preview to try to give editors a
1951:
be made project-wide, as you propose, I would prefer and believe it would be better for our readers to forbid all infoboxes, even where they are useful, than mandate them where they serve only to clutter the article; the current compromise is satisfactory. I also question the usefulness of having
1195:
Tracy Curtis Taylor is just an example, both occupation and qualifications are subjective. I am frustrated that consensus can not be found to describe what a subject 'does' in the context of a biographical article. Qualification(s) would be another 'magnet' for controversy but it also provides an
5732:"Location of remains" seems the most basically descriptive, but it's long and clumsy. It seems like it would be safe to call the parameter something like "interment", covering all instances when remains are deposited into a grave/tomb. That would cover most of the cases when there is, in fact, a
3965:
Your assessment is, unfortunately, spot on. A person's ethnicity or religious beliefs are often weaponized by one group or another, and that is one of the key reasons the Knowledge community overwhelmingly decided that having Infobox fields for them was a bad idea. Such fields are contentious,
2969:
field will affect many articles, the net detrimental effect should still be "trivial" (if I may borrow your term), because that same information will already be in the body text in all but a few articles. In the rare case where religion is the defining characteristic of the article subject, the
589:
has a Knowledge article (blue link). 2) The existance or otherwise of a spouse or other domestic partner and children is relevant information about public figures. Inclusion should follow the same guide as other fields - that it summarises prose in the article which has an appropriate reference.
529:
Obviously someone with a short wiki article and/or someone who is notable for their accomplishments only and who is not notable as a public figure, will not have that parameter filled out. But obviously someone who is or was a major public figure or celebrity, and who has married more than once,
7293:
Every field is "imperfect". We are not aiming for "perfection". An Infobox serves its purpose when it suggests approximately accurate responses for approximately indicated fields. We do not need to extract the last bit of imprecision from Infobox fields. The reader is not a machine, even though
6902:
there was a discussion started by RexxS which doesn't look to have come to a consensus. There, however, you call it "a perennial proposal", which suggests perhaps there's a more substantial discussion that I haven't found yet prior to 2015. Then just to finish out the tabs I opened, there's the
5629:
I've been thinking about that for a while. I would need to make a custom function, but the sticking point is deciding on whether the full dob or just the year should display for living persons. As that information isn't available on Wikidata, we'd need to add a new parameter that controlled the
5505:
I guess I am missing the point, it says "withdrew" for Gates. "Drop out" and "withdrew" are not synonyms. When you drop out without formally withdrawing you have to gain admittance again, and may not be accepted. When you withdraw you are free to start up again without reapplying for admission.
5198:
Can you give examples of errors in IMDB that are uncorrected. There are 3 errors in today's New York Times that I found that are yet uncorrected. I am sure they will be corrected when I next look at the article because it is under editorial control. Somewhere on Knowledge is a list of errors in
4024:
Bus stop, you appear to be attempting to re-litigate the RfC community decisions, so you should probably initiate a new thread with that clearly stated purpose. But in brief response: in my comment immediately above, I spoke only of the "nuance" to be found in the body of the article, which is
3781:
I see nothing there that says that a dead politician who is documented in multiple sources as having been a Presbyterian lay preacher for over five decades should not be categorised as a Presbyterian politician. The guideline does not mention infoboxes, although something else says that similar
3577:
I also agree with Scott Davis: that this argument has been covered many times already. Apparently, however, Scott Davis is still hoping for a different outcome this time. As Scott Davis correctly notes, Infoboxes (and Categories and other Templates) contain relevant information that is not the
2629:
Oh wow. Cool. Thanks for the info, Nikkimaria and RexxS. And thanks for removing the parameter form the template, Rexx. Have these changes been made across the myriad biographical infoboxes? I know it's a tall order. I don't even know how such a thing would be implemented. Do any of you know if
808:
Replacing the "notable or particularly relevant" test with article existence is a poor decision. The current test is sensible yet subjective, but the proposed replacement is irrational. Many notable people do not have articles, and many non-notable do have articles, so judging notability by the
3983:
field is: (1) "how religious" or observant a person is, or (2) how important the person feels his religion is to him/her. It's neither. The most devout, observant, even fanatical, religious adherent won't have the Infobox field activated unless those religious beliefs are the reason reliable
3498:
The "right" way to annotate a person's religion via an Infobox, which is only done when religion is a defining characteristic of that subject's notability, will likely be to use a "religious biography" Infobox template, which should already have all of the necessary fields. There are no doubt
2527:
I understand, but I don't have any means of compelling editors to do anything, more's the pity. Anyway, there's been enough time since last April for folks to figure out what was going to happen. No doubt we'll now have a spree of complaints about the religion parameter disappearing from the 0
1101:
Other contributors appear to feel strongly that an occupation has to be how one earns a living, what about occupations that have no relationship to earning a living, e.g. student, housewife, scholar, volunteer, charity worker, counsellor, retired, full-time wikipedia editor etc. The crux of my
7275:
an RFC on its removal should be started? Its clear no single replacement is ever going to gain consensus, so we might as well settle the question of if we need it at all. If it turns out consensus is against removing it completely, well then we will just have to stick with an imperfect field.
7035:
Language reflects a variety of factors. We aren't here to create language. Rather we are here to use language. One can meditate on the origin of a phrase but ultimately one must use the phrase that best expresses one's ideas. One may object to the origin of the phrase "resting place". One may
1086:
page there is difficulty in reaching consensus on what an occupation is or how to describe a subject in the context of the article, I would like to add qualification(s) as an infobox field. This would allow contributors another way to describe a subject without having to address issues such a
5109:
As noteable people (and actors that also use this template) are often in and around in TV shows and movies, IMDB is great source of unique identification and further information this part of their lives , would it be an idea to add a IMDB parameter to the infobox in a similar way to the IMDB
2096:
Not really trying to canvas here, bud. The Kubrick talk page was going nowhere, so I notified on the talk page, as well as on the user pages of several who were involved in the discussion (including those with viewpoints different from mine), that there was a discussion occurring over here.
6986:
CommentāI don't think "resting" is a euphemism. "Resting place" aptly describes cessation of motion, and motion characterizes life. This is aptly descriptive language which doesn't alter meaning or put a "good" spin on something that is not good. It appropriately refers to the end of life.
5698:, we can't say "passed away" (or, indeed, "eternal rest") then we ought not to say that someone's body or cremated remains have a "resting place". So "burial place" (currently an optional alternative to "resting place") should become the only phrase used in this context in the infobox.
5085:, for example. I could be wrong, so let's see what others think about it. Technically it would be straightforward to implement, but you might want to explain how you feel it would come in handy, as there may be a better solution available. As an alternative, perhaps you could check out
3957:, for current guidance. If you'll recall, it was when you were making the case that Infoboxes were full of non-defining factoids - so why not ethnicity and religion - that I noted that you forgot to mention Knowledge's historic rules regarding exactly that (the 5 sensitive subjects).
3613:. The best source is, as usual, self-identification with that ethnicity, but right now the field is used to ascribe "Jewish" as an "ethnicity" where it is disallowed as a "religion" as not having self-identification. As a result, it is clear that the field should only be used where
3446:
for the 5 kinds of information which require special handling.) If she is famous for being a songwriter or a singer, the special field shouldn't be activated. If instead she is famous because she is religious, then it might be used. For example, religion is obviously "relevant" to
1790:
Why do you always have to use ad hominem against others who are merely expressing their opinions? If anyone is going for socialistic "fĆ¼hrer" behavior here, it's you, since you just can't seem to stand it when someone sees the world of Knowledge differently than you do. Grow up. --
373:
Support I would think that logically they would hold the same or about average standards, perhaps with a seperate clause that states that if the marriage was well known/reported (which would likely be considered notable anyways so its somewhat redundant), they should be listed.
1771:? Isn't it funny how this essay is something attributed to those who think differently to you. What is it when you don't like the fact an article doesn't have an infobox; is that IDLI too? Or is it just a socialistic crusade that you consider yourself to be the FĆ¼hrer of?
7125:
This term does not even imply religion. Life is characterized by motion. Therefore the cessation of life is characterized by the absence of motion. "Resting" is an entirely apt term for indicating the absence of motion hence the cessation of life. It is not even religious.
6578:
The term "interred" is not as broadly suitable as some here suggest because it means "put into earth". To the point: I can't see any actual proposal in Giano's extensive complaints; what does he want to change? I don't think there's any need to change the current options
5942:
Yes, and we are probably all tired to death of the subject. So can we agree that if we know what has happened to the sadly departed,can we can say buried, scattered, eaten by wolves or thrown on the compost heap, whatever. Can the info box now be altered to reflect this?
2846:
field, with the infobox coded so as only to show the religion field if the justification field is not empty. It would be easy enough for people to game it, but it would hopefully force people to think "why is it necessary to display the religion in this case?" for each
4073:
That is not what I am doing. You are gratuitously posting comments about religion on a Talk page that exists ostensibly for the purpose of discussing Template:Infobox person and I am responding to your misguided, ill-informed, and gratuitous comments about religion.
7294:
machines too can read Infoboxes. The reader can make allowances for slight mismatches between the name of a field and the answer supplied. It doesn't matter all that much because in most cases the reader's needs are not as demanding as this discussion would suggest.
1153:: IP, how would this solve the problem you raise? None of the occupations you mention could really be described as "qualifications" - we don't require someone pass an exam or earn a license to be a housewife, for instance. If you disagree with the documentation of
735:
link assumes that articles are only ever created in most-to-least-notable order, which is nonsense. Regardless of her personal notability, my wife is relevant to my biography, so I expect a spouse is at least as relevant to the biography of someone who is notable.
4333:
and see "Warning: the religion parameter will be removed soon. (this message is shown only in preview)." It will be even worse if the parameter is removed or prevented from displaying properly. I think someone needs to do some more work somewhere before removing
5780:
What is so wrong with just saying what has happened to the remains? Whether they be buried, scattered, blasted into space or merely eaten by the cat. Resting sounds coy and really rather silly. Surely the info box can just say "Died in London. Buried at sea."
1214:
The consensus appears to be that the solution you propose is not a good or the best way to address the problem you've identified. For my part, I believe it would be useful in a minimal number of cases - under most circumstances this would be covered by either
3396:, I have an example where the religion parameter is relevant, even though the subject is not primarily known for working in a religious occupation (though she does do that, too). Natalie Sims is a Christian, and this is relevant not only because she performs
2490:. I have to say that I don't understand how anybody could misunderstand "this parameter will be removed soon". That's about as clear as I could have made it, and I really don't understand why anybody would leave the parameter in place in the circumstances. --
5314:
That means that we have the proper link to IMDB. We have no proof that the official website listed in infoboxes contains accurate data, we now know that Volkswagen's official website contained lies about their gas mileage and emissions, so was unreliable.
813:
is evidence to be considered when questioning whether someone is notable: if we have a GA-class article, that's solid evidence of notability; if the article was recently deleted at AFD for lacking notability, its subject is almost certainly not notable.)
5748:
somewhere, etc. Perhaps adding a catch-all parameter for when interment doesn't apply, like, well, "remains location"... or we could just keep "resting place" because while it's a euphemism, it's also the only way (that I can think of) that includes all
1614:
should have an infobox. I propose that all biographical articles, about persons living or dead (so long as the following information is verifiably known: name, birth date, death date if deceased, nationality, and perhaps occupation), should include the
5070:
That parameter can result in an infobox that is as much as 310px wide with an image width of 300px. That compares with the normal infobox width of 22em (about 240px) and normal infobox image width of 220px. I don't think you'll get support for giving
1650:
I am of the opinion that biographical articles should, as a rule of thumb, have infoboxes. I view it as a great way to sum up information about any given person without having to read through sometimes fairly lengthy articles to pick out this data.
2873:" Reading that assertion has prompted me to review both RfCs, and while I still can't see where that argument was made, I must admit it is more difficult for me to name many people who are notable first-and-foremost for their ethnicity. (Perhaps
1946:
Infobox inclusion is best decided on a case-by-case basis, taking into account particularly the importance of the information that would be included in the infobox, the length of the article, and the comprehensiveness of the lead. If this decision
132:, so behaves as do most html elements; in particular, it will widen to accommodate wide content like images. The default width is 22em, which is about 240px in my Monobook skin. Any image wider than about 230px will result in a wider infobox. --
3249:
have a strong opinion either way, but I would think it's implicit that "denomination" is a subset of "religion" and trying to keep the former while eliminating the latter would just be an end-run against consensus. The RFC was explicitly about
7394:
Then let's have a RFC and if no agreement is reached do away with it altogether. It's not necessary to have every fact crammed into-box anyway; there needs to be something left to inform in the text or it's not worth bothering to write a page
5237:, not otherwise. A reliable source checks out its information before publishing, and hopes it got it right, but in many cases there are deadlines, and they don't have forever to do so. When they find that they published something incorrect,
1846:
at "WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes" and I agree with that. Similarly I don't think Infoboxes should include "Influenced by" and "Influenced" fields. This tends to be subjective and is better addressed in the body of the article.
2961:
more articles with "religion" fields than with "ethnicity" fields. Of course we want to cause as little disruption to articles as possible when implementing the community decisions. But as Iridescent correctly observed, such information
2017:
Please note that, under this proposal, an infobox would not be included on a biographical article where the subject's name, birth date, death date if deceased, nationality, and perhaps occupation could not all be verifiably identified.
5674:
Why are all British Prime Ministers only "resting" in their graves, when as we all know something far more horrible is really happening. Can we not overcome this lower middle class tweeness, and allow them at least a decent burial?
3475:, could someone who knows how please make that an embeddable module? I see a lot of historic politicians who were also Presbyterian or Methodist lay preachers for many decades. This is a notable part of their biography, but not the
1001:
There is no mention in the guidance of "bluelinked". Since an individual can be notable but not be bluelinked, and conversely have a bluelinked redirect when not notable, this RfC is defective in its preamble and should be closed.
3451:, and it is likely most people who know of him also know this relevant fact. But that does not justify the use of the reserved field in an Infobox. Hopefully this helps better explain the Infobox field situation. Kind regards,
7171:
invested with emotional meaning and this is reflected in language. Precision does not take precedent over emotional import despite the best efforts of those trying to banish the use of such common terminology as "resting place".
6116:
A thought: There are already parameters for burial place, monuments, and death place. Perhaps for all those cases when it would otherwise be difficult to explain a precise location.... we just omit it and use the article text. ā
1408:
6360:
the Newtonian sense of "resting", i.e. "an object at rest stays at rest...". Granted, if we're talking about material objects (i.e. the body), it's hard to say there are no forces acting upon it while it's e.g. decomposing. ā
5448:
Switch it to "education=". Using a latin phrase in the English Knowledge is never a good idea. If you have to look up the definition to see if it means if they graduated or not, then it is best not to use it in an infobox.
438:. Summoned by bot. Many marginally notable persons have Knowledge articles and I do not see the point of including their spouses, who are rarely notable and very often are not even mentioned in the article unless they are.
399:
Given that the requirement for parents is "notable or particularly relevant", not "bluelinked" as the RfC erroneously states, are you sure that supporting this proposal actually does fit with your expectations for spouses?
4675:
Implementing the RfC would clearly be detrimental to the project. Per WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, it should be kicked into the long grass (start a new RfC to placate wiki-bureaucrats, if necessary). A bit like Brexit, you might say.
5175:
IMDB is a user-generated database and is currently (and has repeatedly in the past) been found to be an unreliable source in general, as well as almost completely unuseable for BLP's. Please do not spread misinformation.
7001:
But by that argument the place where a person comes to rest equates to the existing infobox parameter "place of death", (even though the person may have been resting in that exact same place for weeks, months or years)?
1478:
parameter which will suppress the headings for the second infobox (like {infobox person} itself has). If you felt capable of doing the modification, and could get consensus for it, then that would be a solution for you.
684:
There's nothing about "blue-linked". It's perfectly possible for a parent or spouse to be independently notable, but not have a Knowledge entry. Conversely, they may be non-notable, but be "blue-linked"; it's called a
1267:: No clear criteria, would mostly be used for trivia. We already have too many parameters that people use as excuses to shoe-horn detailia into the infobox, which should be a summary of only the most important facts.
6742:
Well that can be done - 'Buried - only to be used if actually buried - otherwise do not use'. It wouldnt account for some exceptions, but then infoboxs are not built for exceptions which can be handled in the prose.
5884:, that "burial place" should always be used. If the body was cremated, I personally think "location of remains" is better than resting place. I thought an earlier discussion here had "put this to bed" in some way?
