Template talk:Infobox writer

How to handle multiple authors in a shared article?

Is there a standardized way to handle a joint article? Take, for example, John and Elizabeth Sherrill. I'd like to add their birth and death dates, but I'm not able to use more than one module and would have to resort to something like |module= {{plainlist| *{{infobox person}} *{{infobox person}} }}. Snowman304|talk 18:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 August 2024

To any administrator, apply my edit to this infobox's sandbox: replace font-size: 125% in |abovestyle= with {{{abovestyle|}}}. Santiago Claudio (talk) 04:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Please explain the purpose of this edit. Also, I have removed the setting in the edit request saying that this is an edit request for Template:Infobox officeholder rather than Template:Infobox writer. SilverLocust 💬 10:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

This edit request is for consistency with |abovestyle= in Template:Infobox person. Santiago Claudio (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Should the default be left at 125% though, to preserve current behaviour? Also there are other changes in the sandbox with the image and caption fields. Are these also requested? If not, please can you resync the sandbox and then apply your change again? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done pending a response * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

No, change default to {{{abovestyle|}}}. No other changes in the sandbox; I didn't request them. I already synced the sandbox; again, there were no errors. Santiago Claudio (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The problem isn't errors, but unexpected changes in the current sandbox diff (you should see a link to it in the edit request banner). To resync means to copy wikitext from Template:Infobox writer to Template:Infobox writer/sandbox and then do the requested changes in the sandbox. —⁠andrybak (talk) 08:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Already synced! Santiago Claudio (talk) 09:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Which test case contains a demonstration of |abovestyle=? – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Test case 1. Santiago Claudio (talk) 01:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

|abovestyle= is not in that test case. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

education

What is |education= used for? The description field is blank. Are we listing K-12 schools? -- GreenC 16:28, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Same question was asked Template_talk:Infobox_writer/Archive_6#Nationality_and_citizenship in July 2010, no answer provided. Someone said the field was discussed in January 2009 but there is no evidence of that. It does appear this field was never discussed, concerns have been raised over the years. --GreenC 16:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I found MOS:INFOEDU. Updated the docs: Special:Diff/1170380505/1273285054 -- GreenC 16:39, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Edit request - Native name description

The description for the Native name field says "Name of the writer in his native languages(s)." It should say "Name of the writer in their native language(s)."

flod logic (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

 Completed – editor flod logic, next time you might want to try this yourself, as this edit was made to the template data on the unprotected /doc page. A little tricky sometimes, so some care is advised. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 10:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Edit request - add template:Website defunct to "website" parameter

Would you please add template:Website defunct to the to "website" parameter, so it is allowed in addition to template:URL? As this infobox currently functions, use of the template:Website defunct triggers the Category:Biography template using bare URL in website parameter. Adding template:Website defunct to the expected items in this infobox's "website" parameter would probably solve the problem. Lois Duncan is an example of an article where this is an issue. For more on the parameter, see: Template talk:Infobox writer/Archive 9#Website parameter. - tucoxn\^talk 13:37, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

It seems like the easiest way to fix this would be to make {{Website defunct}} wrap {{URL}}, which does not need a template editor - the check is based on the processed output after expanding templates (does it start with a [ or a <), so that should just work. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:51, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

@Pppery: Thanks for the reply. I tried to do this at the top of my messy sandbox but my solution is not quite correct. This is probably because there isn't a parameter in {{URL}} to disallow the the link to be clickable. (We don't want people trying to click on defunct URLs.) Is this something you can help fix? Thanks! - tucoxn\^talk 10:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Converting this template to wrap Template:Infobox person

In the sandbox, I have re-implemented this infobox by wrapping it around {{Infobox person}}. This has three main effects:

1. It will be easier to maintain, because all edits to the centralized {{Infobox person}} will automatically propagate to this template.
2. This template will now accept all parameters that {{Infobox person}} does.
3. The infobox fields pertaining to a person's writing career are now gathered into one section, titled "Writing career".

Please see the effects of this change in the test cases for the sandbox. What do other editors think of this? — hike395 (talk) 04:36, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I would like to see the portal link at the very bottom, if possible, instead of above website. I like the new "Writing career" section. I haven't checked every parameter in detail. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

It would be nice to put the portal at the bottom, but there isn't a slot like that in {{Infobox person}}. There is |footnotes=, but that has Notes as a header, which doesn't match the content. We could either

1. Tolerate the portal link being in an odd place,
2. Add a portal link to {{Infobox person}} at the very bottom (although I would be worried about misuse of that parameter), or
3. Drop the portal link from this infobox.

