Template talk:Infobox person

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

Criminal charges, Criminal penalty and Criminal status parameters.

I propose removing these parameters. These parameters should be reserved for usage in Template:Infobox criminal which has instructions about which articles the infobox should and shouldn't be used on. TarnishedPath^talk 03:48, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Support. I see no reason for this parameter to exist outside of the criminal infobox, particularly given the importance of the instructions. Revolving Doormat (talk) 12:33, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I imagine those parameters are still useful in cases where the subject is notable independent of their criminal history and where {{Infobox person}} has other parameters that aren't available through {{Infobox criminal}}. Graham11 (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I would like to see some stats about how much they are used here before I !vote one way or the other... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:58, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

@Zackmann08 the best search I can think of at present is insource: "Infobox person" AND "criminal charges" which yields 1,414 results. However, a lot of those (probably most) results are for articles that have the words "criminal charges" in the article. TarnishedPath^talk 02:45, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: two tips... try this search. You can also consult the param report Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:51, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

@Zackmann08 thanks for that. Looks like the answer is 1,014 with 50 unique values. One of them I found is John Dillinger who I dare say it would be more suitable to be using Infobox criminal. TarnishedPath^talk 06:44, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

In those cases, would using |Module= to embed {{Infobox criminal}} into {{Infobox person}} be sufficient? —Bagumba (talk) 07:17, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

According to the TemplateData report, there are 56 parameters that are used more times than |criminal_charges=. It's tricky to count how many supported parameters there are, excluding aliases, but it looks like it's approximately 93. My math could definitely be wrong. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:44, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

education and alma_mater parameters

Are these two distinctions actually necessary? While I haven't been on here a very long time, I've not run across the education parameter being used, and instead see the alma_mater parameter used in its place: (i.e., John Tuzo Wilson). Revolving Doormat (talk) 12:30, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

See MOS:INFOEDU. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Are these two distinctions actually necessary? – Is there any actual need to change the parameter from alma_mater to education when it is being used as such? Revolving Doormat (talk) 15:41, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Alma mater has a particular meaning that does not encompass everything that could be entered into |education=, so if it's being used more broadly it would make sense to change the parameter. I've done that at Wilson. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I disagree with what you are saying here, to be honest. Alma mater is used to mean a school which one has attended (and perhaps especially graduated from, but that is not necessarily true). It certainly does not mean "only the name of the last institution one attended." It also is used to mean a school's fight song. I think the fact that these are being used interchangeably is a sign that we should only have one, as I doubt the education parameter is not being used when a degree was not conferred or that information is unknown. I used alma_mater and not education because I was copying an infobox that used it when I first started creating. I am updating those to education now, but I tend to agree with @David Eppstein below that the two are not really needed. Revolving Doormat (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree that alma mater is a school that one has attended - what it isn't is the degree one earned, when one earned it, etc. That sort of detail shouldn't be in that parameter. But if you believe that parameter shouldn't exist at all, I'd suggest launching an RfC. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm trying to get a sense of what others think before doing that. Revolving Doormat (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

@Revolving Doormat: If there were to be an RfC, I would support the deprecation of |alma_mater=. Khiikiat (talk) 10:30, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I usually use the education parameter for the academic biographies I work on, rather than alma mater, because these people often have degrees from multiple institutions and the alma mater parameter has the connotation that there should be only one. Also because MOS:COMMONALITY. I don't see why we need two parameters but if we were to have only one I would strongly prefer education. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks DE; and I agree with your thoughts here. Revolving Doormat (talk) 14:51, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I've been meaning to raise this for years. "Alma mater" as well as "Education" is simply infobox clutter. And we should avoid Latinate phrasing when there are common English alternatvies. RfC? - yes please! Edwardx (talk) 12:18, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

It has always struck me as odd. We should have done this yesterday. SamWilson989 (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Another to make this change. And also the text should be clearer that it only covers earned degrees and unearned degrees should not be listed in addition to or in place of them. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

@David Eppstein, @Edwardx, @Khiikiat, @Nikkimaria, @Revolving Doormat, @SamWilson989, @Timrollpickering: courtesy ping to all involved in this discussion. Genuinely did not realize that there was a preexisting discussion here, and I actually looked for it... I have filed an RFC at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#RFC:_Alma_mater_vs_Education_in_Infoboxes on this exact issue. Please be sure to chime in there... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:52, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Present-day countries in birthplace