2569:? Like, does the community care what ethnicity an actor or a famous American auto racer is? And lastly, how do we determine ethnicity? Independent attribution, or self-identification? Something in between? Thanks.
712:
What does "particularly relevant" even mean? It is 100% subjective, please define it so we can all know who is "particularly relevant" and who is "not particularly relevant", maybe a decision tree or a checklist.
4378:. It's a pity that some of these problems weren't foreseen when the RfC was being discussed, but we are where we are. Looking at the list of other infoboxes that depend directly on {infobox person}, I only saw
4062:
does not constitute a cogent argument against religion in the Infobox. Firstly there is no one that would argue that all coreligionists are of one mind. Secondly that statement contains the illogical notion of
4828:
and avoid pointy, bureaucratic behavior. The snowball clause states: If an issue does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire
6071:
there's those other unfortunates in the Himalayas, or wherever, who are chopped up and left out for vultures, that can't be very relaxing either. So it does seem that "resting place" really does have to go.
2127:- while I generally support the presence of infoboxes, this should remain a matter of consensus and discussion per ArbCom, since certain biographies benefit more of infoboxes over others. It shouldn't be a
1711:
as some examples, it is incredibly beneficial to have infoboxes listed as a shortlist for the "most important" information. At the end of the day, isn't that the sole purpose for the creation and usage of
3321:
455:
with clarification. Notable is sufficient (i.e., a legit article could be written; one does not already need to exist). Agree that always including spouse in the infobox is generally trivial clutter.
5016:
parameters, so would be an even better bet most of the time as an embedded module to supply religion and denomination for {infobox clergy}. On the other hand, the more I look, the more I'm attracted to
2750:
while there's no guidance on how we should include that in those relatively small fraction of infoboxes where it is appropriate. Perhaps it's time for that second RfC to meet Iridescent's prescription?
5547:
transferred, their alma maters are still the schools the attended (along with the ones they graduated from). The education field notes the degrees they received, and the dates they attended and so on.
5143:
And in case you're wondering, much of IMDB's content is user-generated, which dramatically reduces its value as a reliable source. We don't consider Knowledge a reliable source for a similar reason. --
754:
If a spouse is included in the prose (which they almost always are if there's a source that names them), they should also be included in the infobox, since infoboxes summarize key points of the prose.
4266:
Why? Their presence is surely beneficial as a pointer to editors of the template in future that the parameter was once there but has now been removed. We are in no danger of running out of numbers. --
3993:
you linked, which he likely wrote himself, mentions his religion only once, and not at all in their version of an Infobox - the other 7 mentions appear to be of church-related institutions.) Regards,
3931:
mentions "Presbyterian" eight times. It was clearly a significant part of his life, but the reason he is entitled to a wikipedia article about him is his parliamentary role, not his religious life. --
3499:
historically notable people who were also religious, and this may indeed be a notable part of their biography - and as such, it should be covered in the body of the biography - but as it is not the
1442:
6700:
for sharing you view; however it's a view that appears to be in the minority here. The agreed solution seems to be a choice between an alternative description or nothing at all. Interestingly, the
3071:
3046:
3028:
548:"Spouses are chosen, parents are not" Leaving aside who chooses who.. is this only an argument for listing number of spouses , and dates/durations of marriages; and only names of they are notable?
6831:
needs to be changed. Please do not bother to respond, as I won't change your mind no matter what I say. I'll go ahead and anticipate some snarky comment and save you the trouble from typing one.
5491:
Your missing the point.....we need a qualifying word.....looks like they finished. We should not mislead readers off the bat like this..just need a parameter to say `-withdrew or something.----
3961:...as far as I can tell, in US culture, race, ethnicity and religion are often (not always) used in negative tones, to criticise or put down either the the in-group or the out-group of the label.
3075:
3050:
6878:
however, is that although lots of objections have been raised over "resting place", there's definitely a lack of consensus for what to replace it with. Similar to what we have here. I see that
5651:
4868:
I can't recall the Knowledge community ever overwhelmingly making a good, non-detrimental decision without at least a handful of dissenting, but ultimately unpersuasive opinions being voiced.
3153:. I'm curious if the parameter removals are taking place at all the derivative niche infobox templates. I don't know how many there are or how to even find all of them, but there's stuff like
5669:
5521:
and Mr. Damon, this is clearly the case. To complicate, I would also note that Mr. Gates did eventually receive a degree from Harvard, but I'm not sure how we should weight honorary degrees.
2746:
makes a good job, imho, of describing the result and warning against the indiscriminate use of the field. I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable removing the ability of the infobox to display
3231:
and its ilk, could it? I think that the least we should expect would be a discussion at the infobox talk page where removal is proposed. I accept that others may disagree with me on that. --
7187:
And inanimate bodies that are 'at rest' are usually expected at some point to move again, or have the potential to move. Which with notable exceptions is not the case for corpses/remains.
7099:
1923:
To be honest it hasnt a hope of succeeding. You cant mandate a swathe of articles are *required* to have specific content. It also arguably violates WP:CON. Its just never going to pass.
1590:
7240:
6916:
6126:
4593:? Seems like a "letter-of-the-law" issue that doesn't jibe with the spirit of the law. As for how to resolve the matter on a technical level, that's a discussion beyond my capabilities.
2934:
already be there, but one can't assume, particularly on shorter articles), or that a mechanism is established for re-including religion into infoboxes when it's genuinely significant.Ā ā
2864:
When I look at the two RfCs, I see the same outcome for both: Remove the problematic parameter from the Infoboxes. The only difference I see between the closing of the two RfCs is that
6326:
2783:
6274:
493:
parametre at present demands they be deemed "particularly relevant" (in this regard the RfC is clearly misleading); though vague I believe spouses should be held to similar standards.
4734:
based on the arguments given. The "numbers" were also given as an unnecessary courtesy "if anyone cares", and I found them informative as a measure of how many editors participated.
2353:
2281:, is why I like you so much. Winkelvi, Hoobin, and the other person who I can't be bothered to scroll up to find, please take note. This is how to make friends and influence people.
2245:
1642:
986:ā Marriages are part of the basic information in any biography, and most spouses of notable people are not notable in their own right. This proposal sounds utterly un-encyclopedic. ā
7268:
3759:
Categories 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
1873:
for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at
7328:
7117:
6787:
I see nothing wrong with using Resting Place to describe the location of the remains of the dead, regardless of if they are ashes in an urn, buried, interred, sunk, or bear poop.
5339:
5324:
5309:
5272:
5252:
5185:
2185:
670:
648:
6422:
be buried in a grave, but are more usually scattered or immured for ten years or so (not usually forever) in a niche at a crematorium or cemetery with a memorial plaque - like
5688:
4355:
3954:
3849:
3369:
3183:
2726:
2693:
2412:
3917:
claim to be in a group, even if there is little evidence they belong there. I am not concerned about those edge cases, I'm concerned about the obvious ones where the person is
5290:
5226:
2842:
field displaying indiscriminately while still allowing it to be used in cases where the subject's religion is inherent to their significance would be a separate and invisible
740:
722:
622:
1903:
I think MH knows this (hope so, anyway), but believe he is just testing the waters via survey to see if this is something that could be effectively pursued at MOSINFOBOX. --
571:
6904:
5966:
1334:
states "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose", and filling with redundant trivia makes an infobox much less effective in its job. -
428:
6536:
A friend's mother is currently 'resting' in jewelry after being cremated and turned into an artificial gem. I am not sure 'Middle finger' is appropriate for an infobox...
3270:
couldn't include the denomination, although I'd urge those who do maintain other biographical infoboxes to look at every field and consider "is this really necessary?".Ā ā
2988:
Well, perhaps the same result, but with differing implementations, but that's not important. At present, my concern is with editors who curate articles which properly use
2298:
Yes Cassianto, RexxS is indeed the voice of reason here and I share his view entirely. Although the war might also end when all the leading proponents had resigned, alas.
284:
262:
5170:
701:
141:
5534:
5515:
5500:
5486:
5458:
5365:
is because of this that IMDb is generally not considered to be a reliable source for Knowledge. For American films, the AFI catalog is generally reliable, which -- and
489:
I support wording demanding reliable independent sourcing. Demanding spouses have articles is a bit too much when often times marriages are notable but not the spouses.
7017:
we do away with it altogether and where known a more accurate description is placed in brackets after the place of death eg Died: London (buried at Highgate Cemetery).
3387:
4058:. We are not here to resolve what we may perceive as internal inconsistencies in the religions of the world. You may not like religion in the Infobox but stating that
2419:
5767:
I think of "resting place" in the sense of an object comes to rest somewhere when it stops moving, not in the sense of the Prime Minister having an afternoon nap. --
5463:
We could ....But there is no partial credits- degrees at this level - you either completed it or you did not...no half way. These people are not half educated.--
4254:
4165:
4157:
3950:
3845:
2685:
2592:
2366:
1838:
I am supportive of this proposal. I think that Infoboxes should be used wherever they are useful and this would tend to include biographical articles. In looking at
1815:
Also rich, when you also exhibit behaviour that shows your own disdain for infobox-less articles. Still, never let the truth get in the way of having the last word.
1107:
865:
per Snow Rise. Another consideration is that it would lead to the disproportionate removal of women, who are less likely to be bluelinked, especially in older bios.
6887:
5021:'s suggestion of adding religion and denomination to the module already embedded in {infobox clergy}, even though it would only fix the problem for that infobox. --
4573:
Indy 500 mechanic subscribes to?) it should be removed from offshoot infoboxes that don't intuitively pertain to religious leaders. For instance, if it appeared at
3790:. Therefore if it's OK to categorise him as a Presbyterian Australian politician, it should be OK to put all of those adjectives in the infobox on his article too.
1305:
1201:
5861:
The difference is, this is an encyclopaedia. Findagrave is perhaps better and more informative. It's fine to give it in the "death" section, but for an infobox?
1259:
661:
be deleted if not blue linked. What is the point of having a rule and not enforcing it? We changed the comma rule of ", Jr." a few months ago and removed them. --
186:
Is there a way to indicate that a person has been member of different parties? The template now indicates only one party, even if the field has multiple values.--
6545:
6413:
6399:
3905:
3878:
refer to, or introduce, the person as the "Australian Lay Preacher" instead of the "Australian Politician" in the totality of sources about the person, then the
1894:
1699:
noted below, this should be more about how a typical, end user reads, interprets, and interacts with biographical articles. I believe for huge biographies like
6891:
6807:"wrong using Resting Place to describe the location of the remains of the dead, regardless of if they are ashes in an urn, buried, interred, sunk, or bear poop"
5762:
4906:
4891:
4877:
7136:
unless an outside force acts on it, and a body in motion at a constant velocity will remain in motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an outside force.
6296:
5987:
Assuming most of our readers are under that age and hopefully live somewhere a little more cosmopolitan let's be a little more precise with the human remains.
5771:
5429:
today and noticed Harvard in the infobox. Not sure why we would mislead our readers about someone's education. How can we fix this problem.....noticed same at
4939:
4839:
4817:
4782:
4768:
4743:
1417:
able to be embedded into this person template? Or help show me how to do it myself? There are parameter in this template that are not duplicated in that one.--
1343:
1322:
1288:
1102:
argument is that qualification(s) provides another avenue for contributors to come to a consensus on how to describe a subject that adds context to an article.
7284:
5893:
5396:
3435:
1725:
1687:
1660:
1183:
1166:
7180:
7165:
7011:
6996:
6685:
6435:
5935:
5916:
5812:
interest, I would have thought. It may offend some, but that's irrelevant - it's a neutral description. If no-one knows, we leave the parameter(s) blank.
5727:
3626:
2325:
2160:
2142:
2115:
2087:
2053:
1232:
1205:
1145:
7303:
7196:
7090:
when that hasn't been given, followed by the place? That way the discussion here will just concern people editing articles and not everyone reading them. --
6941:
allthouh I still see we have the coordinates for a "resting place" which seems completely over the top, unnexessary information, but that's for another day.
6796:
6619:
6596:
4002:
3935:
3557:
3530:
3512:
3493:
3304:
3170:
2938:
2908:
2604:
2215:
2036:
2008:
1932:
1918:
1865:
Just to point out that this RFC by its nature and location cannot mandate, prohibit, restrict or otherwise dictate infobox use anywhere on the encylopedia.
1856:
1758:
1111:
557:
119:
6883:
4067:
when in fact we know that a person can claim membership in a religion while simultaneously claiming atheism as their operant philosophy. You say that I am
3536:
relevant. Religion for people like newscasters or journalists is also important since their religious views could slant their reporting. Say for instance,
1973:
618:
7449:
7389:
7030:
6973:
6954:
6507:
6385:
6370:
6147:
6022:
6000:
5981:
5956:
5030:
4989:
4863:
4305:
4083:
4034:
4019:
3591:
3572:
3460:
2307:
2193:
It helps to condense relevant information, such as birth date and location, into a nice little quadrilateral, and can allow itself for use in relation to
1351:: Occupation should chiefly reflect the occupations for the person for which they are notable. Strong consensus for not introducing Qualifications field.
1096:
447:
7073:
6899:
6752:
6666:
6573:
6351:
5639:
4721:
4696:
4275:
3921:
for one aspect of their life, yet that may not be the most the most significant aspect of their life. I haven't found the example I was thinking of, but
3794:
2272:
1363:
1129:
974:
477:
6930:
I too have not been able to find any consensus to keep "resting place." Therefore I propose we do away with it all together, and just have or example: "
6858:
6840:
6825:
6527:
5873:
5856:
5838:
5556:
4195:
4183:
from reading the discussion above it seems this was done two days ago. If you are still seeing this in an article, please provide more details āĀ Martin
1827:
1783:
1386:
6720:
gets a "resting place" even though the text makes clear it's doubtful that he's resting there and his head is definitely not - sounds very restful. so
6265:
would even include the burial place in an actual infobox for the composer, this is only an example of how burial place can be used and is displayed. --
5706:
4975:
4602:
3333:
3240:
3126:
3104:
3022:
2983:
2760:
2663:
2639:
1806:
7369:
7355:
7147:
5794:
5152:
5089:
for a technique of allowing the image to be rendered above the infobox, thus allowing much wider images without affecting the width of the infobox. --
4961:
4563:
3763:), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion. For a dead person, there must be a
3709:
3679:
3649:
3274:
3144:
3087:
3062:
3040:
2955:
2851:
2624:
1619:
in their lede. Now, this would be a monumental, and I certainly expect a controversial, change. It would also conflict with the consensus acheived by
6737:
6640:
5965:? We might even need a RfC here. There are no fewer than eight previous discussions with "resting place" in the archive, the most recent of which is
5414:
2293:
1175:
7431:
7049:
5821:
2537:
2515:
2466:
2447:
1578:
1548:
1518:
1488:
6084:
6063:
5098:
3636:
2930:
once the field is deprecated, in these cases people will need to ensure that their religion is either explained adequately in the body text (which
409:
4670:
2041:
Please note that you are delusional if you think you can force this cancer on all biographies. Does Matron know you have access to the computer?
781:
248:
230:
6493:
6470:
6048:
2499:
7455:
312:
5664:
5472:
3949:
for Knowledge's latest guidance on why it isn't 'OK to put those ethnicity and religion adjectives' in Infoboxes. I actually told you to look
3688:
is an atheist for the simple reason that sources do not support that Bernie Sanders is an atheist. Also you should be aware of our articles on
362:
6894:
which looks to have resolved to remove the parameters. Haven't yet seen where they were reinstated. The first real meaty discussion I see was
5711:
As far as I know, cremated people aren't necessarily "buried", an that justifies the choice of words "resting place", at least in some cases.
5055:
3206:, although the only two contributors who mentioned it seemed to be against removal, a position that did not enjoy support. I would think that
2175:
serves, except that it helped some editor with OCD sleep well knowing that she or he had added an infobox to a previously barren biography? ā
6879:
5621:
4045:
It doesn't matter if a person's religious beliefs are complex, nuanced mattersābecause no one believes that a person's religious beliefs are
2717:
2578:
1056:
327:
3578:"reason" the subject is notable, like their place of birth, or date of death. What Scott Davis fails to mention is that Knowledge also has
6895:
6704:
gives a "burial" place, when the test makes it clear that the remains are actually displayed and housed above ground in a cathedral; also
2511:
I meant that someone editing the page would not feel compelled to remove the parameter while it still existed and worked. Anyway, thanks.
5402:
913:
per everything Softlavender said. We shouldn't downplay big events in people's lives, especially when the marriage is highly publicized.