Which alternative do editors think is best? — hike395 (talk) 01:41, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

4: Keep this separate. A more expansive parameter list is a detriment rather than a benefit. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I would like to reinvigorate this discussion. I'm trying to clean out Category:Pages using infobox writer with unknown parameters (10) and there are a number of "unknown parameters" that would become known if this were wrapped. As I see it, the only issue here is the placement of the portal link... I want to point out a few things regarding this link.

1. Of the over 4,000 Infoboxes on wikipedia, fewer than 16 of them have a portal link.
2. Of the nearly 41,000 transclusions of this template, less than 400 of them have the portal link turned on. That isn't even 1%. In a mater of minutes with WP:JWB I could add {{portal|Literature}} to each of those pages right under the infobox (or place it where I think it belongs, the See also section) so that no information is lost.
3. Following up on the few pages that DO use the parameter, if you consult the detailed param report for |portaldisp= you will find a lot of misuse of the parameter. At least 10 pages have it set to no or omit, clear attempts to turn OFF the portal. The problem is that ANY value for |portaldisp= turns it on. There are 2 attempts to pass raw URL links, and numerous of attempts to link to other portals. My point being the parameter isn't even really being used correctly a large amount of the time.

I think Hike395 has done an excellent job on this and it should be implemented forthwith. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 08:18, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the points that Zackmann08 is making:

• The parameters in {{Infobox person}} are applicable to people in general, so it's reasonable to make them work here.
• The portal link in this infobox is dubious, so I like the idea of just removing it from the infobox and putting it in the usual places (either "See also" if it exists, or using {{Portal bar}} in the footer. I'll remove the portal link from the sandbox. — hike395 (talk) 10:15, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

As above, the possibility of adding a large number of parameters is a point against this proposal rather than for it. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:21, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I guess I don't understand the problem. What (if any) parameters are an issue here? The reason that 25 templates currently wrap {{infobox person}} is that those parameters apply to nearly all person infoboxes. The only obvious exception is when {{Infobox sportsperson}} is more appropriate. Can you provide an example of a parameter/parameters that would be detrimental to include in this template?

It should also be noted that we can use |_exclude= in the wrapper... So if there ARE parameters that are somehow detrimental to this template, then can be excluded from the wrapper. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:09, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

The reason that 25 templates wrap infobox person is that people love to overload them. Take height, for example - that will almost never be relevant to writers, and also to academics, architects, art historians, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:16, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

ok. so we exclude height? but how does it hurt to have that parameter? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:17, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Whenever you add a parameter to a template - and I'm using height only as an example here - you get people who want to fill it. MOS:INFOBOX indicates that "If the field is relevant to very few articles, it should probably not be included at all". What parameters are not in the template presently and would actually be relevant to most articles that use this template? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:21, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok so that is totally valid. I am looking at this from more of a technical perspective... Converting this to a wrapper reduces overhead and maintenance on templates. It also helps with consistency and all the other good things mentioned at WP:INFOCOL

Regarding your example of heigh however... I will point out that Michael Crichton was a whopping 6'9", a fact that is actually in Michael Crichton#Personal life with a source. Now I agree that for your average joe writer, filling in their height is not that important. BUT that seems like more of an issue that can be addressed on a case by case basis. If a reliable source is avaliable, Crichton's article cites NPR for example, I don't see any issue with including that in the Infobox... --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:27, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

The existence of an example where it may be relevant doesn't outweigh the fact that in the vast majority of cases it won't be. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:11, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

I just still don't understand how this is detrimental in ANY way? {{Infobox person}} is used by over a half million pages. It redirected to by such templates as {{Infobox fashion designer}} and {{Infobox Journalist}}. It wraps such templates as {{Infobox chef}}, {{Infobox pirate}} & {{Infobox artist}}. All those have the height parameter... I don't see this as being an issue? Has there been a previous discussion somewhere that you can link to about this being a problem?

Your objection seems to be that |height= itself is not worthy of being in the Infobox. For the record I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other on that... But the presence of one parameter that you don't like seems like an odd reason to object to this conversion. I would say if you feel strongly about it, I would start an RFC at {{Infobox person}} about whether height should be removed. For the record, I think you have a legit argument that in the vast majority of cases, it isn't that notable. The fact that there are some unusually tall or unusually short persons doesn't necessarily mean it should be included in EVERY infobox. So while I'm not sure how I would !vote in such an RFC, I do think it would be an interesting discussion. There is also precedent there. |nationality= & |ethnicity= have both been removed not too long ago.

Once again, if |height= is the issue, we can VERY easily exclude that from the wrapper and make it not work for this template. Unless Hike395 has some objection, I will do that in the sandbox. I would ask again, are there other parameters that are of concern here?