The following was recently removed from the documentation about the birth_place parameter for historical subjects: What the place may correspond to on a modern map is a matter for an article's main text. The edit summary justifying the removal says: revert a 2017 unexplained addition of a dubious sentence, came up recently at Talk:Nikola Tesla. I feel that this should be restored, but I think a discussion is necessary first. Mellk (talk) 10:04, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Restore For time–specific entires (such as births), it should be the location name at the time of the event.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 14:12, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I would favor leaving the sentence removed. It's necessary to add the modern country name when the former name is not simply a variation, especially if it's the name of a different current country. For example, it's fine to say someone was born in "Lima, Viceroyalty of Peru" because Lima is in the modern country of Peru, but to say someone was born in "Santiago, Viceroyalty of Peru" would be a lot more confusing than "Santiago, Viceroyalty of Peru (now in Chile)". MOS:GEOLINK would recommend adding a "then part of" to phrases involving a former country which needs to be linked. -- Beland (talk) 02:41, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I removed that sentence after it was used in a discussion about the Nikola Tesla article by an editor who was known to be problematic and who was in the meantime globally banned. I don't think their behavior matched the spirit of the previous sentence of the documentation: For historical subjects, use the place name most appropriate for the context and our readership. We should not provide these sorts of crutches to abusers who want to censor infoboxes. Rather, we should stick to that simple standard set by the existing sentence. If noting modern-day toponyms is appropriate for the context and our readership, it should be kept; if it is not, it should be removed. --Joy (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikilinks for notable works

Does having a "notable works" parameter presume that those listed works are each independently notable and wikilinked (either blue or red)? Otherwise are they really "notable works"? czar 22:55, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Blue link. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, in this context "notable" is a way of writing "bluelinked" that avoids internal-to-Wikipedia terminology. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Is it worth adding that clarification to the documentation? I often see this field used for "best known for" works that aren't independently notable. czar 21:21, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:CSC, item 1. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Stepchildren

Should stepchildren be included in the infobox under the total count of children someone has? Just came upon an article where a stepchild was not included in the count despite the article body specifically mentioning that the person considers the child their own. In my mind, it doesn’t feel appropriate to then not count them? ~2026-15971-34 (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

My personal opinion: the infobox should use the sourced number of children mentioned in the body of the article, whether they're biological, foster, adopted, or stepchildren. Schazjmd (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

It's a minefield. Some celebs marry, divorce and re-marry, multiple times (does Zsa Zsa Gabor still hold the record?). Occasionally they marry somebody who has children already, not necessarily from a previous marriage. It gets complicated very quickly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I think we should either include the full complexity, or nothing. -- Beland (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Deprecate & clean up conflicting parameters

This template currently has a large number of conflicting parameters which can cause issues. As part of an ongoing effort to reduce these conflicts and reduce the overhead maintenance required on these templates, I am suggesting deprecating and ultimately removing a large number of these params, particularly those that fail to conform to MOS:INFOBOXNAME. Note that this follows a long list of similar clean ups that I have done on countless other infoboxes (such as this one with Infobox officeholder. This one is unique though as {{infobox person}} has so many templates that use it as a wrapper. As a starting point for this discussion, these are the parameters that I am suggesting deprecating. Note that I have intentionally NOT included any changes to params that have different spellings across variations of English (e.g. |honors= vs |honours=).

My proposed list:

Deprecate	Replace with
|honorific prefix=	|honorific_prefix=
|honorific-prefix=
|pre-nominals=
|honorific suffix=	|honorific_suffix=
|honorific-suffix=
|post-nominals=
|image size=	|image_size=
|imagesize=
|image caption=	|image_caption=
|birthname=	|birth_name=
|status=	|disappeared_status=
|death cause=	|death_cause=
|body discovered=	|body_discovered=
|resting place=	|resting_place=
|restingplace=	|resting_place=
|resting place coordinates=	|resting_place_coordinates=
|restingplacecoordinates=
|other names=	|other_names= (note {{pluralize from text}} to be used)
|othername=
|nickname=
|alias=
|alma mater=	|alma_mater=
|years active=	|years_active=
|yearsactive=
|known for=	|known_for=
|known=
|notable works=	|notable_works=
|party=	|political_party=
|criminal charge=	|criminal_charge=
|criminal penalty=	|criminal_penalty=
|judicial status=	|judicial_status=
|criminal status=	|criminal_status=
|spouse(s)=	|spouse= (note {{pluralize from text}} in use)
|domesticpartner=	|partner=
|domestic_partner=
|relations=	|relatives=
|misc=	|module=
|misc2=	|module2=
|misc3=	|module3=
|misc4=	|module4=
|misc5=	|module5=
|misc6=	|module6=
|homepage=	|website=
|URL=
|url=
|signature alt=	|signature_alt=
|otherparty=	|other_party=