1839:
6713:
5131:
4701:
P.S. Also trout the closer of that RfC, for counting votes instead of weighing arguments (aka "Knowledge has had enough of experts"?).
2831:
614:
308:
parameter designed to list additional political affiliations of the subject. The Churchill infobox could surely be amended this way. ā
4346:
5045:
Can we add the landscape parameter to this infobox for the image? "Infobox musical artist" has it. I think it might come in handy. --
4339:
3989:
was if the person's religion was the significant reason reliable sources took notice of him in the first place. (As a side note: the
3844:
You are looking in the wrong place. The latest guideline regarding the handling of Ethnicity and Religion fields can be found here:
3221:, and it's not obvious to me that the result should automatically propagate to other biographical infoboxes, as it couldn't apply to
1047:
326:
The consensus is against the proposal that the inclusion requirement for "spouse=" to match "parents=" in that they must be notable.
6939:
6898:, where it looks like most people didn't like resting place, but couldn't agree on a replacement and it fizzled out. More recently,
4258:
4169:
2965:
already be covered in the body of the article. That's also where any citations should already reside. So while the removal of the
2565:
What is the appropriate usage? Should the parameter only be used when it is significant to the article subject, as was decided with
1842:
I see exceptions or adaptations that make sense. Highly subjective material should be kept out of Infoboxes. Therefore I read about
7138:
The word "rest" has uses outside of the life sciences. Even inanimate bodies are said to be at "rest" when they are not in motion.
5826:
I also agree with Giano here. But more to the point, who cares where they are buried? In my opinion, this parameter is just bloat.
5511:
5482:
5454:
5320:
5286:
5222:
5166:
2332:
2224:
777:
718:
666:
567:
424:
358:
258:
115:
5000:
to ensure we won't be trampling over the opinions of the editors there. In the meantime, it has been pointed out to me (thank you
2742:
The argument was that religion may be a key fact in certain individuals' biographies, in a way that ethnicity could never be. The
1474:
to put the fields of that infobox inside the {infobox person} infobox. However, templates used like that are modified to accept a
510:
7473:
4789:"The snowball clause is designed to prevent editors from getting tangled up in long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic discussions over
2798:
and shows a message when previewing the wikitext. If folks wanted to go along that route, then the sandbox version could replace
97:
89:
84:
72:
67:
59:
6390:... which makes me think of displaying "Grave" instead of "Burial place", fitting both, buried and an urn of a cremated body. --
3720:
General categorization by ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, or disability is permitted, with the following considerations:
965:
should be included too, no matter that they divorced 13 years ago and he remarried 10 years ago. Just making a comment ya know.
539:
353:
Change the wording so that the inclusion requirement for "spouse=" matches "parents=" that they must be notable (bluelinked). --
7408:
6907:
which found consensus for "resting place" not to include cremation (but did not directly address the name of the parameter). ā
4997:
1470:
parameters, designed to allow other templates to be embedded inside it. So in an article using {infobox person}, you could use
1157:, or how others are interpreting that documentation, you could certainly start a discussion on that issue - but this isn't it.
949:
871:
594:
7091:
4070:
4042:
1493:
I'll try this. Some infoboxes, like the one for musicians, have an |embed=yes parameter. I'll see how the |child=yes works.--
1029:
1011:
857:
5442:
932:
888:
390:
195:
6938:". This allows for every conceivable method of disposal without confusion, misinformation or euphemism. An example is here
6134:
That would be my favoured option. If it's in the text, anyone who's that interested can dig about for it, no pun intended.
5005:
4577:
3890:
3469:
3225:
3158:
3006:
2971:
2151:
Just to clarify, Arbcom does not make policy. They just re-affirmed the already existing community consensus for infoboxs.
1601:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1529:
1414:
827:
2362:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1402:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1076:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1041:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
765:
562:
Parents start with the letter "p" and spouses starts with the letter "s" so clearly one is notable and the other isn't. --
347:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
6662:
6322:
5737:
5617:
5507:
5478:
5450:
5316:
5282:
5218:
5162:
4935:
4813:
4764:
4717:
4692:
4250:
4161:
1103:
905:
800:
773:
714:
662:
644:
610:
563:
499:
420:
354:
254:
111:
2436:"Warning: Page using Template:Infobox person with unknown parameter "religion" (this message is shown only in preview)."
6716:
who the text tells us is buried in Westminster Abbey has no reference at all to it in his info-box. Meanwhile poor old
5281:
This is moving the external link from the external link section to the infobox. It is not using IMDB as a reference. --
3852:. I assume corresponding policies and guidelines, like the one you just quoted, will eventually be updated accordingly.
1197:
990:
5207:
made, they are made to the online version, or printed the following day. Here is a correction from the New York Times:
772:
How is this different from "parents=" which are not to be included? WHat makes one clutter and the other essential? --
5723:
5040:
4494:
4396:
3738:
characteristics of an article's topic are central to categorizing the article. A defining characteristic is one that
3640:
indicating in the Infobox that Bernie Sanders is Jewish? Should material of this nature be omitted from the Infobox?
3483:
2816:
2787:
2630:
there's any plan to have a bot (or some other mechanism) remove them from articles across the project? Just curious.
1279:
1088:
468:
6556:
I've often wondered about the carbon diamond thing; suppose it was stolen: would that be theft or kidnap? But, yes,
4311:
3027:
I'd suggest that we also add a tracking category for religion (and possibly also for ethnicity), much as we did for
2415:
or disable the "this parameter will be removed soon" warning. Almost every time I edit a BLP this warning comes up.
7259:
7064:
5655:
5581:
5086:
3886:
consistently refer, describe or introduce him as a preacher, then also happen to note he was in politics, then the
6964:
entire parameter. (I see end place for both Maggie's and Denis's ashes is called a grave in the picture caption.)
3654:
I am not allowed to comment on Sanders. I note, moreover, that where a person states they are "atheist", they do
5904:
5645:
3728:" principle applies to gendered/ethnic/sexuality/disability/religion-based categorization as to any other, i.e.:
2137:
1739:
those they are looking into at Knowledge. To me, it's a what's best for readers issue, not an editor's elitist,
5601:, which are used in the non-Wikidata version of the template. How can that markup be included in this template?
1087:
remuneration, or what proportion of their time is spent on the activity for it to be described as an occupation.
7422:
is left "to inform in the text", because the Infobox is duplicative of the body of the article, intentionally.
3540:, the first Native American baseball player. Why would it not be relevant to have in his infobox that he is of
3428:
2181:
2001:
1914:
1802:
1754:
1571:
1511:
1435:
926:
3324:
to see the scale of the issue. I expect that a bot can use that to clean up after the parameter is removed. --
692:". Did you deliberately miss out the part about "particularly relevant", or did you just not read that far? --
253:
The plural makes it sound like the person belongs to multiple parties simultaneously. The singular is fine. --
7360:
You can't awaken a corpse, therefore they're not resting. Anyways, an Rfc on these matters, has been opened.
6480:- just one of the useless pieces of information one picks up as one journeys through life towards the grave.
5736:. Plenty of exceptions, of course, like an urn kept on a mantle, burial at sea, ashes turned into a diamond,
5591:
emits a microformat, but this lacks the microformat markup for dates, which is emitted by sub-templates like
3154:
2737:
the parameter, but it's clear that there's strong consensus to remove the parameter from the generic infobox.
385:
298:
206:
3749:
refer to in describing the topic, such as the nationality of a person or the geographic location of a place.
2871:
that religion may be a key fact in certain individuals' biographies, in a way that ethnicity could never be.
2743:
2254:
Some may know me as a strong proponent of infoboxes, but I have to admit that even I wouldn't want to see a
628:
Really? Who is "we" in this context, and where was consensus to do this for "infoboxes" (plural) discussed?
6453:
I disagree that "resting" always implies "that the state is temporary" (at least in the traditional sense).
4665:
4300:
3922:
2551:
530:
should have that parameter filled out, as the infobox is the perfect place to briefly summarize that data.
47:
17:
4111:
3135:? My reading of the RfC suggests that it too should be removed, but that wasn't spelled out in the close.
2768:{{Infobox person/RPsandbox |religion = Pastafarian}} {{Infobox religious person |religion = Pastafarian}}
6462:
6306:
a euphemism. It is where an object "comes to rest", i.e. a place from which it is not expected to move.
5595:
4748:
There is no evidence whatsoever of any arguments being weighed; and the "snow" claim is palpably absurd.
4519:
4382:
3755:
is a first step in avoiding problems with gendered/ethnic/sexuality/disability/religion-based categories.
1313:- subtlety and careful wording is the way to consensus; you won't find it with another infobox category.
6592:
5630:
format for each article. For now, I'd recommend using the appropriate template as a local parameter. --
5572:
5539:
As I understand it, the alma mater is any university that has been attended by the subject, so even if
5243:. That is a sign of their editorial reliability - if they were unreliable, they wouldn't even bother.
38:
3295:
across these templates, I just wanted to float the idea so that things didn't get lost in the cracks.
7095:
6709:
3927:
3782:
considerations should apply. It does say that the characteristic should be defining of the article's
1983:- though I think most biographical articles should have an infobox, it should not be a requirement.--
1813:"...you just can't seem to stand it when someone sees the world of Knowledge differently than you do.
1301:
1137:
The details and nuance of a field like this need explanation(s) in prose in the body of the article.
1083:
110:
Is there a standard width to the box, some seem wider than others, or is this an optical illusion? --
6518:
My father owned a funeral home.....the word he used was "interred"....not sure if this helps here.--
6224:
6173:
5741:
3979:
group. There are two popular misconceptions among Wikipedians, that the qualification for using the
7445:
7236:
7161:
7007:
6969:
6503:
6409:
6381:
6018:
5977:
5931:
5900:
5889:
4985:
4887:
4859:
4388:
as likely to be affected. For reasons I can't quite fathom, {infobox theologian} doesn't allow the
2303:
1255:
1017:
105:
7054:
Yup. We've got to work with what's available, and if the current lexicon is inadequate, so be it.
6628:. But then this is the kind of problem infoboxes introduce in the name of "gleaning quick facts".
4358:
and the discussion above, I don't think we can do anything but remove the religion parameter from
940:
The name of a notable person's spouse warrants inclusion whether or not the spouse is bluelinked.
7280:
7192:
6748:
6697:
6658:
6541:
6318:
5613:
5552:
5392:
5335:
5305:
5268:
5248:
5181:
5104:
5075:
4931:
4809:
4760:
4713:
4688:
4631:
4611:
4587:
4509:
4484:
4474:
4443:
4426:
4372:
4362:
4327:
4216:
4212:
4131:
4127:
3764:
3264:
3254:
3215:
3191:
2996:
2802:
2775:
2386:
2382:
2348:
2240:
2210:
2156:
2110:
2031:
1928:
1890:
1713:
1682:
1637:
1616:
1460:
640:
505:
218:
168:
7469:
7206:
6395:
6292:
6270:
6006:
5082:
3752:
2786:. That could be called from a wrapper template that I've created for demonstration purposes at
1382:
677:
It's not a rule. It's advice, as in an essay. If you want it to be a rule, the procedure is at
535:
443:
6701:
4515:. This would have the additional side-effect of making religion and denomination available to
6854:
6821:
6681:
6636:
6588:
5869:
5834:
5753:
for remains without using something awkward like I've half-heartedly suggested just above. ā
5719:
5702:
5588:
4971:
4902:
4873:
4835:
4778:
4739:
4598:
4433:
4030:
3998:
3901:
3587:
3553:
3508:
3456:
3393:
3300:
3166:
3100:
2979:
2904:
2713:
2659:
2635:
2574:
2289:
2083:
2049:
1823:
1779:
1610:, one can find the latest in a series of heated discussions as to whether or not the article
1339:
1318:
1296:- As noted by previous editors, too vague. Not everything needs to be in infoboxes anyway.
1276:
1092:
945:
465:
4913:" It's a pity that some of these problems weren't foreseen when the RfC was being discussed"
4249:. Of course it is good if editors can rearrange the namber after remove these 3 parameters.
7261:
7066:
5844:
5127:
4957:
3697:
3580:
five categories of information which are restricted and require additional special handling
3140:
3036:
2600:
1957:
1882:
1866:
1721:
1656:
1607:
1297:
1228:
1179:
1162:
996:
606:
6166:
5477:
The field isn't "degree=", you get educated at high school and do not receive a degree. --
8:
7441:
7232:
7157:
7104:
Trying to picture Dr. McCoy reporting to Capt Kirk about a crewmen's death, uttering out
7003:
6965:
6909:
6624:...which is something I said just a few days. I support not mentioning the burial place
6499:
6405:
6377:
6363:
6119:
6014:
5973:
5885:
5755:
5695:
5115:
4981:
4883:
4855:
4415:
fields. Some might cal that a kludge, but I prefer to consider it an elegant work-around.
2322:
2299:
2132:
1708:
1620:
1251:
1250:. For 99.9% of BLP articles, this would be irrelevant/ redundant trivia for the infobox.
1142:
855:
603:
We already are deleting all the parents from infoboxes, why should spouses be different?
553:
7311:
7221:
I'm really not sure infobox parameter names need to follow the scripting conventions of
836:
historical subjects. In my opinion, this rule would be unwieldy and counter-intuitive.
7427:
7351:
7299:
7276:
7188:
7176:
7143:
7045:
6992:
6872:
6836:
6792:
6744:
6649:
6537:
6448:
6431:
6335:
6309:
5927:
5912:
5852:
5817:
5604:
5548:
5420:
5388:
5331:
5301:
5264:
5244:
5177:
4922:
4917:"11,492 articles in Category:Infobox person using religion rather more than expected"
4800:
4751:
4704:
4679:
4583:(it doesn't), I would think it wise to remove it because of the spirit of the RfC. But
4549:
4407:
in there, and use the module in {infobox clergy} as well, mainly to supply the missing
4079:
4015:
3734:
3705:
3645:
3568:
3419:
3368:
Discussions of whether to include religion in {infobox person} are off-topic following
2338:
2230:
2200:
2194:
2152:
2100:
2068:
2021:
1992:
1924:
1911:
1886:
1852:
1799:
1751:
1672:
1627:
1562:
1502:
1426:
1374:
962:
920:
884:
678:
631:
495:
174:
7465:
7365:
7324:
7113:
6391:
6288:
6266:
6059:
6009:. I'm sure "resting place" is far more widely used and has nothing at all to do with
4051:
3693:
3675:
3622:
3397:
2072:
1967:
1700:
1378:
1331:
970:
821:
728:
531:
483:
439:
380:
367:
202:
5122:
No. IMDb is not generally reliable and should not be given this sort of prominence.
4288:
This would be pointless and add unnecessarily add 233,506 pages to the job queue. ā
2727:
Knowledge:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126 #RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes
7211:
5881:
5714:
5699:
4967:
4898:
4869:
4831:
4774:
4735:
4659:
4621:
4594:
4537:
4533:
4453:
4294:
4060:"a person's ethnicity or religious beliefs are frequently complex, nuanced matters"
4026:
4007:
3994:
3946:
3897:
3760:
3725:
3583:
3579:
3549:
3537:
3504:
3452:
3443:
3296:
3177:
3162:
3111:
3096:
2975:
2926:
2900:
2709:
2655:
2631:
2586:
2570:
2172:
1335:
1314:
1270:
1060:
941:
760:
516:
459:
331:
280:
244:
191:
147:
4418:
As I see it, then, we have perhaps three options to fix the problem of not having
2438:
in every one of those articles until the parameter is removed from the article? --
7403:
7250:
7055:
7025:
6949:
6732:
6717:
6614:
6568:
6488:
6346:
6142:
6079:
6043:
6035:
Quite! So do we have consensus to change it; and if so how does one go about it?
5995:
5951:
5789:
5768:
5683:
5659:
5635:
5158:
5148:
5123:
5094:
5026:
5001:
4953:
4559:
4541:
4343:
4271:
3932:
3791:
3772:
3545:
3527:
3490:
3402:
3329:
3315:
3281:
3271:
3236:
3207:
3136:
3122:
3083:
3058:
3032:
3018:
2951:
2935:
2865:
2848:
2827:
2756:
2730:
2675:
2646:
2620:
2596:
2533:
2495:
2443:
2268:
1717:
1652:
1611:
1544:
1484:
1409:
Can the infobox religious biography template be made to embed into this template?
1359:
1224:
1158:
1125:
1025:
1007:
900:
896:
Per RfC request. No, being notable doesnt mean another subject is infact notable.