You asked What parameters are not in the template presently and would actually be relevant to most articles that use this template? To be clear that is not where I (or I think Hike395) are coming from. I don't see any params that are missing that need to be added. This is about Infobox consolidation and reducing maintenance and overhead. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:09, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Again, I used height as an example, not as the one and only stumbling block, so focusing on exclusively that is missing the point. Similarly, pointing out other templates which have parameters they don't need doesn't mean we should be compounding the problem. You're proposing doubling the parameters included in this template, yet none are parameters that you can argue are generally relevant? I appreciate that you feel there would be a maintenance benefit from a technical perspective, but that would also be adding an enormous maintenance burden from the article perspective. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

ok... Let's try this again. I have excluded height in the sandbox. It won't work in this wrapped version of the Infobox. That is no longer an issue.

So I will ask for a third time, what parameters do you feel would also be adding an enormous maintenance burden from the article perspective. It takes about 5 seconds to simply exclude them so your argument that this doesn't work because it adds unwanted/unneeded parameters that cause a burden doesn't hold water.

Whether it actually adds an anonymous maintenance burden if actually included from the article perspective is also up for debate. Just because you don't think that heigh is relevant, doesn't mean it isn't... As exemplified by the hundreds of thousands of person articles that allow the parameter. AGAIN I would encourage you to file an RFC to remove that parameter since you feel it is not relevant. As I clearly stated above, I for one would be very interested in what the consensus is about that parameter. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:57, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't think any of the parameters you propose adding would be of benefit. Apparently you don't think any of the parameters you propose adding would be of benefit. Unless you're going to propose excluding all of them, there doesn't seem to be value in spending more time debating this. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

So to be clear after 3 requests for more information and clarity, the only parameter you objected to was |height=. Which has been removed. So it seems your objection is addressed and resolved. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:45, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

So to be clear I oppose the proposed change per what I've written above, and per the lack of evidence that the proposed change would be consistent with the relevant guideline. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:51, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

you objection is not supported by any evidence. despite multiple request for what the issue would be, you could not or would not provide any examples beyond |height= which has been removed. So unless you can specify other problems for us to address your objection is that you just don't like it. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:53, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

The problem with your proposal is that you are proposing adding parameters that, per you, you cannot argue will "be relevant to many of the articles that will use the infobox". How do you propose addressing that? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Look we have different perspectives on this, that is clear. I have HUGE respect for you as an editor. We have collaborated in the past and I hope we will in the future. I'm not indifferent to your concerns. But please understand, it is extremely frustrating that I have literally asked you 3 times for a list of parameters that you are worried about, and you just keep saying that there are lots of parameters that will cause harm. I would really appreciate if you could actually specify what parameters will cause such irreparable harm to these articles. I have already countered your concern with |height= by pointing out that there are writers whose height is notable. While I concede it may not be helpful to add it to the other writer articles, I still don't understand how adding it causes such a maintenance burden for these other articles and you really haven't addressed this.

If you can give me a little bit of time, I will examine the parameter list for the two templates and do a more indepth analysis of what is actually being added and then we can decide what should be excluded. I truly think that Hike395 and my goal of consolidation and reduction of overhead maintenance can be achieved while not adding a huge maintenance burden to transclusions of this template. Give me a bit to put together a nice comparison table. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:19, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Param comparison