I have mocked up my suggested changes to the template in this version of the sandbox. Please share any thoughts or concerns! --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:37, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Also, since image_size is pretty much deprecated in favor of a proportional size image, it should also include the somewhat standardized image_upright parameter. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:30, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Fyunck(click) two things:

1. Is |image_size= truly deprecated? Can you link to a discussion or policy supporting that? I'm not saying you're wrong I'm just unaware of any such consensus and think it would be helpful to include a link to any such consensus as part of this discussion.
2. From a technical standpoint, fixing |image size=→|image_size= is super easy with a regex. Converting |image_size=→|image_upright= is different as the value has to be changed as well, not just the parameter name. I have no clue how that would be achieved without manual edits and we are talking about over a half million pages that would need to be changed, That would need a bot run. I'm not saying it can't be done... Just voicing that I have no clue how to achieve that...

Warrants further discussion for sure. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:42, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I said pretty much. It's not officially deprecated. It's still usable but we have been discouraged from doing so and have been told to use proportional images if possible, especially because of readers using their cellphones. It doesn't need a bot run as there are times when you may need to use image_size, so the parameters would both be available. We just include it as a first choice option, but we certainly don't get rid of image_size. We actually added it to tennis biography infoboxes to handle the Wikipedia preferred way of doing things. And since the standard 220pixel image is handled by an upright image of .8 we just slowly change the players as we find them and have the time to fix it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:20, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

If it is not officially deprecated and still is being used, it would not be appropriate for this particular project to make changes to that parameter. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:27, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I didn't say change it. I said add another separate parameter so that either can be used. This is exactly the place it should be discussed. But as I look at the template documentation, it looks like image_upright is already included and image_size has been removed. So your merging of "image size", and "imagesize" into "image_size" is moot since the parameter has been removed. The parameter image_size may still exist and work but it has been removed from documentation so new editors don't use it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I think we are just talking about 2 different things, but are in agreement. To be clear, no issue here with the use of |image_upright=. My goal with this thread is to work on actually removing deprecated parameters from transclusions. |image_size= is still a functioning parameter. I mistook your initial comments to mean that we should be converting |image_size= to |image_upright= so that is what I was addressing. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:46, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

The list looks good to me. I do not see any mergers of parameters that are not already aliases, and simplification may actually fix some instances where an empty parameter alias is being used instead of an editor's intended parameter value. The only thing I think people might object to is the merging of |pre-nominals= (and post-nominals) into a single honorific parameter, since the meanings are different. The technical functionality is the same, but people sometimes get attached to parameter names. Would you consider applying {{pluralize from text}} to |other_names=? It seems like a logical place for it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Love the idea! I'll add that to the list. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:01, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

@Primefac: can you give this a quick look over? Likely going to request a bot run from you so please let me know if you have any thoughts? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:18, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Parameter standardisation is good, the table looks good (though not sure where |criminal charge2= is coming from or used...), nothing obvious to me that would get in the way of this. Primefac (talk) 11:47, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I genuinely have no explanation for |criminal charge2=... Absolutely no clue where that came from! But removed it from the table. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:03, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I have initiated the category... Category:Pages using infobox person with deprecated parameters (0) should be populating over the next few days. @Primefac: would love you to initiate a PrimeBOT run whenever you have the time. I'm sure this one is going to take a while to run but slow and steady we shall get there. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:07, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

With half a million pages transcluding this template, it'll definitely take some time, but I'll keep an eye on things. If anything doing it in smaller batches as the system cache refreshes will probably be better anyway. Primefac (talk) 19:37, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

As always, your help is appreciated! --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:39, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

@Primefac: great work as always! Only 1 page left, that I think you need to do because it is currently WP:PPDRV... I'll give it a few days to make sure no stragglers populate the category then I'll update the template. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:55, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Old Style and New Dates in infoboxes