866:
796:
737:
697:
591:
405:
226:
137:
4050:
insignificant population within these religions that do not believe in God. See
3617:. The prior consensus that self-identification is required is well-established.
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
7228:
6849:
6816:
6676:
6631:
6523:
6284:
6010:
5962:
5864:
5829:
5544:
5527:
5496:
5468:
5438:
5410:
5358:
user-generated, and the majority of its information is accurate. However, IMDb
5138:
5111:
4731:
4190:
4055:
3984:
sources take note of the person. Looking at your Gordon Davidson example, the
3689:
3685:
3260:
and not infoboxes in general, or it would create the ludicrous situation where
2882:
2557:
2318:
2284:
2078:
2044:
1818:
1774:
1740:
1138:
837:
549:
6846:
person who likes to describe someone as "resting" when they are in fact dead.
4554:
for any thoughts on how best to proceed? Apologies to anyone I've left out. --
3517:
That argument has been hashed over many times already. Most infoboxes contain
1844:"confusing style and genre, setting forth haphazard lists of individual works"
1624:
universally include them so long as the aforementioned information is known. ā
7423:
7347:
7295:
7172:
7139:
7041:
7037:
6988:
6832:
6810:
6788:
6427:
6302:
Please see past discussion of this point in the archives. "Resting place" is
5908:
5848:
5813:
5260:
4075:
4011:
3701:
3659:
3641:
3615:
clear self-identification is present, just as with nationality, religion, etc
3564:
3411:
2925:
As the closer, I confirm that my closing comment was intended pretty much as
2708:
parameter be likewise disabled to implement the outcome of the RfC? Regards,
2522:
2512:
2475:
2463:
2429:
2416:
2176:
1984:
1905:
1848:
1793:
1768:
1745:
1696:
1554:
1494:
1452:
1418:
914:
880:
3767:
consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate.
3526:
some people, their religious affiliation is relevant to their life story. --
2838:
Off the top of my head, a very non-standard but workable way to prevent the
7361:
7320:
7153:
7109:
6280:
6251:
6055:
5923:
5376:
5065:
5046:
3739:
3671:
3658:
then also have a "religion." Infoboxes on living persons are governed by
3632:
3618:
2878:
1962:
1704:
966:
816:
809:
editing habits of Wikipedians is not useful. (Of course, article existence
375:
3182:
I don't know whether denomination can be a key fact in its own right, but
6477:
6418:
But I don't think "grave" covers a place where an urn is interred. They
5970:
5018:
4654:
4545:
4289:
3407:
1878:
755:
318:
276:
240:
187:
5159:
Most of IMDB is under editorial control, which defines a reliable source
4824:
The "snowball clause" is yet another way that editors are encouraged to
4158:
Knowledge:Village pump (policy)/Archive 127 #RfC: Ethnicity in infoboxes
3002:. It certainly seems to me that recommending that they should change to
2869:
field if necessary). I don't recall seeing where an argument was made "
7461:
7397:
7019:
6943:
6726:
6608:
6562:
6482:
6456:
6340:
6136:
6073:
6037:
5989:
5945:
5783:
5677:
5631:
5540:
5430:
5426:
5144:
5090:
5022:
4555:
4318:
4267:
3325:
3232:
3118:
3092:
3079:
3054:
3014:
2947:
2874:
2823:
2752:
2700:
Both RfCs, which refer to each other, had similar outcomes. Since the
2690:
See also related concurrent RfC about religion parameters in infoboxes.
2679:
2650:
2616:
2529:
2506:
2491:
2456:
2439:
2434:
You do realise that once the religion parameter is removed, you'll get
2278:
2264:
1540:
1480:
1355:
1247:
1121:
1021:
1003:
897:
792:
693:
401:
222:
133:
3465:
If the "right" way to annotate religion and activities is going to be
2725:
The problem is that the two RfC's did not have identical outcomes. In
7223:
6557:
6519:
5522:
5492:
5464:
5434:
5406:
4186:
3700:, and others. Religion is not necessarily inconsistent with atheism.
3541:
3448:
3970:
it is important for politicians to be able to claim to be in a group
6712:
are "buried" when as thousands of tourist will know, they are not.
6705:
5745:
4911:
This isn't about "a handful of unpersuasive naysayers"; it's about
4882:
Perhaps you have a selective memory impairment. How would we know?
3840:...it should be OK to put all of those adjectives in the infobox...
987:
731:
and do not (yet) have Knowledge articles. Requiring a pre-existing
309:
7418:
You say "there needs to be something left to inform in the text".
6724:. So I submit that "burial" is the best option or nothing at all.
3503:
they are notable, this information won't be found in the Infobox.
1811:
That's rich coming from someone who's just told me to "grow up".
6054:
change, but I'm not sure to what . Will follow this for a while.
5300:
wikipedia finds IMDB reliable. Which it overwhelmingly does not.
3149:
I would defend the removal. It's a parameter that's dependent on
585:. 1) notability of a subject is not defined by whether or not it
1669:
So you would consider yourself as supportive of this proposal? ā
6722:
there is clearly no standard practice at all across the project
5433:....y are we listing this for drop-outs......very misleading?--
7440:
Am prepared to discuss use of "resting place" in the infobox.
4200:
4115:
2370:
1055:
The consensus is against adding qualifications as parameters.
688:
The advice is "include only if they are independently notable
212:|party = {{ubl | ] (Before 1904; 1924ā1964) | ] (1904ā1924) }}
7464:, I pictured the place, but without a parameter. Thoughts? --
6026:
5231:
Ummm.... printing a correction is an indication of editorial
6890:, but he/she didn't argue the point further. Then there was
4395:
On the other hand, {infobox theologian} does call a module,
3846:
Ethnicity in Infoboxes: āthe field is to be removed from use
1952:
this discussion here: the question has already been debated
1591:
RfC: Should biographical articles always include an infobox?
6673:
No it is not encyclopaedic. But then what would you know.
5658:
that could affect BLPs, in case anyone here is interested.
5401:
Pls dont spam or encourage uses of these kinds of webpages
3945:
If we're going to be specific, I never told you to look to
3850:
Religion in Infoboxes: āthe field is to be removed from use
3609:
There is no reason for "ethnicity" to be used unless it is
2067:-- is it 1 April already? By the way, I take my hat off to
6606:
only summarise the test after all, not repeat every fact.
2778:
could be modified to accept a custom parameter instead of
7152:
Folks are not usually buried exactly where they die. Old
6404:
No objection. There has to be some flexibility, I think.
3818:
in declarative statements, rather than table or list form
3400:, but because four years ago she wrote several songs for
727:
Plenty of people, places and things are "notable" and/or
221:. I don't see the problem that you're trying to solve. --
4069:"attempting to re-litigate the RfC community decisions".
3662:
and discussions thereon, and, so far, your position has
1016:
People commenting in this RfC may also be interested in
7346:
In what way is the phrase "resting place" a euphemism?
5740:(which seems like a particularly odd "resting place"),
5383:
makes mistakes too, but they're still an RS, as is the
4966:
Option number 3 appears to be the best of those three.
4338:
from this template. There are currently 21 articles in
3913:- I was looking specifically where you told me to look.
2698:
See also the ongoing Ethnicity RfC for similar reasons.
1472:|module={{Infobox religious biography|child=yes| ... }}
1020:, where it is proposed to expand the spouse parameter.
6560:
is right, interred would do if buried is too graphic.
5375:
RAN) complete perfection -- is what we look for in a
1840:
Knowledge:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes
3941:
I was looking specifically where you told me to look.
3611:
a non-contentious defining characteristic of a person
5670:
The dead are not "resting" they are dead and buried.
4354:
Yes, you're quite right. However as a result of the
3286:
I think that if the spirit of the RfC was to remove
2774:
Having thought about it, I've created a demo of how
1877:.". So unless you are going to move this RFC to the
7128:Newton's First Law of Motion states that a body at
6932:
Died: 2005 in New New York (ashes scattered at sea)
6886:, though it didn't go anywhere. Next issue was in
4792:
things that are foregone conclusions from the start
3489:
is already embeddable, but not the simpler form. --
3013:
parameter here, if someone doesn't beat me to it.--
1373:NOTE: Struck "Closed RFC" as editors who !vote are
6936:Died: 2005 in London (buried in Highgate Cemetery)
3053:. That should keep the gnomes busy for a while. --
2075:for the Kubrick talk page. Congratulations you.
6888:this thread when WhisperToMe changed it to burial
6013:. It just doesn't sound very encyclopedic to me.
4726:There is no indication the closer "counted votes
2615:parameter to implement the outcome of the RfC. --
2367:Template-protected edit request on 9 January 2017
6882:, and the first objection looks to have been in
3836:I see nothing there that says...should not be...
2263:are dead wrong from our point-of-view! Cheers --
5087:User:RexxS/sandbox #Infobox with separate image
5008:already has the ability to be embedded and the
4323:It looks very odd to edit an article that uses
3320:I've created and enabled the tracking category
4952:I think option 3 sounds like a good solution.
4432:(which would likely make it suitable only for
1743:attitude that should be considered first. --
6813:view here is not helpful to this discussion.
2331:This discussion has been transferred over to
2223:This discussion is being transferred over to
1881:talkpage and reframe the discussion to amend
217:which would display as shown here if we used
5352:Actually, the core of IMDb's information is
3882:field shouldn't have been used. If sources
2704:parameter has now been disabled, should the
5403:Knowledge:External links/Perennial websites
4980:Agree 3 is probably the best way round it.
4480:which would allow us to pass religion from
4459:- i.e. re-write it from scratch to include
2790:. The latter template accepts and displays
2462:red warning appearing on most biographies.
2171:Please tell me what purpose the infobox at
1869:is clear on this: "The use of infoboxes is
6165:
4996:Thank you. I've initiated a discussion at
3753:categorize by non-defining characteristics
3376:The following discussion has been closed.
3322:Category:Infobox person using denomination
1885:, any discussion here is a waste of time.
5240:they publish a correction or a retraction
4340:Category:Templates calling Infobox person
7310:
7227:. As we all know Knowledge is life, Jim
7205:
6025:
5081:the ability to be as wide as the one on
3388:Where the religion parameter is relevant
3078:. That's rather more than I expected. --
7108:. The writers wouldn't have done that.
5969:, closed by our good undertaker friend
4732:SNOW-closed, as the common sense result
3211:title, the proposal confined itself to
3072:Category:Infobox person using ethnicity
3047:Category:Infobox person using ethnicity
1956:, and this RfC certainly can't rewrite
14:
4998:Template talk:Infobox theological work
4356:Religion in biographical infoboxes RfC
3076:Category:Infobox person using religion
3051:Category:Infobox person using religion
2974:, or a similar one, anyway. Regards,
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
5330:rarely contains useable information.
5199:Encyclopedia Britannica uncovered by
3670:, which is in line with my position.
6714:Another famed British Prime Minister
5006:Template:Infobox religious biography
4730:of weighing arguments". The RfC was
3159:Template:Infobox pageant titleholder
3070:: There are presently 0 articles in
2972:Template:Infobox religious biography
1597:The following discussion is closed.
1415:Template:Infobox religious biography
1070:The following discussion is closed.
527:Spouses are chosen, parents are not.
341:The following discussion is closed.
268:
25:
3911:You are looking in the wrong place.
3666:gained a consensus to overturn the
2970:article likely should be using the
1377:and should not close the same RfC.
1193:Follow up Comment to opinions above
239:when they are/were more than one.--
23:
4156:parameter (label and data) as per
3245:I closed this precisely because I
2696:RfC, it immediately advises me to
2528:articles where it still exists. --
1223:, if it should be covered at all.
24:
7484:
7156:didn't die in Westminster Abbey.
4773:Yes there is; and no, it is not.
4495:Template:Infobox theological work
4397:Template:Infobox theological work
3974:Doubtful; but I've no doubt many
2788:Template:Infobox religious person
2784:Template:Infobox person/RPsandbox
2684:When I look at the header to the
1398:The discussion above is closed.
1048:add qualification(s) as parameter
1037:The discussion above is closed.
419:trivial clutter, people cruft. --
4280:
4204:
4175:
4119:
3188:Proposal: Should we remove from
2688:RfC, it immediately tells me to
2481:
2374:
2358:The discussion above is closed.
269:
29:
7319:It's best we avoid euphemisms.
3896:would have been used. Regards,
3715:was referred to above includes:
1871:neither required nor prohibited
1063:) 04:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
963:notable guy's spunky first wife
334:) 04:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
7229:but not as sane people know it
7210:"Now if I can just pound this
5508:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
5479:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
5451:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
5317:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
5283:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
5219:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
5163:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
4568:It would be bizarre to remove
3812:
3684:Our article does not say that
3200:parameter (and the associated
2808:, and biographies needing the
2794:; the former will not display
774:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
715:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
663:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
611:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
564:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
421:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
355:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
255:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
112:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
13:
1:
6498:Most ashes yes, but not all.
5535:14:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
5516:00:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
5501:20:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
5487:19:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
5473:19:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
5459:19:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
5443:19:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
5031:18:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
4990:19:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
4907:17:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
4892:19:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
4840:05:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
4306:17:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
4276:13:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
4259:10:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
4196:09:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
4170:09:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
4084:18:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
3513:20:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
3494:05:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
3461:21:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
3436:15:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
3334:04:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
3305:21:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
3275:19:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
3241:03:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
3171:00:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
3155:Template:Infobox officeholder
3145:00:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
3127:21:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
3105:20:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
3088:23:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
3063:04:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
3041:00:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
3023:23:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
2984:21:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
2956:14:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
2939:13:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
2909:23:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
2852:14:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
2832:22:31, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
2761:20:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
2718:20:25, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
2664:04:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
2640:04:31, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
2625:03:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
2605:02:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
2579:20:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
1387:10:20, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
1364:09:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
1344:07:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
1323:06:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
1306:04:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
991:14:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
975:01:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
950:00:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
933:05:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
906:04:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
889:03:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
872:03:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
858:09:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
511:13:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
313:14:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
209:contains the following line:
207:Template:Infobox officeholder
142:20:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
120:19:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
7474:22:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
7450:13:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
7432:14:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
7409:13:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
7370:19:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
7356:19:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
7329:18:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
7304:12:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
7285:12:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
7269:07:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
7241:12:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
7197:12:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
7181:12:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
7166:12:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
7148:12:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
7118:02:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
7100:17:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
7074:12:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
7050:11:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
7031:16:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
7012:13:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
6997:12:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
6974:11:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
6955:10:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
6917:02:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
6859:22:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
6841:21:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
6826:21:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
6797:20:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
6753:17:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
6738:16:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
6686:13:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
6667:13:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
6641:13:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
6620:08:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
6597:02:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
6574:17:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
6546:17:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
6528:16:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
6508:17:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
6494:16:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
6471:15:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
6436:15:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
6414:15:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
6400:14:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
6386:14:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
6371:14:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
6352:13:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
6327:13:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
6297:11:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
6275:08:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
6148:08:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
6127:01:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
6085:22:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
6064:21:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
6049:18:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
6023:18:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
6001:18:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
5982:15:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
5957:15:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
5936:14:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
5917:14:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
5894:14:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
5874:14:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
5857:14:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
5839:14:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
5822:13:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
5795:13:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
5772:01:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
5763:00:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
5728:23:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
5707:23:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
5689:20:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
5665:18:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
5640:03:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
5622:14:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
5557:18:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
5415:03:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
5397:03:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
5340:18:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
5325:18:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
5310:17:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
5291:17:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
5273:17:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
5253:04:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
5227:17:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
5186:17:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
5171:17:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
5153:16:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
5132:13:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
5099:21:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
5056:19:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
4976:11:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
4962:01:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
4940:18:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
4878:11:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
4864:23:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
4818:20:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
4783:19:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
4769:21:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
4744:11:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
4722:22:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
4697:22:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
4671:04:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
4603:19:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
4564:19:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
4347:09:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
4035:19:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
4020:23:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
4003:11:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
3936:08:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
3923:Gordon Davidson (politician)
3906:18:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
3795:02:44, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
3751:In other words, avoiding to
3710:15:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
3680:15:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
3650:15:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
3627:12:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
3592:19:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
3573:12:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
3558:08:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
3531:03:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
1579:04:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
1549:21:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
1519:20:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
1489:19:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
1443:04:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
1289:12:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
1260:16:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
1233:16:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
1206:12:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
1184:01:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
1167:21:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
1146:17:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
1130:15:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
1112:13:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
1097:01:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
1030:08:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
1012:00:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
828:00:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
801:00:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
782:00:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
766:22:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
741:06:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
723:22:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
702:21:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
671:16:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
649:16:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
623:15:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
595:13:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
572:15:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
558:12:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
540:05:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
478:12:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
448:20:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
429:22:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
410:00:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
391:04:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
363:17:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
285:16:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
263:23:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
249:22:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
231:17:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
196:10:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
18:Template talk:Infobox person
7:
7277:Only in death does duty end
7189:Only in death does duty end
6745:Only in death does duty end
6538:Only in death does duty end
6186:Francis Jean Marcel Poulenc
5332:Only in death does duty end
5302:Only in death does duty end
5265:Only in death does duty end
5178:Only in death does duty end
4578:Infobox pageant titleholder
4231:to reactivate your request.