Param comparison

param	{{Infobox person}}	{{Infobox writer}}	Note
|abovestyle=	Yes	No	Could be used by the wrapper to emulate the same style
|agent=	Yes	No	A writer's agent could be notable
|alias=	Yes	No
|alma mater=	Yes	No	Useful to have this alias
|alma_mater=	Yes	Yes
|alt=	Yes	Yes
|awards=	Yes	Yes
|baptised=	Yes	No
|baptized=	Yes	No
|birth_date=	Yes	Yes
|birth_name=	Yes	Yes
|birth_place=	Yes	Yes
|birthname=	Yes	No	Could be useful to have this alias
|boards=	Yes	No
|body discovered=	Yes	No
|body_discovered=	Yes	No
|burial_coordinates=	Yes	No	Not common but when notable, helpful to have
|burial_place=	Yes	No	Not common but when notable, helpful to have
|callsign=	Yes	No
|caption=	Yes	Yes
|child=	Yes	No	This is a common alias for |embed= that would be useful to have
|children=	Yes	Yes
|citizenship=	Yes	Yes
|credits=	Yes	No
|criminal charge=	Yes	No	Not common but when notable, helpful to have
|criminal penalty=	Yes	No
|criminal status=	Yes	No
|criminal_charge=	Yes	No
|criminal_charges=	Yes	No
|criminal_penalty=	Yes	No
|criminal_status=	Yes	No
|death cause=	Yes	Yes
|death_cause=	Yes	Yes
|death_date=	Yes	Yes
|death_place=	Yes	Yes
|disappeared_date=	Yes	No	Not common but when notable would be helpful to have
|disappeared_place=	Yes	No	Not common but when notable would be helpful to have
|disappeared_status=	Yes	No	Not common but when notable would be helpful to have
|domestic_partner=	Yes	No
|domesticpartner=	Yes	No
|education=	Yes	Yes
|embed=	Yes	Yes
|embed_title=	Yes	No	This is only needed by the parent template to make Module:Template wrapper work
|employer=	Yes	Yes
|era=	Yes	No	Seems like this could certainly be relevant to writers
|family=	Yes	No	Not common, but helpful when they are part of a notable family
|father=	Yes	No	Note that |parents= IS present in {{Infobox writer}}. This would be a helpful alias for that.
|footnotes=	Yes	No
|height=	Yes	No	We have already discussed this, these will all be omitted from {{Infobox writer}} if we move forward.
|height_cm=	Yes	No
|height_ft=	Yes	No
|height_in=	Yes	No
|height_m=	Yes	No
|homepage=	Yes	Yes
|honorific prefix=	Yes	Yes
|honorific suffix=	Yes	Yes
|honorific_prefix=	Yes	Yes
|honorific_suffix=	Yes	Yes
|honorific-prefix=	Yes	Yes
|honorific-suffix=	Yes	Yes
|honors=	Yes	No	Seems like this would be relevant to writers
|honours=	Yes	No
|image=	Yes	Yes
|image caption=	Yes	Yes
|image size=	Yes	Yes
|image_alt=	Yes	No	This is a very common param and would be helpful o have as an alias.
|image_caption=	Yes	Yes
|image_size=	Yes	Yes
|image_upright=	Yes	Yes
|imagesize=	Yes	Yes
|judicial status=	Yes	No
|judicial_status=	Yes	No
|known=	Yes	No	Seems like these would serve the same purpose as |notable_works= so probably reuse these params, but put them under the Notable Works label.
|known for=	Yes	No
|known_for=	Yes	No
|label_name=	Yes	No
|landscape=	Yes	Yes
|misc=	Yes	Yes
|misc2=	Yes	No	Seems that it would be helpful to have the option for extra modules
|misc3=	Yes	No
|misc4=	Yes	No
|misc5=	Yes	No
|misc6=	Yes	No
|module=	Yes	Yes
|module2=	Yes	No	Seems that it would be helpful to have the option for extra modules
|module3=	Yes	No
|module4=	Yes	No
|module5=	Yes	No
|module6=	Yes	No
|monuments=	Yes	No
|mother=	Yes	No	Note that |parents= IS present in {{Infobox writer}}. This would be a helpful alias for that.
|movement=	Yes	Yes
|name=	Yes	Yes
|nationality=	Yes	Yes
|native_name=	Yes	Yes
|native_name_lang=	Yes	Yes
|nickname=	Yes	Yes
|nocat_wdimage=	Yes	No
|notable works=	Yes	Yes
|notable_works=	Yes	Yes
|occupation=	Yes	Yes
|office=	Yes	No
|opponents=	Yes	No
|organisation=	Yes	No
|organization=	Yes	No
|organizations=	Yes	No
|other names=	Yes	No	Seems like these could be relevant
|other_names=	Yes	No
|othername=	Yes	No
|otherparty=	Yes	No
|parents=	Yes	Yes
|partner=	Yes	Yes
|partners=	Yes	Yes
|partner(s)=	Yes	Yes	Don't see any harm in having this alias added.
|party=	Yes	No	There are a number of famous writers who have been politically outspoken. This could be relevant.
|predecessor=	Yes	No
|pre-nominals=	Yes	No	Honorific prefix and aliases ARE included. So this could be a useful alias.
|political_party=	Yes	No	There are a number of famous writers who have been politically outspoken. This could be relevant.
|post-nominals=	Yes	No	Honorific suffix and aliases ARE included. So this could be a useful alias.
|pronunciation=	Yes	Yes
|relations=	Yes	Yes
|relatives=	Yes	Yes
|resting place=	Yes	No	Helpful alias
|resting place coordinates=	Yes	No	Helpful alias
|resting_place=	Yes	Yes
|resting_place_coordinates=	Yes	Yes
|restingplace=	Yes	No	Helpful alias
|restingplacecoordinates=	Yes	No	Helpful alias
|siglum=	Yes	No	Seems like this could apply to writers?
|signature=	Yes	Yes
|signature alt=	Yes	No	Helpful alias
|signature_alt=	Yes	Yes
|signature_size=	Yes	Yes
|signature_type=	Yes	Yes
|spouse=	Yes	Yes
|spouses=	Yes	Yes
|spouse(s)=	Yes	No	Seems like a helpful alias to have
|status=	Yes	No	Seems like this could be helpful? Is a writer still active or have they retired from writing?
|style=	Yes	No
|successor=	Yes	No
|template_name=	Yes	No	This is part of the Module:Template wrapper functionality. It does not display anything and is hardcoded.
|television=	Yes	No	Do writers make notable TV appearances on occasion?
|term=	Yes	No
|title=	Yes	No
|URL=	Yes	Yes
|url=	Yes	Yes
|website=	Yes	Yes
|works=	Yes	No	This will be used by |notable_works=
|years active=	Yes	Yes
|years_active=	Yes	Yes
|yearsactive=	Yes	Yes