4219:has been answered. Set the
4146:to reactivate your request.
4134:has been answered. Set the
3891:Infobox religious biography
3470:Infobox religious biography
3226:Infobox religious biography
3007:Infobox religious biography
2538:13:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
2516:13:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
2500:13:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
2467:11:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
2448:10:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
2420:08:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
2401:to reactivate your request.
2389:has been answered. Set the
2354:01:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
2326:21:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
2308:21:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
2294:21:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
2273:20:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
2246:20:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
2216:20:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
2186:20:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
2161:18:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
2153:Only in death does duty end
2143:18:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
2116:20:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
2088:18:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
2054:18:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
2037:16:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
2009:16:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
1974:15:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
1933:15:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
1925:Only in death does duty end
1919:15:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
1895:15:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
1887:Only in death does duty end
1857:15:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
1828:18:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
1807:18:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
1784:18:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
1759:15:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
1726:15:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
1688:14:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
1661:14:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
1643:14:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
1530:Infobox religious biography
10:
7489:
6801:Perhaps you can elaborate
6174:CimetiĆØre du PĆØre-Lachaise
5845:quite a lot of people care
5746:being cryogenically frozen
4854:What a senseless outcome.
4470:Add a custom parameter to
4342:that might need fixing. --
1018:Template talk:Marriage#End
657:be blue linked, then they
6892:this thread, also in 2008
6880:it was added back in 2007
6247:
6230:
6220:
6204:
6181:
6164:
6157:
5041:Landscape image parameter
3637:"I am proud to be Jewish"
1695:I would, personally. As
1084:Talk:Tracey_Curtis-Taylor
653:If the rule is that they
161:
154:
5742:dissolved via resomation
3786:, not defining of their
3484:Infobox Christian leader
3379:Please do not modify it.
2844:|religion-justification=
2817:Infobox religious person
2360:Please do not modify it.
1599:Please do not modify it.
1400:Please do not modify it.
1073:Please do not modify it.
1039:Please do not modify it.
690:or particularly relevant
344:Please do not modify it.
171:(Before 1904; 1924ā1964)
6805:you don't see anything
6171:Poulenc's grave on the
6007:skewed characterisation
5903:though. Even if it is
5656:Infobox person/Wikidata
5646:Infobox person/Wikidata
5582:Infobox person/Wikidata
4217:Template:Infobox person
4132:Template:Infobox person
3548:, that she is a Somali?
3131:What are we doing with
2776:Template:Infobox person
2387:Template:Infobox person
2071:for this clever bit of
1875:each individual article
1714:Template:Infobox person
1617:Infobox person template
304:provides an additional
219:Template:Infobox person
127:The infobox is an html
7316:
7215:
6225:PĆØre Lachaise Cemetery
6031:
6030:Bill's "resting place"
5215:
5083:Afro Celt Sound System
3778:
3777:
2739:
2686:Ethnicity in Infoboxes
2277:This kind of comment,
1553:Thanks, that worked!--
1065:
336:
7314:
7209:
6260:Similar thought: use
6029:
6005:Haha, that's quite a
5738:turned into fireworks
5589:Eric Arthur Tomlinson
5210:
4826:exercise common sense
4434:Father Dougal McGuire
3730:
3718:
3029:influenced/influences
2734:
2729:, the closing admin,
2694:Religion in Infoboxes
1539:parameter for you. --
1053:
961:. And the image of a
324:
235:Just the plural form
156:Sir Winston Churchill
42:of past discussions.
7214:into submission...."
6252:List of compositions
5543:did not graduate or
4237:I mean is to remove
3991:government biography
3928:government biography
3698:Atheism and religion
3430:See what I have done
2812:parameter could use
2552:Ethnicity? Religion?
2003:See what I have done
1716:in the first place?
1608:Talk:Stanley Kubrick
1573:See what I have done
1513:See what I have done
1437:See what I have done
299:Infobox officeholder
7315:"He's resting, Jim"
7106:"He's resting, Jim"
6903:partially relevant
5652:deletion discussion
4637:(#1) or expand the
4065:"religious beliefs"
2692:When I look at the
1709:William Shakespeare
7317:
7216:
7038:right great wrongs
6905:RfC from last year
6900:at the end of 2015
6283:died on this day,
6032:
5596:Birth date and age
5573:Microformat markup
4643:{{infobox clergy}}
4641:module already in
4520:infobox theologian
4493:Expand the module
4399:, so we could add
4383:infobox theologian
3668:existing consensus
3479:they are notable.
3074:and 0 articles in
2611:I've disabled the
1600:
130:...</table: -->
7267:
7266:
7072:
7071:
6469:
6452:
6257:
6256:
5963:dress it up a bit
5961:We might have to
5919:
5694:Agreed. If, per
5663:
4897:to good use...).
4669:
4505:, then add it to
4392:parameter anyway.
4304:
4235:
4234:
4194:
4152:Remove the whole
4150:
4149:
4109:
4108:
4052:Christian atheism
3694:Christian atheism
3433:
3398:Christian hip hop
3186:was based on the
2405:
2404:
2006:
1701:George Washington
1598:
1576:
1516:
1440:
1413:Can someone make
1389:
870:
625:
609:comment added by
498:
205:the infobox used
203:Winston Churchill
184:
183:
103:
102:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
7480:
7402:
7400:
7258:
7257:
7255:
7063:
7062:
7060:
7024:
7022:
6948:
6946:
6914:
6912:
6876:
6856:
6852:
6823:
6819:
6808:
6731:
6729:
6683:
6679:
6665:
6656:
6652:
6638:
6634:
6613:
6611:
6589:Michael Bednarek
6586:
6582:
6567:
6565:
6487:
6485:
6465:
6459:
6454:
6446:
6368:
6366:
6345:
6343:
6325:
6316:
6312:
6263:
6211:
6195:
6193:
6176:
6169:
6155:
6154:
6141:
6139:
6124:
6122:
6078:
6076:
6042:
6040:
5994:
5992:
5950:
5948:
5922:Cripes! I'm all
5898:
5871:
5867:
5836:
5832:
5788:
5786:
5760:
5758:
5717:
5682:
5680:
5662:
5620:
5611:
5607:
5600:
5594:
5586:
5580:
5577:The instance of
5532:
5525:
5142:
5080:
5074:
5069:
5053:
5049:
5015:
5011:
4938:
4929:
4925:
4816:
4807:
4803:
4767:
4758:
4754:
4720:
4711:
4707:
4695:
4686:
4682:
4657:
4652:
4648:
4644:
4640:
4636:
4630:
4626:
4620:
4616:
4610:
4607:I would rewrite
4592:
4586:
4582:
4576:
4571:
4553:
4524:
4518:
4514:
4508:
4504:
4500:
4489:
4483:
4479:
4473:
4466:
4462:
4458:
4452:
4448:
4442:
4431:
4425:
4421:
4414:
4410:
4406:
4402:
4391:
4387:
4381:
4377:
4371:
4367:
4361:
4337:
4332:
4326:
4322:
4292:
4284:
4283:
4248:
4244:
4240:
4226:
4222:
4208:
4207:
4201:
4184:
4179:
4178:
4141:
4137:
4123:
4122:
4116:
3987:
3982:
3971:
3962:
3942:
3912:
3895:
3889:
3881:
3841:
3837:
3819:
3816:
3775:
3740:reliable sources
3538:Louis Sockalexis
3521:that is not the
3488:
3482:
3474:
3468:
3431:
3427:
3424:
3416:
3381:
3365:
3364:
3319:
3294:
3289:
3285:
3269:
3263:
3259:
3253:
3230:
3224:
3220:
3214:
3203:
3199:
3195:
3181:
3152:
3134:
3115:
3011:
3005:
3001:
2995:
2991:
2968:
2872:
2845:
2841:
2821:
2815:
2811:
2807:
2801:
2797:
2793:
2781:
2749:
2707:
2703:
2683:
2654:
2614:
2590:
2568:
2563:
2526:
2510:
2489:
2485:
2484:
2479:
2460:
2437:
2433:
2410:
2396:
2392:
2378:
2377:
2371:
2352:
2341:
2291:
2287:
2244:
2233:
2214:
2203:
2173:Attallah Shabazz
2169:Strongly opposed
2140:
2135:
2114:
2103:
2085:
2081:
2051:
2047:
2035:
2024:
2004:
2000:
1997:
1989:
1972:
1970:
1965:
1917:
1908:
1825:
1821:
1814:
1805:
1796:
1781:
1777:
1757:
1748:
1686:
1675:
1641:
1630:
1574:
1570:
1567:
1559:
1538:
1534:
1528:
1514:
1510:
1507:
1499:
1477:
1473:
1469:
1465:
1459:
1456:
1438:
1434:
1431:
1423:
1372:
1287:
1222:
1218:
1156:
1075:
869:
851:
848:
845:
842:
826:
824:
819:
679:WP:PAG#Proposals
647:
638:
634:
604:
508:
502:
494:
476:
388:
383:
378:
346:
307:
303:
297:
274:
273:
272:
152:
151:
131:
106:Width of the box
81:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
7488:
7487:
7483:
7482:
7481:
7479:
7478:
7477:
7458:
7398:
7396:
7392:
7264:
7251:
7132:will remain at
7092:193.111.141.114
7069:
7056:
7020:
7018:
6944:
6942:
6910:
6908:
6870:
6850:
6848:
6817:
6815:
6806:
6727:
6725:
6718:Oliver Cromwell
6677:
6675:
6654:
6648:
6647:
6632:
6630:
6609:
6607:
6584:
6581:|resting_place=
6580:
6563:
6561:
6483:
6481:
6468:
6463:
6457:
6364:
6362:
6341:
6339:
6314:
6308:
6307:
6261:
6243:
6216:
6209:
6208:30 January 1963
6200:
6191:
6189:
6187:
6177:
6172:
6160:
6159:Francis Poulenc
6137:
6135:
6120:
6118:
6074:
6072:
6038:
6036:
5990:
5988:
5946:
5944:
5901:coming up again
5865:
5863:
5847:, apparently.
5843:In some cases,
5830:
5828:
5784:
5782:
5756:
5754:
5712:
5678:
5676:
5672:
5648:
5609:
5603:
5602:
5598:
5592:
5584:
5578:
5575:
5528:
5523:
5423:
5377:reliable source
5136:
5107:
5105:Idea: IMDB link
5078:
5072:
5063:
5051:
5047:
5043:
5013:
5009:
4927:
4921:
4920:
4822:Horsefeathers:
4805:
4799:
4798:
4756:
4750:
4749:
4709:
4703:
4702:
4684:
4678:
4677:
4650:
4646:
4642:
4638:
4634:
4628:
4624:
4618:
4617:to be based on
4614:
4608:
4590:
4584:
4580:
4574:
4569:
4531:
4522:
4516:
4512:
4506:
4502:
4498:
4487:
4481:
4477:
4471:
4464:
4460:
4456:
4450:
4446:
4440:
4429:
4423:
4419:
4412:
4408:
4404:
4400:
4389:
4385:
4379:
4375:
4369:
4368:and hence from
4365:
4359:
4335:
4330:
4324:
4316:
4314:
4281:
4246:
4242:
4238:
4224:
4220:
4205:
4176:
4139:
4135:
4120:
4114:
3985:
3980:
3969:
3960:
3940:
3910:
3893:
3887:
3879:
3839:
3835:
3824:
3823:
3822:
3817:
3813:
3776:
3771:
3546:Ayaan Hirsi Ali
3486:
3480:
3472:
3466:
3429:
3420:
3412:
3403:The New Classic
3390:
3377:
3313:
3292:
3287:
3279:
3267:
3261:
3257:
3251:
3228:
3222:
3218:
3212:
3201:
3197:
3189:
3175:
3150:
3132:
3109:
3009:
3003:
2999:
2993:
2989:
2966:
2870:
2843:
2839:
2819:
2813:
2809:
2805:
2799:
2795:
2791:
2779:
2747:
2705:
2701:
2673:
2644:
2612:
2584:
2566:
2561:
2554:
2520:
2504:
2482:
2480:
2473:
2454:
2435:
2427:
2408:
2394:
2390:
2375:
2369:
2364:
2363:
2346:
2339:
2285:
2283:
2238:
2231:
2208:
2201:
2184:
2138:
2133:
2108:
2101:
2079:
2077:
2045:
2043:
2029:
2022:
2002:
1993:
1985:
1968:
1963:
1961:
1910:
1904:
1819:
1817:
1812:
1798:
1792:
1775:
1773:
1750:
1744:
1680:
1673:
1635:
1628:
1612:Stanley Kubrick
1603:
1593:
1572:
1563:
1555:
1536:
1532:
1526:
1512:
1503:
1495:
1475:
1471:
1467:
1463:
1457:
1450:
1436:
1427:
1419:
1411:
1406:
1298:Robert McClenon
1285:
1268:
1220:
1216:
1154:
1071:
1066:
1050:
1045:
999:
903:
849:
846:
843:
840:
822:
817:
815:
764:
636:
630:
629:
519:
506:
500:
486:
474:
457:
386:
381:
376:
370:
342:
337:
321:
305:
301:
295:
270:
267:OK, I give up.
180:
162:Political party
157:
150:
128:
108:
77:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
7486:
7457:
7454:
7453:
7452:
7442:Martinevans123
7438:
7437:
7436:
7435:
7434:
7391:
7388:
7387:
7386:
7385:
7384:
7383:
7382:
7381:
7380:
7379:
7378:
7377:
7376:
7375:
7374:
7373:
7372:
7309:
7308:
7307:
7306:
7288:
7287:
7262:
7246:
7245:
7244:
7243:
7233:Martinevans123
7204:
7203:
7202:
7201:
7200:
7199:
7185:
7184:
7183:
7158:Martinevans123
7087:
7086:
7085:
7084:
7083:
7082:
7081:
7080:
7079:
7078:
7077:
7076:
7067:
7004:Martinevans123
6984:
6983:
6982:
6981:
6980:
6979:
6978:
6977:
6976:
6966:Martinevans123
6958:
6957:
6911:Rhododendrites
6868:
6867:
6866:
6865:
6864:
6863:
6862:
6861:
6784:
6783:
6782:
6781:
6780:
6779:
6778:
6777:
6776:
6775:
6774:
6773:
6772:
6771:
6770:
6769:
6768:
6767:
6766:
6765:
6764:
6763:
6762:
6761:
6760:
6759:
6758:
6757:
6756:
6755:
6643:
6585:|burial_place=
6549:
6548:
6533:
6532:
6531:
6530:
6516:
6515:
6514:
6513:
6512:
6511:
6510:
6500:Martinevans123
6461:
6444:
6443:
6442:
6441:
6440:
6439:
6438:
6406:Martinevans123
6378:Martinevans123
6373:
6365:Rhododendrites
6300:
6299:
6277:
6262:|burial_place=
6255:
6254:
6249:
6245:
6244:
6242:
6241:
6238:
6234:
6232:
6228:
6227:
6222:
6218:
6217:
6214:
6213:
6206:
6202:
6201:
6198:
6197:
6196:7 January 1899
6188:
6185:
6183:
6179:
6178:
6170:
6162:
6161:
6158:
6153:
6152:
6151:
6150:
6121:Rhododendrites
6114:
6113:
6112:
6111:
6110:
6109:
6108:
6107:
6106:
6105:
6104:
6103:
6102:
6101:
6100:
6099:
6098:
6097:
6096:
6095:
6094:
6093:
6092:
6091:
6090:
6089:
6088:
6087:
6015:Martinevans123
5974:Martinevans123
5886:Martinevans123
5878:
5877:
5876:
5809:
5808:
5807:
5806:
5805:
5804:
5803:
5802:
5801:
5800:
5799:
5798:
5797:
5757:Rhododendrites
5671:
5668:
5647:
5644:
5643:
5642:
5627:
5574:
5571:
5570:
5569:
5568:
5567:
5566:
5565:
5564:
5563:
5562:
5561:
5560:
5559:
5545:Charlie Munger
5461:
5425:Reading about
5422:
5419:
5418:
5417:
5399:
5381:The New Yorker
5349:
5348:
5347:
5346:
5345:
5344:
5343:
5342:
5294:
5293:
5278:
5277:
5276:
5275:
5256:
5255:
5209:
5208:
5195:
5194:
5193:
5192:
5191:
5190:
5189:
5188:
5106:
5103:
5102:
5101:
5076:infobox person
5061:
5042:
5039:
5038:
5037:
5036:
5035:
5034:
5033:
5014:|denomination=
4994:
4982:Martinevans123
4978:
4964:
4950:
4949:
4948:
4947:
4946:
4945:
4944:
4943:
4942:
4884:Martinevans123
4856:Martinevans123
4852:
4851:
4850:
4849:
4848:
4847:
4846:
4845:
4844:
4843:
4842:
4699:
4673:
4651:|denomination=
4632:infobox person
4612:infobox clergy
4605:
4588:Infobox clergy
4528:
4527:
4526:
4510:infobox clergy
4503:|denomination=
4491:
4485:infobox clergy
4475:infobox person
4468:
4465:|denomination=
4444:infobox clergy
4427:infobox clergy
4416:
4413:|denomination=
4405:|denomination=
4393:
4373:infobox clergy
4363:infobox person
4352:
4328:infobox clergy
4313:
4312:Infobox Clergy
4310:
4309:
4308:
4278:
4264:
4233:
4232:
4209:
4199:
4198:
4148:
4147:
4124:
4113:
4110:
4107:
4106:
4105:
4104:
4103:
4102:
4101:
4100:
4099:
4098:
4097:
4096:
4095:
4094:
4093:
4092:
4091:
4090:
4089:
4088:
4087:
4086:
4056:Jewish atheism
3972:
3967:
3963:
3958:
3943:
3925:is close. His
3914:
3862:
3861:
3860:
3859:
3858:
3857:
3856:
3855:
3854:
3853:
3842:
3821:
3820:
3810:
3809:
3805:
3804:
3803:
3802:
3801:
3800:
3799:
3798:
3797:
3779:
3769:
3758:
3756:
3750:
3723:
3721:
3716:
3690:Jewish atheism
3686:Bernie Sanders
3607:
3606:
3605:
3604:
3603:
3602:
3601:
3600:
3599:
3598:
3597:
3596:
3595:
3594:
3544:ethnicity. Or
3389:
3386:
3383:
3382:
3373:
3372:
3363:
3362:
3361:
3360:
3359:
3358:
3357:
3356:
3355:
3354:
3353:
3352:
3351:
3350:
3349:
3348:
3347:
3346:
3345:
3344:
3343:
3342:
3341:
3340:
3339:
3338:
3337:
3336:
3311:
3310:
3309:
3308:
3307:
3265:infobox bishop
3255:infobox person
3216:infobox person
3202:|denomination=
3192:Infobox person
3133:|denomination=
3065:
2997:Infobox person
2943:
2916:
2915:
2914:
2913:
2912:
2911:
2891:
2890:
2889:
2888:
2887:
2886:
2883:Rachel Dolezal
2857:
2856:
2855:
2854:
2836:
2803:Infobox person
2772:
2766:
2765:
2763:
2740:
2723:
2671:
2670:
2669:
2668:
2667:
2666:
2642:
2609:
2558:Shreya Ghoshal
2553:
2550:
2549:
2548:
2547:
2546:
2545:
2544:
2543:
2542:
2541:
2540:
2471:
2469:
2425:
2411:parameter per
2403:
2402:
2379:
2368:
2365:
2357:
2329:
2328:
2312:
2311:
2310:
2300:Martinevans123
2296:
2221:
2220:
2219:
2218:
2180:
2166:
2165:
2164:
2163:
2146:
2145:
2121:
2120:
2119:
2118:
2091:
2090:
2061:
2060:
2059:
2058:
2057:
2056:
2012:
2011:
1977:
1976:
1940:
1939:
1938:
1937:
1936:
1935:
1898:
1897:
1862:
1861:
1860:
1859:
1835:
1834:
1833:
1832:
1831:
1830:
1787:
1786:
1762:
1761:
1735:
1734:
1733:
1732:
1731:
1730:
1729:
1728:
1664:
1663:
1604:
1595:
1594:
1592:
1589:
1588:
1587:
1586:
1585:
1584:
1583:
1582:
1581:
1535:to accept the
1525:I've modified
1523:
1461:Infobox person
1448:
1410:
1407:
1405:
1404:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1367:
1366:
1346:
1325:
1308:
1291:
1283:
1262:
1252:Martinevans123
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1209:
1208:
1187:
1186:
1169:
1148:
1132:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1052:
1051:
1049:
1046:
1044:
1043:
1033:
998:
995:
994:
993:
980:
979:
978:
977:
953:
952:
935:
908:
901:
891:
874:
860:
830:
803:
785:
784:
769:
768:
758:
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
705:
704:
686:
682:
675:
598:
597:
579:
578:
577:
576:
575:
574:
543:
542:
518:
515:
514:
513:
485:
482:
481:
480:
472:
450:
432:
431:
414:
413:
412:
369:
366:
351:
350:
349:
323:
322:
320:
317:
316:
315:
293:
292:
291:
290:
289:
288:
287:
215:
214:
213:
182:
181:
179:
178:
172:
165:
163:
159:
158:
155:
149:
146:
145:
144:
129:<table: -->
125:
107:
104:
101:
100:
95:
92:
87:
82:
75:
70:
65:
62:
52:
51:
34:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
7485:
7476:
7475:
7471:
7467:
7463:
7451:
7447:
7443:
7439:
7433:
7429:
7425:
7421:
7417:
7416:
7415:
7414:
7413:
7412:
7411:
7410:
7407:
7406:
7401:
7371:
7367:
7363:
7359:
7358:
7357:
7353:
7349:
7345:
7344:
7343:
7342:
7341:
7340:
7339:
7338:
7337:
7336:
7335:
7334:
7333:
7332:
7331:
7330:
7326:
7322:
7313:
7305:
7301:
7297:
7292:
7291:
7290:
7289:
7286:
7282:
7278:
7273:
7272:
7271:
7270:
7265:
7260:
7256:
7254:
7242:
7238:
7234:
7230:
7226:
7225:
7220:
7219:
7218:
7217:
7213:
7208:
7198:
7194:
7190:
7186:
7182:
7178:
7174:
7169:
7168:
7167:
7163:
7159:
7155:
7151:
7150:
7149:
7145:
7141:
7137:
7135:
7131:
7124:
7123:
7122:
7121:
7120:
7119:
7115:
7111:
7107:
7102:
7101:
7097:
7093:
7075:
7070:
7065:
7061:
7059:
7053:
7052:
7051:
7047:
7043:
7039:
7034:
7033:
7032:
7029:
7028:
7023:
7015:
7014:
7013:
7009:
7005:
7000:
6999:
6998:
6994:
6990:
6985:
6975:
6971:
6967:
6962:
6961:
6960:
6959:
6956:
6953:
6952:
6947:
6940:
6937:
6933:
6929:
6928:
6927:
6926:
6925:
6924:
6923:
6922:
6921:
6920:
6919:
6918:
6913:
6906:
6901:
6897:
6893:
6889:
6885:
6881:
6874:
6873:Pigsonthewing
6860:
6857:
6855:
6853:
6844:
6843:
6842:
6838:
6834:
6829:
6828:
6827:
6824:
6822:
6820:
6812:
6804:
6800:
6799:
6798:
6794:
6790:
6786:
6785:
6754:
6750:
6746:
6741:
6740:
6739:
6736:
6735:
6730:
6723:
6719:
6715:
6711:
6707:
6703:
6702:info box here
6699:
6695:
6694:
6693:
6692:
6691:
6690:
6689:
6688:
6687:
6684:
6682:
6680:
6672:
6671:
6670:
6669:
6668:
6664:
6660:
6655:Pigsonthewing
6651:
6644:
6642:
6639:
6637:
6635:
6627:
6623:
6622:
6621:
6618:
6617:
6612:
6604:
6603:
6602:
6601:
6600:
6599:
6598:
6594:
6590:
6577:
6576:
6575:
6572:
6571:
6566:
6559:
6555:
6554:
6553:
6552:
6551:
6550:
6547:
6543:
6539:
6535:
6534:
6529:
6525:
6521:
6517:
6509:
6505:
6501:
6497:
6496:
6495:
6492:
6491:
6486:
6479:
6474:
6473:
6472:
6466:
6460:
6450:
6449:edit conflict
6445:
6437:
6433:
6429:
6425:
6421:
6417:
6416:
6415:
6411:
6407:
6403:
6402:
6401:
6397:
6393:
6389:
6388:
6387:
6383:
6379:
6374:
6372:
6367:
6359:
6355:
6354:
6353:
6350:
6349:
6344:
6337:
6333:
6332:
6331:
6330:
6329:
6328:
6324:
6320:
6315:Pigsonthewing
6311:
6305:
6298:
6294:
6290:
6286:
6282:
6278:
6276:
6272:
6268:
6259:
6258:
6253:
6250:
6246:
6239:
6236:
6235:
6233:
6229:
6226:
6223:
6219:
6207:
6203:
6184:
6180:
6175:
6168:
6163:
6156:
6149:
6146:
6145:
6140:
6133:
6132:
6131:
6130:
6129:
6128:
6123:
6086:
6083:
6082:
6077:
6069:
6068:
6067:
6066:
6065:
6061:
6057:
6052:
6051:
6050:
6047:
6046:
6041:
6034:
6033:
6028:
6024:
6020:
6016:
6012:
6008:
6004:
6003:
6002:
5999:
5998:
5993:
5985:
5984:
5983:
5979:
5975:
5972:
5968:
5964:
5960:
5959:
5958:
5955:
5954:
5949:
5941:
5940:
5939:
5938:
5937:
5933:
5929:
5928:M. Zombie 123
5925:
5921:
5920:
5918:
5914:
5910:
5906:
5902:
5897:
5896:
5895:
5891:
5887:
5883:
5879:
5875:
5872:
5870:
5868:
5860:
5859:
5858:
5854:
5850:
5846:
5842:
5841:
5840:
5837:
5835:
5833:
5825:
5824:
5823:
5819:
5815:
5810:
5796:
5793:
5792:
5787:
5779:
5778:
5777:
5776:
5775:
5774:
5773:
5770:
5766:
5765:
5764:
5759:
5752:
5747:
5743:
5739:
5735:
5731:
5730:
5729:
5725:
5721:
5716:
5710:
5709:
5708:
5705:
5704:
5701:
5697:
5693:
5692:
5691:
5690:
5687:
5686:
5681:
5667:
5666:
5661:
5657:
5653:
5641:
5637:
5633:
5628:
5626:
5625:
5624:
5623:
5619:
5615:
5610:Pigsonthewing
5606:
5597:
5590:
5583:
5558:
5554:
5550:
5549:Common Yarrow
5546:
5542:
5538:
5537:
5536:
5533:
5531:
5526:
5519:
5518:
5517:
5513:
5509:
5504:
5503:
5502:
5498:
5494:
5490:
5489:
5488:
5484:
5480:
5476:
5475:
5474:
5470:
5466:
5462:
5460:
5456:
5452:
5447:
5446:
5445:
5444:
5440:
5436:
5432:
5428:
5416:
5412:
5408:
5404:
5400:
5398:
5394:
5390:
5389:Beyond My Ken
5386:
5382:
5378:
5374:
5370:
5369:
5363:
5362:
5357:
5356:
5351:
5350:
5341:
5337:
5333:
5328:
5327:
5326:
5322:
5318:
5313:
5312:
5311:
5307:
5303:
5298:
5297:
5296:
5295:
5292:
5288:
5284:
5280:
5279:
5274:
5270:
5266:
5262:
5258:
5257:
5254:
5250:
5246:
5245:Beyond My Ken
5242:
5241:
5236:
5235:
5230:
5229:
5228:
5224:
5220:
5217:
5216:
5214:
5206:
5202:
5197:
5196:
5187:
5183:
5179:
5174:
5173:
5172:
5168:
5164:
5160:
5156:
5155:
5154:
5150:
5146:
5140:
5135:
5134:
5133:
5129:
5125:
5121:
5120:
5119:
5117:
5113:
5100:
5096:
5092:
5088:
5084:
5077:
5067:
5062:
5060:
5059:
5058:
5057:
5050:
5032:
5028:
5024:
5020:
5007:
5003:
4999:
4995:
4993:
4992:
4991:
4987:
4983:
4979:
4977:
4973:
4969:
4965:
4963:
4959:
4955:
4951:
4941:
4937:
4933:
4928:Pigsonthewing
4924:
4918:
4915:; it's about
4914:
4910:
4909:
4908:
4904:
4900:
4895:
4894:
4893:
4889:
4885:
4881:
4880:
4879:
4875:
4871:
4867:
4866:
4865:
4861:
4857:
4853:
4841:
4837:
4833:
4830:
4827:
4821:
4820:
4819:
4815:
4811:
4806:Pigsonthewing
4802:
4796:
4794:
4793:
4786:
4785:
4784:
4780:
4776:
4772:
4771:
4770:
4766:
4762:
4757:Pigsonthewing
4753:
4747:
4746:
4745:
4741:
4737:
4733:
4729:
4725:
4724:
4723:
4719:
4715:
4710:Pigsonthewing
4706:
4700:
4698:
4694:
4690:
4685:Pigsonthewing
4681:
4674:
4672:
4667:
4664:
4661:
4656:
4633:
4623:
4613:
4606:
4604:
4600:
4596:
4589:
4579:
4567:
4566:
4565:
4561:
4557:
4551:
4550:Pigsonthewing
4547:
4543:
4539:
4535:
4529:
4521:
4511:
4496:
4492:
4486:
4476:
4469:
4455:
4445:
4438:
4437:
4435:
4428:
4417:
4398:
4394:
4384:
4374:
4364:
4357:
4353:
4351:
4350:
4349:
4348:
4345:
4341:
4329:
4320:
4307:
4302:
4299:
4296:
4291:
4287:
4279:
4277:
4273:
4269:
4265:
4263:
4262:
4261:
4260:
4256:
4252:
4251:219.79.127.74
4230:
4227:parameter to
4218:
4214:
4210:
4203:
4202:
4197:
4192:
4188:
4182:
4174:
4173:
4172:
4171:
4167:
4163:
4162:219.79.127.74
4159:
4155:
4145:
4142:parameter to
4133:
4129:
4125:
4118:
4117:
4085:
4081:
4077:
4072:
4071:
4066:
4061:
4057:
4053:
4048:
4044:
4043:
4038:
4037:
4036:
4032:
4028:
4023:
4022:
4021:
4017:
4013:
4009:
4006:
4005:
4004:
4000:
3996:
3992:
3977:
3973:
3968:
3964:
3959:
3956:
3952:
3948:
3944:
3939:
3938:
3937:
3934:
3930:
3929:
3924:
3920:
3915:
3909:
3908:
3907:
3903:
3899:
3892:
3885:
3877:
3872:
3871:
3870:
3869:
3868:
3867:
3866:
3865:
3864:
3863:
3851:
3847:
3843:
3834:
3833:
3832:
3831:
3830:
3829:
3828:
3827:
3826:
3825:
3815:
3811:
3808:
3796:
3793:
3789:
3785:
3780:
3774:
3768:
3766:
3762:
3754:
3748:
3744:
3741:
3737:
3736:
3729:
3727:
3717:
3713:
3712:
3711:
3707:
3703:
3699:
3695:
3691:
3687:
3683:
3682:
3681:
3677:
3673:
3669:
3665:
3661:
3657:
3653:
3652:
3651:
3647:
3643:
3638:
3634:
3631:
3630:
3629:
3628:
3624:
3620:
3616:
3612:
3593:
3589:
3585:
3581:
3576:
3575:
3574:
3570:
3566:
3561:
3560:
3559:
3555:
3551:
3547:
3543:
3539:
3534:
3533:
3532:
3529:
3524:
3520:
3516:
3515:
3514:
3510:
3506:
3502:
3497:
3496:
3495:
3492:
3485:
3478:
3471:
3464:
3463:
3462:
3458:
3454:
3450:
3445:
3440:
3439:
3438:
3437:
3432:
3425:
3423:
3417:
3415:
3409:
3405:
3404:
3399:
3395:
3392:Right now in
3385:
3384:
3380:
3375:
3374:
3371:
3367:
3366:
3335:
3331:
3327:
3323:
3317:
3312:
3306:
3302:
3298:
3283:
3278:
3277:
3276:
3273:
3266:
3256:
3248:
3244:
3243:
3242:
3238:
3234:
3227:
3217:
3209:
3205:
3193:
3185:
3179:
3174:
3173:
3172:
3168:
3164:
3160:
3156:
3148:
3147:
3146:
3142:
3138:
3130:
3129:
3128:
3124:
3120:
3113:
3108:
3107:
3106:
3102:
3098:
3094:
3091:
3090:
3089:
3085:
3081:
3077:
3073:
3069:
3066:
3064:
3060:
3056:
3052:
3048:
3044:
3043:
3042:
3038:
3034:
3030:
3026:
3025:
3024:
3020:
3016:
3008:
2998:
2987:
2986:
2985:
2981:
2977:
2973:
2964:
2959:
2958:
2957:
2953:
2949:
2944:
2942:
2941:
2940:
2937:
2933:
2928:
2924:
2923:
2922:
2921:
2920:
2919:
2918:
2917:
2910:
2906:
2902:
2897:
2896:
2895:
2894:
2893:
2892:
2884:
2880:
2876:
2867:
2863:
2862:
2861:
2860:
2859:
2858:
2853:
2850:
2837:
2835:
2834:
2833:
2829:
2825:
2818:
2804:
2789:
2785:
2777:
2773:
2771:
2770:
2769:
2764:
2762:
2758:
2754:
2745:
2744:documentation
2741:
2738:
2732:
2728:
2724:
2722:
2721:
2720:
2719:
2715:
2711:
2699:
2695:
2691:
2687:
2681:
2677:
2665:
2661:
2657:
2652:
2648:
2643:
2641:
2637:
2633:
2628:
2627:
2626:
2622:
2618:
2610:
2608:
2607:
2606:
2602:
2598:
2594:
2588:
2583:
2582:
2581:
2580:
2576:
2572:
2559:
2539:
2535:
2531:
2524:
2519:
2518:
2517:
2514:
2508:
2503:
2502:
2501:
2497:
2493:
2488:
2477:
2472:
2470:
2468:
2465:
2458:
2453:
2452:
2451:
2450:
2449:
2445:
2441:
2431:
2426:
2424:
2423:
2422:
2421:
2418:
2414:
2400:
2397:parameter to
2388:
2384:
2380:
2373:
2372:
2361:
2356:
2355:
2350:
2344:
2343:
2342:
2334:
2327:
2324:
2320:
2316:
2313:
2309:
2305:
2301:
2297:
2295:
2292:
2290:
2288:
2280:
2276:
2275:
2274:
2270:
2266:
2262:
2257:
2253:
2250:
2249:
2248:
2247:
2242:
2236:
2235:
2234:
2226:
2217:
2212:
2206:
2205:
2204:
2196:
2192:
2191:
2190:
2189:
2188:
2187:
2183:
2178:
2174:
2170:
2162:
2158:
2154:
2150:
2149:
2148:
2147:
2144:
2141:
2136:
2130:
2126:
2123:
2122:
2117:
2112:
2106:
2105:
2104:
2095:
2094:
2093:
2092:
2089:
2086:
2084:
2082:
2074:
2070:
2069:MatthewHoobin
2066:
2063:
2062:
2055:
2052:
2050:
2048:
2040:
2039:
2038:
2033:
2027:
2026:
2025:
2016:
2015:
2014:
2013:
2010:
2005:
1998:
1996:
1990:
1988:
1982:
1979:
1978:
1975:
1971:
1966:
1959:
1958:WP:INFOBOXUSE
1955:
1950:
1945:
1942:
1941:
1934:
1930:
1926:
1922:
1921:
1920:
1916:
1913:
1907:
1902:
1901:
1900:
1899:
1896:
1892:
1888:
1884:
1883:WP:INFOBOXUSE
1880:
1876:
1872:
1868:
1867:WP:INFOBOXUSE
1864:
1863:
1858:
1854:
1850:
1845:
1841:
1837:
1836:
1829:
1826:
1824:
1822:
1810:
1809:
1808:
1804:
1801:
1795:
1789:
1788:
1785:
1782:
1780:
1778:
1770:
1766:
1765:
1764:
1763:
1760:
1756:
1753:
1747:
1742:
1737:
1736:
1727:
1723:
1719:
1715:
1710:
1706:
1702:
1698:
1694:
1693:
1692:
1691:
1689:
1684:
1678:
1677:
1676:
1668:
1667:
1666:
1665:
1662:
1658:
1654:
1649:
1648:
1647:
1646:
1645:
1644:
1639:
1633:
1632:
1631:
1622:
1618:
1613:
1609:
1602:
1580:
1575:
1568:
1566:
1560:
1558:
1552:
1551:
1550:
1546:
1542:
1531:
1524:
1522:
1521:
1520:
1515:
1508:
1506:
1500:
1498:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1486:
1482:
1462:
1454:
1449:
1447:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1439:
1432:
1430:
1424:
1422:
1416:
1403:
1401:
1396:
1395:
1388:
1384:
1380:
1376:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1365:
1361:
1357:
1354:
1350:
1347:
1345:
1341:
1337:
1333:
1329:
1326:
1324:
1320:
1316:
1312:
1309:
1307:
1303:
1299:
1295:
1292:
1290:
1281:
1278:
1275:
1273:
1266:
1263:
1261:
1257:
1253:
1249:
1245:
1242:
1241:
1234:
1230:
1226:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1207:
1203:
1199:
1194:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1185:
1181:
1177:
1173:
1170:
1168:
1164:
1160:
1152:
1149:
1147:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1133:
1131:
1127:
1123:
1119:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1104:78.144.79.169
1099:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1085:
1077:
1074:
1068:
1067:
1064:
1062:
1058:
1042:
1040:
1035:
1034:
1032:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1014:
1013:
1009:
1005:
992:
989:
985:
982:
981:
976:
972:
968:
964:
960:
957:
956:
955:
954:
951:
947:
943:
939:
936:
934:
930:
929:
924:
923:
918:
917:
912:
909:
907:
904:
899:
895:
892:
890:
886:
882:
878:
875:
873:
868:
864:
861:
859:
856:
854:
853:
852:
834:
831:
829:
825:
820:
812:
807:
804:
802:
798:
794:
790:
787:
786:
783:
779:
775:
771:
770:
767:
762:
757:
753:
750:
749:
742:
739:
734:
730:
726:
725:
724:
720:
716:
711:
703:
699:
695:
691:
687:
683:
680:
676:
674:
673:
672:
668:
664:
660:
656:
652:
651:
650:
646:
642:
637:Pigsonthewing
633:
627:
626:
624:
620:
616:
612:
608:
602:
601:
600:
599:
596:
593:
588:
584:
581:
580:
573:
569:
565:
561:
560:
559:
555:
551:
547:
546:
545:
544:
541:
537:
533:
528:
524:
521:
520:
512:
509:
503:
497:
492:
488:
487:
479:
470:
467:
464:
462:
454:
451:
449:
445:
441:
437:
434:
433:
430:
426:
422:
418:
415:
411:
407:
403:
398:
397:
396:
395:
394:
393:
392:
389:
384:
379:
365:
364:
360:
356:
348:
345:
339:
338:
335:
333:
329:
314:
311:
300:
294:
286:
282:
278:
266:
265:
264:
260:
256:
252:
251:
250:
246:
242:
238:
234:
233:
232:
228:
224:
220:
216:
211:
210:
208:
204:
200:
199:
198:
197:
193:
189:
176:
173:
170:
167:
166:
164:
160:
153:
143:
139:
135:
126:
124:
123:
122:
121:
117:
113:
99:
96:
93:
91:
88:
86:
83:
80:
76:
74:
71:
69:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
7466:Gerda Arendt
7459:
7419:
7404:
7393:
7390:RFC required
7318:
7252:
7247:
7222:
7133:
7129:
7127:
7105:
7103:
7088:
7057:
7026:
6950:
6935:
6931:
6896:in 2011-2012
6869:
6847:
6814:
6802:
6733:
6721:
6710:Franz Joseph
6698:Talk to Andy
6674:
6663:Andy's edits
6659:Talk to Andy
6650:Andy Mabbett
6629:
6625:
6615:
6569:
6489:
6419:
6392:Gerda Arendt
6357:
6347:
6336:Andy Mabbett
6323:Andy's edits
6319:Talk to Andy
6310:Andy Mabbett
6303:
6301:
6289:Gerda Arendt
6267:Gerda Arendt
6221:Burial place
6210:(1963-01-30)
6143:
6115:
6080:
6044:
6011:being called
5996:
5952:
5862:
5827:
5790:
5750:
5733:
5703:
5696:WP:EUPHEMISM
5684:
5673:
5649:
5618:Andy's edits
5614:Talk to Andy
5605:Andy Mabbett
5576:
5529:
5424:
5384:
5380:
5372:
5367:
5366:
5360:
5359:
5354:
5353:
5239:
5238:
5233:
5232:
5211:
5204:
5200:
5108:
5044:
4936:Andy's edits
4932:Talk to Andy
4923:Andy Mabbett
4916:
4912:
4825:
4823:
4814:Andy's edits
4810:Talk to Andy
4801:Andy Mabbett
4791:
4790:
4788:
4765:Andy's edits
4761:Talk to Andy
4752:Andy Mabbett
4727:
4718:Andy's edits
4714:Talk to Andy
4705:Andy Mabbett
4693:Andy's edits
4689:Talk to Andy
4680:Andy Mabbett
4662:
4315:
4297:
4285:
4236:
4228:
4213:edit request
4181:Already done
4180:
4160:discussion.
4153:
4151:
4143:
4128:edit request
4068:
4064:
4059:
4046:
4040:
3990:
3975:
3926:
3918:
3883:
3876:consistently
3875:
3814:
3806:
3787:
3783:
3747:consistently
3746:
3742:
3733:
3731:
3719:
3667:
3663:
3655:
3614:
3610:
3608:
3522:
3518:
3500:
3476:
3421:
3413:
3401:
3391:
3378:
3246:
3187:
3067:
2962:
2931:
2879:Sitting Bull
2767:
2735:
2697:
2689:
2672:
2556:I notice at
2555:
2486:
2406:
2398:
2383:edit request
2359:
2337:
2336:
2330:
2314:
2282:
2260:
2255:
2251:
2229:
2228:
2222:
2199:
2198:
2168:
2167:
2131:in any way.
2128:
2124:
2099:
2098:
2076:
2064:
2042:
2020:
2019:
1994:
1986:
1980:
1953:
1948:
1943:
1874:
1870:
1843:
1816:
1772:
1705:Isaac Newton
1671:
1670:
1626:
1625:
1621:WP:COMPOSERS
1605:
1596:
1564:
1556:
1504:
1496:
1428:
1420:
1412:
1399:
1397:
1379:Softlavender
1352:
1348:
1327:
1310:
1293:
1271:
1264:
1243:
1221:|occupation=
1198:88.105.43.64
1192:
1171:
1155:|occupation=
1150:
1134:
1117:
1100:
1081:
1072:
1069:
1054:
1038:
1036:
1015:
1000:
983:
958:
937:
927:
921:
915:
910:
893:
876:
862:
839:
838:
832:
810:
805:
788:
751:
732:
689:
658:
654:
645:Andy's edits
641:Talk to Andy
632:Andy Mabbett
605:āĀ Preceding
586:
582:
532:Softlavender
526:
522:
490:
460:
452:
440:Coretheapple
435:
416:
372:
371:
352:
343:
340:
325:
306:|otherparty=
236:
185:
169:Conservative
109:
78:
43:
37:
7462:this person
7154:Apple Bonce
6646:made here.
6478:columbarium
6231:Occupations
5882:Bencherlite
5769:Scott Davis
5715:Finnusertop
5700:Bencherlite
5234:reliability
4968:Xenophrenic
4899:Xenophrenic
4870:Xenophrenic
4832:Xenophrenic
4775:Xenophrenic
4736:Xenophrenic
4639:{{infobox}}
4627:instead of
4595:Cyphoidbomb
4538:Xenophrenic
4534:Cyphoidbomb
4497:to include
4344:Scott Davis
4027:Xenophrenic
4008:Xenophrenic
3995:Xenophrenic
3933:Scott Davis
3898:Xenophrenic
3792:Scott Davis
3584:Xenophrenic
3550:Patapsco913
3528:Scott Davis
3505:Xenophrenic
3491:Scott Davis
3453:Xenophrenic
3408:Iggy Azalea
3297:Cyphoidbomb
3178:Cyphoidbomb
3163:Cyphoidbomb
3112:Xenophrenic
3097:Xenophrenic
3045:I've added
2976:Xenophrenic
2927:Xenophrenic
2901:Xenophrenic
2847:article.Ā ā
2710:Xenophrenic
2702:|ethnicity=
2656:Cyphoidbomb
2632:Cyphoidbomb
2613:|ethnicity=
2587:Cyphoidbomb
2571:Cyphoidbomb
2562:|ethnicity=
2407:Remove the
2256:requirement
1879:MOS:INFOBOX
1375:WP:INVOLVED
1353:Closed RFC.
1336:The Bounder
1315:Glendoremus
1272:SMcCandlish
1217:|education=
1089:2.96.37.100
942:Cyphoidbomb
738:Scott Davis
685:'redirect'.
592:Scott Davis
507:talk to me!
461:SMcCandlish
382:Consermonor
177:(1904ā1924)
36:This is an
7420:Everything
7253:Rivertorch
7058:Rivertorch
6884:early 2008
6696:Thank you
6192:1899-01-07
5971:"Doc Mice"
5924:punned out
5650:There's a
5541:Bill gates
5431:Matt Damon
5427:Bill Gates
5421:Alma mater
5124:Nikkimaria
5110:template?
5010:|religion=
5002:ScottDavis
4954:Nikkimaria
4787:Bullshit:
4647:|religion=
4570:|religion=
4542:Nikkimaria
4499:|religion=
4461:|religion=
4420:|religion=
4409:|religion=
4401:|religion=
4390:|religion=
4336:|religion=
4221:|answered=
4136:|answered=
3986:|religion=
3981:|religion=
3880:|religion=
3807:References
3788:notability
3635:āWouldn't
3422:Talk to me
3394:my sandbox
3293:|religion=
3288:|religion=
3282:Iridescent
3272:Iridescent
3208:Iridescent
3198:|religion=
3151:|religion=
3137:Nikkimaria
3033:Nikkimaria
2990:|religion=
2967:|religion=
2936:Iridescent
2875:Anne Frank
2866:Iridescent
2849:Iridescent
2840:|religion=
2810:|religion=
2796:|religion=
2792:|religion=
2780:|religion=
2748:|religion=
2731:Iridescent
2706:|religion=
2676:Nikkimaria
2647:Nikkimaria
2597:Nikkimaria
2567:|religion=
2391:|answered=
2073:canvassing
1995:Talk to me
1954:ad nauseum
1718:GauchoDude
1653:GauchoDude
1565:Talk to me
1505:Talk to me
1476:|child=yes
1429:Talk to me
1332:WP:INFOBOX
1225:Nikkimaria
1176:Funkyman99
1159:Nikkimaria
997:Discussion
729:WP:NOTABLE
98:ArchiveĀ 35
90:ArchiveĀ 33
85:ArchiveĀ 32
79:ArchiveĀ 31
73:ArchiveĀ 30
68:ArchiveĀ 29
60:ArchiveĀ 25
7224:Star Trek
6851:Cassianto
6818:Cassianto
6678:Cassianto
6633:Cassianto
6212:(agedĀ 64)
5899:It keeps
5866:Cassianto
5831:Cassianto
5751:locations
5139:Back ache
5112:Back ache
4653:(#4?). ā
4439:Re-write
4286:Not done:
4247:|class22=
4239:|label22=
4154:ethnicity
4112:Continued
3947:WP:CATGRS
3761:WP:BLPCAT
3542:Penobscot
3449:Tim Tebow
3444:WP:CATGRS
2333:WT:MOSIBX
2319:MarnetteD
2286:Cassianto
2225:WT:MOSIBX
2080:Cassianto
2046:Cassianto
1820:Cassianto
1776:Cassianto
1246:: as per
1139:MarnetteD
550:comp.arch
387:Opus meum
7424:Bus stop
7348:Bus stop
7296:Bus stop
7173:Bus stop
7140:Bus stop
7042:Bus stop
6989:Bus stop
6833:Mr Ernie
6789:Mr Ernie
6706:Napoleon
6428:Ghmyrtle
6281:composer
6240:Composer
5909:Ghmyrtle
5849:Ghmyrtle
5814:Ghmyrtle
5734:location
5724:contribs
4829:process.