@Nikkimaria: please review the table above. Also please make sure you saw my previous comment just above the table. Note that I did NOT include params that are in {{Infobox writer}} but NOT in {{Infobox person}} as none of those parameters are being removed. The issue as I understand it is the new parameters that are being added. I tried to comment on parameters that I felt could or would be relevant to writers. I won't repeat myself here, but there are a number of parameters that I think will help by adding them to {{Infobox writer}}. There are also a number of new aliases (such as |alma mater=/|alma_mater= that I think will be helpful as well.

You will also see the substantial amount of overlap between the 2 templates that highlights the consolidation that Hike395 and I are trying to eliminate. If you could please review the list and specify any concerns you have about specific parameters being added. None of them jump out at me as being unhelpful to being added. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:11, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate your comment above - I too was feeling very frustrated by the above exchange.

Alias should be at most an alias (ha!) for pen name, or omitted. Inclusion of agent has been heavily disputed previously as potential advertising, see for example this discussion. Burial place/coordinates and domestic partner should be aliases. Boards, callsign, child, credits, crimes, death cause, judicial status, era, height should be omitted. Family and honors/honours should be aliases or omitted. Office, opponents, organization, othername, otherparty, party, predecessor, siglum should be omitted. Status in infobox person is used for disappeared status - are you proposing it would be used to mean something different here? Style, successor, television, term should be omitted. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

What to do next

What to do next

param	What to do	Note
|abovestyle=	Allow	This will be hardcoded
|agent=	Exclude	Seems this has been a source of debate.
|alias=	Reuse	This will point to |pen_name=
|alma mater=	Allow	Aliased to |alma_mater=. We get it for free, no need to specifically exclude it.
|baptised=	Allow	I see no need to exclude these. We get them for free with the wrapper, no harm in having them.
|baptized=	Allow
|birthname=	Allow	Alias for |birth_name=
|boards=	Maybe	From Infobox person: For board of directors membership(s), if relevant. Field labeled Board member of. We get it for free, any harm in having it? If a writer is a member of a board isn't that worth saying?
|body discovered=	Allow	Unlikely to be used, but I don't see these being abused either... It is pretty clear what each one is for. If the fact is known/relevant, I see no harm in having it. We get it for free with the wrapper.
|body_discovered=	Allow
|burial_coordinates=	Allow
|burial_place=	Allow
|callsign=	Exclude
|child=	allow	Clarify this is a VERY common alias for |embed=, this is NOT an alias for |children=.
|credits=	Exclude
|criminal charge=	Allow	While these are not common, I don't see them being misused either. Not worth doing a wrapper just to get them, but since they come for free with the wrapper I don't see the need to exclude them.... Also a few examples where this is relevant: Chester Himes, Joan Henry & Malcolm Braly. The last 2 wrote books specifically about their time in prison.
|criminal penalty=	Allow
|criminal status=	Allow
|criminal_charge=	Allow
|criminal_charges=	Allow
|criminal_penalty=	Allow
|criminal_status=	Allow
|disappeared_date=	Allow	Again, very rare, but since we get it for free... VERY clear what these params are for, I don't see how they could be misused except in cases of obvious vandalism.
|disappeared_place=	Allow
|disappeared_status=	Allow
|domestic_partner=	Allow	These obviously do the same thing
|domesticpartner=	Allow
|embed_title=	HARDCODE	This will be hardcoded, not set by individual transclusions.
|era=	Not sure?	Isn't the era a writer writes in relevant information?
|family=	Allow	Not common, but helpful when they are part of a notable family
|father=	Allow	Note that this just shows up under the "Parents" label with "(father)" appended to it, not its own custom label exclusively for father...
|footnotes=	Not sure?	You didn't mention this one... This DOES seem ripe for abuse/misuse, so I'm learning towards excluding it.
|height=	Exclude	Been discussed
|height_cm=	Exclude
|height_ft=	Exclude
|height_in=	Exclude
|height_m=	Exclude
|honors=	Reuse	These will show up under the Notable Awards label. I.E. an alias for |awards=
|honours=	Reuse
|image_alt=	Allow	This is a very common param and would be helpful o have as an alias.
|judicial status=	Exclude
|judicial_status=	Exclude
|known=	Reuse	These will all be aliased to serve the same purpose as |notable_works=, i.e. put them under the Notable Works label.
|known for=	Reuse
|known_for=	Reuse
|label_name=	Exclude
|misc2=	Allow	Not something I would have fought to add, but since we get them for free... lets use em!
|misc3=	Allow
|misc4=	Allow
|misc5=	Allow
|misc6=	Allow
|module2=	Allow
|module3=	Allow
|module4=	Allow
|module5=	Allow
|module6=	Allow
|monuments=	No clue	You didn't mention this one... I could go either way. I know William Shakespeare has a monument... But we get this param for free. I don't see it being misused and could be relevant?
|mother=	Allow	Just like |father= above, this just lands under the |parents= param with "(mother)" inserted after it.
|nocat_wdimage=	Allow	This is just a tracking category param. Doesn't actually display anything so no need to really worry about it.
|office=	Exclude
|opponents=	Exclude
|organisation=	Unclear	Again this seems like it could be useful. I would again point to William Shakespeare where this is used via {{Infobox person}}
|organization=	Unclear
|organizations=	Unclear
|other names=	Exclude
|other_names=	Exclude
|othername=	Exclude
|otherparty=	Exclude
|party=	Allow	Have to disagree with you on this one. There are a number of famous writers who have been politically outspoken. Stephen King immediately comes to mind. Has a whole section on his page about his political activism. Victor Hugo is another. This is another parameter that I just don't see being misused.
|predecessor=	Exclude
|pre-nominals=	Allow	Alias to honorific prefix
|political_party=	Allow	See above re: |party=. This is just an alias to that.
|post-nominals=	Allow	Honorific suffix and aliases were already included. This is just a free alias to that.
|resting place=	Allow	Free aliases to the already used |resting_place= & |resting_place_coordinates=
|resting place coordinates=	Allow
|restingplace=	Allow
|restingplacecoordinates=	Allow
|siglum=	Exclude
|signature alt=	Allow	Free alias to the already used |signature_alt=
|spouse(s)=	Allow	Free alias
|status=	Exclude	Totally 100% misunderstood what this param even was...
|style=	Exclude
|successor=	Exclude
|template_name=	HARDCODED	This is part of the Module:Template wrapper functionality. It does not display anything and is hardcoded.
|television=	Exclude
|term=	Exclude
|title=	Exclude
|works=	Reuse	This will be used by |notable_works=

@Nikkimaria: Ok so I took your comments and put together the above chart. I removed everything that is present in both templates because those are obviously staying. For the most part I took what you said and agreed with you regarding whether to exclude or not... There are a few I disagreed with you on and I explained why in the chart.

A few things to note...

• There are a number of params that we get for free that alias to existing params in {{Infobox writer}}. For example Infobox writer has |alma_mater=, with the wrapper we get |alma mater= as well. I see no need to make the extra effort to exclude these aliases since we get them and all the related error checking (see Check for clobbered parameters) for free...
• There are a number of params that while not super relevant to writers, could be to some (e.g. |disappeared_date=). While I would not have done this wrapper just to add these parameters, since they come for free, I see no need to make the extra effort to exclude them. Particularly because, and this is key to your earlier point, I really don't see them being misused. The only person who is going to add a disappeared_date to someone who hasn't disappeared is a someone truly vandalizing a page... What's more, and this is another important point, we do not have to document all of these parameters on {{Infobox writer}}. There will be a header on the doc page saying that the template is wrapped. But I don't feel the need to add |disappeared_date= to the template data, for example... IF it becomes relevant to a specific person, then an experienced editor will figure out how to add it.
• There are hundreds of writer pages that currently have |embed=yes. Now I obviously haven't looked at every single one, but every one that I DID look at, was embeded in {{infobox person}} so that it could make use of some of the parameters I am suggesting adding. See for example William Shakespeare, George Orwell, Victor Hugo & Bob Ellis. This wrapper template will basically eliminate the need to embed this template in {{Infobox person}} making it a much easier experience for use of this template moving forward.

To be VERY clear, this table is not what we are going to do... It is my current thinking and arguments for keeping certain parameters. Let me know your thoughts and we will go from there. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 08:54, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

A number of points:

• I would be happy to exclude parameters that are unlikely to be relevant to a writer, e.g., |height=. We can have a table of excluded parameters at the bottom of usage, although I suspect that table may sometimes be misinterpreted as implemented parameters, rather than excluded ones.
• I support Zackmann's proposed actions, with the following comments and possible changes:
  • |footnotes= is useful for {{Infobox person}} if the editor needs to make a note about a field, and doesn't wish to make a entire Notes article section (which a reader may miss).
  • |agent= --- A writer's literary agent seems highly relevant. I would include this, modulo it does require a reliable source.
  • |child= --- Zackmann pointed out that this is a very common alias for |embed=. I agree with this, we should leave that in.
• {{Infobox writer}} being embedded into {{Infobox person}} is an opportunity to use a single infobox in the article after wrapping -- another advantage to wrapping. It would be interesting to see how many of these excluded parameters are used on such pages. We could revisit this after the wrapping (if the wrapping attains consensus). — hike395 (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

For all cases where something may occasionally be relevant, I'd point back to the MOS provision: is it something that will be relevant to more than a few articles? If no, it should be excluded. Given the number of modules being added, the few cases where it is relevant can simply embed {{infobox criminal}} etc.