4530:Pinging
4243:|data22=
4076:Bus stop
4039:You say
4012:Bus stop
3838:- and -
3773:WP:CAT/R
3765:verified
3743:commonly
3735:defining
3726:defining
3724:6. The "
3702:Bus stop
3642:Bus stop
3565:Bus stop
3414:3family6
2593:this RfC
2523:Laurdecl
2513:Laurdecl
2476:Laurdecl
2464:Laurdecl
2430:Laurdecl
2417:Laurdecl
2413:this RfC
2409:religion
2195:Wikidata
2177:MShabazz
2134:ĪŗĪ±ĻĪ¬ĻĻĪ±Ļ
1987:3family6
1849:Bus stop
1769:Winkelvi
1697:Winkelvi
1606:Over on
1557:3family6
1497:3family6
1468:|module=
1466:has six
1453:3family6
1421:3family6
916:Snuggums
881:Bus stop
619:contribs
607:unsigned
501:contribs
148:Parties?
7456:Tell me
7362:GoodDay
7321:GoodDay
7212:infobox
7110:GoodDay
6237:Pianist
6056:Moriori
5660:SarahSV
5066:Jennica
5048:Jennica
5004:) that
4728:instead
4645:to add
4622:infobox
4548:, and
4454:Infobox
4449:to use
3919:notable
3784:subject
3672:Collect
3633:Collect
3619:Collect
3370:the RfC
3184:the RfC
3161:, etc.
2340:Matthew
2252:Comment
2232:Matthew
2202:Matthew
2102:Matthew
2023:Matthew
1944:Oppose.
1741:WP:IDLI
1674:Matthew
1629:Matthew
1537:|child=
1151:Comment
967:Moriori
959:Comment
867:SarahSV
811:vel non
806:Oppose.
587:already
491:Parents
484:Neutral
453:Support
436:Support
417:Support
377:Iazyges
368:Support
237:parties
175:Liberal
39:archive
7405:(talk)
7027:(talk)
6951:(talk)
6934:" or "
6734:(talk)
6626:at all
6616:(talk)
6587:). --
6570:(talk)
6490:(talk)
6356:There
6348:(talk)
6144:(talk)
6081:(talk)
6045:(talk)
5997:(talk)
5953:(talk)
5791:(talk)
5685:(talk)
5654:about
5530:(talk)
5261:WP:UGC
5201:Nature
5019:JJMC89
4655:JJMC89
4546:JJMC89
4290:JJMC89
3660:WP:BLP
3523:reason
3501:reason
3477:reason
3068:Update
2963:should
2932:should
2733:said:
2315:Oppose
2125:Oppose
2065:Oppose
1981:Oppose
1767:IDLI,
1707:, and
1349:Oppose
1328:Oppose
1311:Oppose
1294:Oppose
1265:Oppose
1244:Oppose
1172:Oppose
1135:Oppose
1118:Oppose
1057:Cunard
984:Oppose
938:Oppose
911:Oppose
894:Oppose
877:Oppose
863:Oppose
833:Oppose
789:Oppose
756:clpo13
752:Oppose
583:Oppose
523:Oppose
517:Oppose
328:Cunard
277:Carnby
241:Carnby
188:Carnby
7399:Giano
7263:WATER
7068:WATER
7021:Giano
6945:Giano
6728:Giano
6610:Giano
6564:Giano
6484:Giano
6458:Godsy
6342:Giano
6248:Works
6215:Paris
6199:Paris
6138:Giano
6075:Giano
6039:Giano
5991:Giano
5947:Giano
5905:bloat
5785:Giano
5679:Giano
5632:RexxS
5157:Yes!
5145:RexxS
5091:RexxS
5023:RexxS
4556:RexxS
4319:RexxS
4268:RexxS
4225:|ans=
4211:This
4140:|ans=
4126:This
3976:think
3326:RexxS
3316:Nikki
3247:don't
3233:RexxS
3204:one)?
3119:RexxS
3093:RexxS
3080:RexxS
3055:RexxS
3015:RexxS
2948:RexxS
2824:RexxS
2753:RexxS
2680:RexxS
2651:RexxS
2617:RexxS
2560:that
2530:RexxS
2507:RexxS
2492:RexxS
2457:RexxS
2440:RexxS
2395:|ans=
2381:This
2279:RexxS
2265:RexxS
2182:Stalk
1541:RexxS
1481:RexxS
1356:Aeonx
1330:: As
1248:RexxS
1122:RexxS
1022:DrKay
1004:RexxS
928:edits
898:āāāāā§
793:RexxS
694:RexxS
496:FoCuS
402:RexxS
223:RexxS
134:RexxS
16:<
7470:talk
7460:For
7446:talk
7428:talk
7366:talk
7352:talk
7325:talk
7300:talk
7281:talk
7237:talk
7193:talk
7177:talk
7162:talk
7144:talk
7134:rest
7130:rest
7114:talk
7096:talk
7046:talk
7008:talk
6993:talk
6970:talk
6837:talk
6811:Your
6793:talk
6749:talk
6708:and
6593:talk
6558:Moxy
6542:talk
6524:talk
6520:Moxy
6504:talk
6464:CONT
6432:talk
6426:.
6424:here
6410:talk
6396:talk
6382:talk
6293:talk
6287:? --
6279:The
6271:talk
6205:Died
6182:Born
6060:talk
6019:talk
5978:talk
5967:here
5932:talk
5913:talk
5890:talk
5853:talk
5818:talk
5720:talk
5636:talk
5553:talk
5524:Kuru
5512:talk
5497:talk
5493:Moxy
5483:talk
5469:talk
5465:Moxy
5455:talk
5439:talk
5435:Moxy
5411:talk
5407:Moxy
5393:talk
5379:. (
5373:pace
5361:does
5336:talk
5321:talk
5306:talk
5287:talk
5269:talk
5259:See
5249:talk
5223:talk
5182:talk
5167:talk
5149:talk
5128:talk
5116:talk
5095:talk
5027:talk
5012:and
4986:talk
4972:talk
4958:talk
4903:talk
4888:talk
4874:talk
4860:talk
4836:talk
4779:talk
4740:talk
4649:and
4599:talk
4560:talk
4501:and
4463:and
4411:and
4403:and
4272:talk
4255:talk
4245:and
4191:talk
4187:MSGJ
4166:talk
4080:talk
4054:and
4031:talk
4016:talk
3999:talk
3955:here
3953:and
3951:here
3902:talk
3848:and
3745:and
3732:The
3706:talk
3676:talk
3646:talk
3623:talk
3588:talk
3569:talk
3554:talk
3519:info
3509:talk
3457:talk
3330:talk
3301:talk
3237:talk
3196:the
3167:talk
3157:and
3141:talk
3123:talk
3101:talk
3084:talk
3059:talk
3049:and
3037:talk
3019:talk
2980:talk
2952:talk
2905:talk
2885:...)
2828:talk
2757:talk
2714:talk
2678:and
2660:talk
2649:and
2636:talk
2621:talk
2601:talk
2591:See
2575:talk
2534:talk
2496:talk
2487:Done
2444:talk
2349:talk
2323:Talk
2304:talk
2269:talk
2261:know
2241:talk
2211:talk
2157:talk
2129:rule
2111:talk
2032:talk
1964:Rebb
1949:must
1929:talk
1891:talk
1853:talk
1722:talk
1683:talk
1657:talk
1638:talk
1545:talk
1485:talk
1383:talk
1360:talk
1340:talk
1319:talk
1302:talk
1256:talk
1229:talk
1202:talk
1180:talk
1163:talk
1143:Talk
1126:talk
1108:talk
1093:talk
1061:talk
1026:talk
1008:talk
971:talk
946:talk
922:talk
902:Talk
885:talk
818:Rebb
797:talk
778:talk
761:talk
733:blue
719:talk
698:talk
667:talk
659:must
655:must
615:talk
568:talk
554:talk
536:talk
444:talk
425:talk
406:talk
359:talk
332:talk
281:talk
259:talk
245:talk
227:talk
192:talk
138:talk
116:talk
6915:\\
6803:why
6657:);
6420:can
6369:\\
6317:);
6304:not
6285:DYK
6125:\\
5926:.
5907:.
5761:\\
5612:);
5587:on
5387:)
5385:NYT
5368:not
5355:not
5205:not
5054:/
4930:);
4808:);
4759:);
4712:);
4687:);
4436:):
4422:in
4223:or
4215:to
4138:or
4130:to
4047:not
3884:did
3757:...
3722:...
3664:not
3656:not
3406:by
2992:in
2782:at
2393:or
2385:to
2335:. ā
2227:. ā
2197:. ā
1969:ing
1286:ā±·ā¼
1282:ā½ā±·Ņ
1219:or
1082:On
988:JFG
823:ing
639:);
475:ā±·ā¼
471:ā½ā±·Ņ
319:RFC
310:JFG
201:In
7472:)
7448:)
7430:)
7368:)
7354:)
7327:)
7302:)
7283:)
7239:)
7231:.
7195:)
7179:)
7164:)
7146:)
7116:)
7098:)
7048:)
7040:.
7010:)
6995:)
6972:)
6839:)
6809:.
6795:)
6751:)
6661:;
6595:)
6583:/
6544:)
6526:)
6506:)
6455:ā
6434:)
6412:)
6398:)
6384:)
6358:is
6321:;
6295:)
6273:)
6062:)
6021:)
5980:)
5934:)
5915:)
5892:)
5855:)
5820:)
5744:,
5726:)
5722:ā
5713:ā
5638:)
5616:;
5599:}}
5593:{{
5585:}}
5579:{{
5555:)
5514:)
5506:--
5499:)
5485:)
5471:)
5457:)
5449:--
5441:)
5413:)
5405:--
5395:)
5338:)
5323:)
5315:--
5308:)
5289:)
5271:)
5263:.
5251:)
5225:)
5184:)
5169:)
5151:)
5130:)
5118:)
5097:)
5079:}}
5073:{{
5029:)
4988:)
4974:)
4960:)
4934:;
4919:.
4905:)
4890:)
4876:)
4862:)
4838:)
4812:;
4797:.
4781:)
4763:;
4742:)
4716:;
4691:;
4635:}}
4629:{{
4625:}}
4619:{{
4615:}}
4609:{{
4601:)
4591:}}
4585:{{
4581:}}
4575:{{
4562:)
4544:,
4540:,
4536:,
4523:}}
4517:{{
4513:}}
4507:{{
4488:}}
4482:{{
4478:}}
4472:{{
4457:}}
4451:{{
4447:}}
4441:{{
4430:}}
4424:{{
4386:}}
4380:{{
4376:}}
4370:{{
4366:}}
4360:{{
4331:}}
4325:{{
4274:)
4257:)
4241:,
4229:no
4189:Ā·
4168:)
4144:no
4082:)
4033:)
4018:)
4001:)
3904:)
3894:}}
3888:{{
3770:ā
3708:)
3696:,
3692:,
3678:)
3648:)
3625:)
3590:)
3571:)
3556:)
3511:)
3487:}}
3481:{{
3473:}}
3467:{{
3459:)
3434:)
3426:|
3332:)
3303:)
3268:}}
3262:{{
3258:}}
3252:{{
3239:)
3229:}}
3223:{{
3219:}}
3213:{{
3194:}}
3190:{{
3169:)
3143:)
3125:)
3103:)
3086:)
3061:)
3039:)
3031:.
3021:)
3010:}}
3004:{{
3000:}}
2994:{{
2982:)
2954:)
2907:)
2881:,
2877:,
2830:)
2822:--
2820:}}
2814:{{
2806:}}
2800:{{
2759:)
2751:--
2716:)
2662:)
2638:)
2623:)
2603:)
2595:.
2577:)
2536:)
2498:)
2446:)
2399:no
2345:-
2306:)
2271:)
2237:-
2207:-
2159:)
2107:-
2028:-
2007:)
1999:|
1960:.
1931:)
1909:ā
1906:WV
1893:)
1855:)
1797:ā
1794:WV
1749:ā
1746:WV
1724:)
1703:,
1690:+
1679:-
1659:)
1634:-
1577:)
1569:|
1547:)
1533:}}
1527:{{
1517:)
1509:|
1487:)
1479:--
1464:}}
1458:{{
1441:)
1433:|
1385:)
1362:)
1342:)
1321:)
1304:)
1269:ā
1258:)
1231:)
1204:)
1182:)
1165:)
1128:)
1110:)
1095:)
1028:)
1010:)
1002:--
973:)
948:)
931:)
925:/
887:)
799:)
780:)
736:--
721:)
713:--
700:)
669:)
643:;
621:)
617:ā¢
590:--
570:)
556:)
538:)
504:;
458:ā
446:)
427:)
408:)
400:--
361:)
302:}}
296:{{
283:)
275:--
261:)
247:)
229:)
194:)
140:)
118:)
94:ā
64:ā
7468:(
7444:(
7426:(
7364:(
7350:(
7323:(
7298:(
7279:(
7235:(
7191:(
7175:(
7160:(
7142:(
7112:(
7094:(
7044:(
7006:(
6991:(
6968:(
6875::
6871:@
6835:(
6791:(
6747:(
6653:(
6591:(
6579:(
6540:(
6522:(
6502:(
6467:)
6451:)
6447:(
6430:(
6408:(
6394:(
6380:(
6334:@
6313:(
6291:(
6269:(
6194:)
6190:(
6058:(
6017:(
5976:(
5930:(
5911:(
5888:(
5851:(
5816:(
5718:(
5634:(
5608:(
5551:(
5510:(
5495:(
5481:(
5467:(
5453:(
5437:(
5409:(
5391:(
5371:(
5334:(
5319:(
5304:(
5285:(
5267:(
5247:(
5221:(
5180:(
5165:(
5147:(
5141::
5137:@
5126:(
5114:(
5093:(
5068::
5064:@
5052:āæ
5025:(
4984:(
4970:(
4956:(
4926:(
4901:(
4886:(
4872:(
4858:(
4834:(
4804:(
4795:"
4777:(
4755:(
4738:(
4708:(
4683:(
4668:)
4666:C
4663:Ā·
4660:T
4658:(
4597:(
4558:(
4552::
4532:@
4525:.
4490:;
4467:;
4321::
4317:@
4303:)
4301:C
4298:Ā·
4295:T
4293:(
4270:(
4253:(
4193:)
4185:(
4164:(
4078:(
4029:(
4014:(
3997:(
3900:(
3704:(
3674:(
3644:(
3621:(
3586:(
3567:(
3552:(
3507:(
3455:(
3418:(
3328:(
3318::
3314:@
3299:(
3284::
3280:@
3235:(
3180::
3176:@
3165:(
3139:(
3121:(
3114::
3110:@
3099:(
3082:(
3057:(
3035:(
3017:(
2978:(
2950:(
2903:(
2826:(
2755:(
2712:(
2682::
2674:@
2658:(
2653::
2645:@
2634:(
2619:(
2599:(
2589::
2585:@
2573:(
2532:(
2525::
2521:@
2509::
2505:@
2494:(
2478::
2474:@
2459::
2455:@
2442:(
2432::
2428:@
2351:)
2347:(
2321:|
2302:(
2267:(
2243:)
2239:(
2213:)
2209:(
2179:/
2155:(
2139:Ī·
2113:)
2109:(
2097:ā
2034:)
2030:(
2018:ā
1991:(
1927:(
1915:ā
1912:ā
1889:(
1851:(
1803:ā
1800:ā
1755:ā
1752:ā
1720:(
1685:)
1681:(
1655:(
1640:)
1636:(
1561:(
1543:(
1501:(
1483:(
1455::
1451:@
1425:(
1381:(
1358:(
1338:(
1317:(
1300:(
1284:į“„
1280:Ā¢
1277:ā
1274:āŗ
1254:(
1227:(
1200:(
1178:(
1161:(
1141:|
1124:(
1106:(
1091:(
1059:(
1024:(
1006:(
969:(
944:(
919:(
883:(
850:w
847:o
844:n
841:S
795:(
776:(
763:)
759:(
717:(
696:(
681:.
665:(
635:(
613:(
566:(
552:(
534:(
473:į“„
469:Ā¢
466:ā
463:āŗ
442:(
423:(
404:(
357:(
330:(
279:(
257:(
243:(
225:(
190:(
136:(
114:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.