Some more specific responses: "politically outspoken" is not necessarily the same thing as being a member of a specific party, and of that being relevant enough for inclusion. See also this discussion.

Child is flagged as deprecated in infobox person's documentation, and you've pointed out a reason it should stay that way: it is likely to be confused with children.

This template already uses period for the time period in which the writer was active, not seeing a reason to add era on top of that. Similarly relatives vs family.

I don't think we should use known_for as an alias for notableworks, just because that's very different from how it's used in other templates. It should either be excluded, or used as it is used elsewhere; I don't have a preference as to which. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: The general issue at this point seems to be our differing interpretation of the MOS. Specifically your claim that (I'm paraphrasing, please correct me if I am misinterpreting you) if it unlikely to be used by the majority of pages, it should not be included. There are a number of parameters that we get for free with this conversion and unless you can argue that they will truly harm the page to have them included, I don't understand the problem in getting them for free or the need to go through the extra effort to exclude them. Additionally, per your interpretation of the MOS, if you consult the param report the following is just a sample of the many low-use parameters that should all be removed from the current version of {{Infobox writer}}:

• |years active= - 63 times
• |landscape= - 5 times
• |resting_place_coordinates= - 20 times
• |signature_size= - 24 times
• |penname= - 25 times

This may sound like I'm just being pedantic, but I really am being genuine. If the argument is that unlikely to be used params should not be included, then we should remove |penname= among many other that are clearly rarely used...

A number of other specific counterpoints.

• Child - This parameter is used in Hundreds of Infoboxes. What's more, it is the preferred term for embeding per the documentation for Template:Infobox. Currently {{infobox writer}} literally has |child={{lc:{{{embed}}}}} in the code. Child is not about to be abused... Plus if you DO set it to an invalid param, you will know right away as the infobox blows up.
• By your interpretation of the MOS, the 944 pages (out of 556,000+) that use {{Infobox person}} with |criminal_charges= should all be changed to include {{Infobox criminal}} as a child module and the parameter removed from {{Infobox person}} (and all other non-criminal infoboxes). I will again say that while I would not have done this conversion JUST to get |criminal_charges= added to this infobox, you really haven't given any argument for how this could be misused in any real way. You cite the MOS, but frankly I just flat disagree with your interpretation and do not see the need to take the extra effort to exclude potentially useful parameters that we get for free.
• Party - You link to one discussion with a few comments from over 10 years ago... It is clearly consensus at this time that |party= can go in biographies of non-political persons as exemplified by the over 10,000+ pages that currently have that value for {{Infobox person}} alone. Now if you are of the mind that it doesn't belong in the infobox for anyone other than {{Infobox officeholder}} that is a totally valid position to take, but I would advise you to file an RFC as consensus at this point is clear that party is worthy of including, and frankly if we do not perform this merge I would add it to {{Infobox writer}} to be consistent with other person infoboxes.
• Era - You seem more familiar with writers than I so I will defer to you. If you don't think that is a helpful alias, I'm fine to exclude it.
• Family/Father/Mother - Again, I see zero harm in having these added. We get them for free and it would be more work and effort to exclude them. I see no way that would harm the template in anyway. I will also tell you from firsthand experience that during my recent clean out of Category:Pages using infobox writer with unknown parameters, I found a number of instances of |father= and |mother= that I had to manually convert to |relatives= (for the record I would provide diffs to show you but it was a few weeks and thousands of edits ago....).

Finally I want to repeat what Hike395 said above (might have been an edit conflict so make sure you read their post from earlier today) {{Infobox writer}} being embedded into {{Infobox person}} is an opportunity to use a single infobox in the article after wrapping -- another advantage to wrapping. It would be interesting to see how many of these excluded parameters are used on such pages. We could revisit this after the wrapping (if the wrapping attains consensus). While I don't feel the need to go change pages like Victor Hugo to use a non-nested version of the template, the over 500 instances of this template being embeded show there is definitely usefulness to having these parameters added and simplifying the user experience. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:20, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I would actually like to go and convert pages like Victor Hugo to use a single infobox rather than two nested ones. The fact that Victor Hugo has |party= is a signal that |party= should be an acceptable parameter for {{Infobox writer}}. — hike395 (talk) 01:25, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

The following is in response to comments left at User_talk:Zackmann08#Parameters. Nikkimaria has asked that those comments not be posted here.

@Nikkimaria: I'm really not sure what to do at this point. I am really trying to avoid a case of ICANTHEARYOU but many of your arguments fly in the face of widely accepted consensus. I have spent a lot of time trying to give you detailed arguments. I've spent time making 2 separate tables, and linking to various searches to back up each of my arguments. It is disheartening to feel like you have taken little time to actually look at the data I have compiled or the searches I have linked to.

For every parameter you fear will wreak havoc on this infobox, I can provide a clear counterexample of how relevant it is... Just ONE example. 128 writers already have |party= in their infobox, done via the use of {{Infobox person}}. That is more than five times the number of uses of |penname=. How you can argue that |penname= should be kept but |party= will cause an insurmountable burden to the infobox is honestly beyond my comprehension.

There are at least 555,846 uses of {{Infobox person}}. If you consult Category:Templates calling Infobox person you will see it is used for everything from astronauts to comedians from chefs to police officer. WP:CONSENSUS is clear, these parameters are relevant to pages about people.

You clearly disagree with that consensus. I will reiterate what I have said before, that is totally valid. But to object to a conversion that is very clearly backed by so much precedent and consensus doesn't make sense. If you think certain parameters should not be widely used, that is a task for an RFC, which I would welcome. Trying to protect one Infobox from what you deem as a much larger issue borders on OWN.

For the record I'm not ignoring your point about |nationality= (which I will note is also present on {{Infobox writer}}). This is a point on which we both agreee. I think you are totally right. That should have been removed from {{Infobox person}} and I would encourage you to bring it up on the talk page. I would be 100% in favor of enforcing that change and actually making it happen. I would do it myself but I'm currently in a fierce debate about removing |residence= from {{Infobox tennis biography}} and fear I may get a reputation if I start another such attempt so soon.

I will also point out that one of the many benefits of wrapping a template like we are trying to do is that you inherit the consensus changes. This means that when |ethnicity= and |religion= were removed from {{Infobox person}} it was also removed from all the wrapper templates. Hopefully when |nationality= is removed from {{infobox person}} it will automatically be removed from all derivative templates as well.

You keep saying that these parameters will cause a problem but you have yet to provide any examples of how these parameters can be misused by anything other than pure vandalism... Who is going to mistake |disappeared_date= for anything other than what it is? Who is going to use |mother= to add a non-notable mother who cannot also just use the already existing param of |relatives=? Despite me asking multiple times you just keep saying it will cause a burden. I would like to know what burden this causes that is so insurmountable and why is this a problem just for {{Infobox writer}} and not for the 555,000+ other pages that use this code already?

The final point that I will make and I guess my overall message is you have identified what you see as a problem. Too many unimportant/non-notable parameters in widespread use on {{Infobox person}} and its derivatives. It now seems that you are trying desperately to protect {{Infobox writer}} from this same problem. The fundamental difference here is that I DO NOT see this as a problem at all. Consensus has decided that these parameters are worthy of being used on hundreds of thousands of biography pages. Unless you can make a case that writers are somehow deserving of special treatment and are exempt from this consensus, I don't really understand what we are debating. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:49, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Does restricting parameters actually accomplish anything?

I think the fact that {{Infobox writer}} is often used as a sub-template to {{Infobox person}} means that restricting parameters only leads to messy out-of-order templates. For example, if we restrict (say) |agent=, |party=, and |height=, then someone currently could simply make the template shown below and left.

Nothing is currently stopping them from using those parameters in the outer template, and the ordering of the fields is not constrained. If we expose all of the parameters of {{Infobox person}}, we cannot stop this kind of misuse, but the easiest thing for an editor to do is to just use {{Infobox writer}} by itself and get a standard ordering (shown below and right).

John Template John Template relaxing Agent Jefferson P. Swycaffer Height 72 in (180 cm) Political party Template party Writing career Born (1975-01-01) 1 January 1975 Templateville, Templatia Pen name Cordwainer Bird Subject Templates Notable works I was a Teenaged Template Templating Heights Template's Labours Lost Spouse Lady Jane Template

John Template John Template relaxing Born (1975-01-01) 1 January 1975 Templateville, Templatia Other names Cordwainer Bird Agent Jefferson P. Swycaffer Height 72 in (180 cm) Political party Template party Spouse Lady Jane Template Writing career Subject Templates Notable works I was a Teenaged Template Templating Heights Template's Labours Lost

In summary, at this point, I'm not sure that restricting parameters actually accomplishes much. — hike395 (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2025 (UTC)