Most biographical infoboxes they use {{Birth date}}, instead of {{OldStyleDate}} per infobox guidelines. Examples of infoboxes include Vladimir Lenin, Nicholas II, Leo Tolstoy, Isaac Newton and Johann Sebastian Bach used {{Birth date}} in birth_place= parameter. Absolutiva 10:51, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

That's against the guidelines not per the guidelines. If the date is in the Julian calendar, do not use these templates, thanks. I've corrected the articles you listed. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:12, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

What about Leonid Brezhnev, does not have {{OldStyleDate}} in this lead section. Absolutiva 13:22, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

The confusion at Talk:Leonid Brezhnev/Archive 1#His birthdate in Gregorian and Julian calendars demonstrates why the calendar used should be specified. The citations in the article say 6/19 December not any date in January. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:36, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Does also affect Rosa Luxemburg, Marie Curie, L. L. Zamenhof, etc. Absolutiva 14:01, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

For Polish subjects, I would follow the citations. Zamenhof is clarified by a footnote, so seems fine as it is. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:25, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Is it fine if there is a footnote for Isaac Newton, similar to George Washington's. Absolutiva 22:22, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I think biographies of Newton often say he was born on Christmas Day. So, I would therefore prefer that date to remain prominent rather than hidden in a footnote. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:19, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

The same tradition applies to J. S. Bach whose birthday is commonly celebrated on the O.S. date 21 March. This is generally perfectly correct because those were indeed the dates Newton, Bach, etc were born. Their N.S. birth dates should only be mentioned to calculate their age. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

But its unnecessary bloat, see this edit. Absolutiva 00:52, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Agent parameter (deprecation)

Hello, I should recommend to depreciate |agent= this parameter, concerning WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTADVERT. Before this, these relevant discussions as proposed at:

• Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 23#Agent (previous RfC)
• Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 29#Agent parameter = Advertising?
• Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 37#RFC: “Agent” parameter in Musician articles?

Absolutiva 23:33, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus in the Archive 23 RFC not to remove this parameter, and no one replied to the Archive 37 RFC. -- Beland (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support removal - This is purely advertising, violates MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE and is simply not encyclopedic information. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:55, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
• Support deprecation. Ideally, editors will have the patience to look through all 5,000 articles that use this parameter and weed out instances that aren't even mentioned in the article, a clear violation of the infobox guidelines. Instances that are sourced and worth mentioning can be moved to the article body.

In the first RFC (in 2014), Johnuniq made the key point: Why should the Wikipedia article for an actor be available to promote an agency? If reliable secondary sources have commented on the significance of an agent for a particular person, that can be mentioned with an explanation in the article. Other editors emphasized that infoboxes are for "key facts" about the topic, per the infobox guidelines. I do not know of a category of person for whom their agent is a "key fact" that warrants inclusion in the infobox; if the person's relationship with their agent is worth mentioning, as it was with baseball player Alex Rodriguez and his agent, Scott Boras, it can be explained in the article but still does not reach the level of needing to be in the infobox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• I agree with my 2014 self. Perhaps someone could find a couple of examples with agent for an idea of how it has been used. Johnuniq (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
  • For examples, see Baron Geisler + Cho Jin-woong + Gerald Anderson + Category:Pages using infobox person with multiple agents. Johnuniq (talk) 07:02, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
    • I would remove all of those. None of the agents mentioned are supported by sourced claims in the body of the article, which violates the infobox guidelines. This parameter seems like it is mostly an attractive nuisance. I would be interested to hear from editors who think that there is a category of people for whom the person's agent is a "key fact" about the person; for actors and sports players, it is almost never a key fact. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose – We have a fairly deep category tree at Category:Talent and literary agencies, and being represented by them is often an indicator of importance, prestige and prominence of those represented. If the agency is notable, IMO it's reasonable to show it in the infobox. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Most actors do not need notable talent agencies (e.g. Creative Artists Agency) that represent Bella Thorne, which is not included. Absolutiva 04:14, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support removal per Jonesey95. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 26 April 2026

Can someone please sync this template with its sandbox version and make the following edits to this template:

1. Renumber the following parameters:
   1. {{{label/data2}}} to {{{label/data1}}},
   2. Label and data parameters that are numbered between 21 and 37, to numbers that are two figures lower,
   3. Label and data parameters that are numbered between 40 and 62, to numbers that are four figures lower,
   4. Label and data parameters that are numbered between 64 and 70, to numbers that are five figures lower,
   5. And {{{header71}}} to {{{header66}}}, {{{data72}}} to {{{data67}}}, {{{header73}}} to {{{header68}}}, and {{{data74}}} to {{{data69}}},
2. Before the '=' equal sign, remove one space after the {{{bodyclass}}} and {{{subheader2}}} parameters, two spaces after the {{{subheader}}} parameter, and header and data paremeters that are currently numbered {{{header71}}}, {{{data72}}}, {{{header73}}} and {{{data74}}}, and three spaces after label and data parameters that are currently numbered between 1 and 70,
3. And remove the line break between the {{{footnotes}}} parameter and the two closing curly brackets, because the line break and extra spaces are unnecessary in my opinion?

I made those edits to the sandbox version of this template this afternoon on revision 1351131056. PK2 (talk; contributions) 05:09, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

@PK2:  Not done: I don't see the point to any of this. Why do you want all the renumbering? The infobox module handles gaps in sequence just fine. With named parameters, the number of spaces before or after an equals sign is immaterial. Removing "unnecessary" linebreaks is itself unnecessary. All this is purely cosmetic and I'm not going to put half a million pages into the job queue without good reason.

That is to say: are there any extra rows to add, or existing rows to remove? Is the non-blank displayed content of any row being altered? If either of these is true, please redo your changes without the cosmetic stuff. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:59, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Proposal for Oxbridge college exception for the education parameter

The current guidance for the |education= parameter states that entries should refer to the degree-awarding institution — i.e. the university, not constituent colleges ("List the full article title of each degree-granting parent institution, followed by degree(s) earned in parentheses"). In most cases this is sensible and clean. However, I would like to propose a formalised narrow exception for the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, based on existing convention.

In practice, the overwhelming majority of well-sourced articles on Oxbridge alumni specify the college attended, not simply "University of Oxford" or "University of Cambridge". This reflects a genuine structural distinction: at Oxbridge, it is the college, not the university, that admits the student, provides their accommodation and tutorial teaching, and constitutes their primary institutional affiliation. The university awards the degree, but the college is the meaningful unit of membership. Reliable sources (biographies, obituaries, Who's Who entries, official institutional pages) routinely use college-level attribution as a result.

Across a wide range of fields, Wikipedia infoboxes already specify the Oxbridge college attended rather than simply the university. In politics, this includes current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Sir Keir Starmer, and former Prime Ministers Rishi Sunak, Boris Johnson, Theresa May, David Cameron, Tony Blair, and Margaret Thatcher; other foreign leaders such as Lee Kuan Yew, Bill Clinton, and Benazir Bhutto; in business and media, Rupert Murdoch, Owen Jones, and Mehdi Hasan; in literature, J. R. R. Tolkien, Evelyn Waugh, and Zadie Smith; in film and television, Emma Thompson, Stephen Fry, and Hugh Laurie; and other figures such as Tim Berners-Lee, Roger Bannister, and Amartya Sen — to name but a few. The breadth of this list illustrates that college-level attribution is not an editorial quirk but a longstanding and widespread convention.

The current guidance inadvertently pushes some editors to correcting the infoboxes of Oxbridge alumni toward a less precise formulation that conflicts with sourcing convention (see, for instance, recent back-and-forth edits on Liz Truss) and arguably misrepresents how Oxbridge actually works. For the majority of articles, this is not actually followed in practice.

I therefore propose that the guidance for |education= be amended to add the following sentence after the existing description:

Exception: for alumni of the University of Oxford and the University of Cambridge, the college attended should be specified in addition to the degree(s) earned, e.g. Brasenose College, Oxford (BA) rather than University of Oxford (BA). This reflects standard sourcing convention and the distinctive collegiate structure of those universities.

I am happy to discuss the specific wording. The core principle, namely that Oxbridge is a well-established exception to the "degree-awarding institution only" rule, seems broadly reflected in existing article practice even without formal guidance, so formalising it would reduce inconsistency and unnecessary edit disputes.

Profavi1 (talk) 10:55, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Although I am sure there are extensive examples, it would be good to provide some particular examples of reliable sources using college-level attribution to point to when this comes up for debate. Regardless, I support this proposal. SamWilson989 (talk) 11:29, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good. Some examples I've found, indicating that Oxbridge alumni generally have their college specified when their education is mentioned:

Encyclopædia Britannica consistently uses the college rather than the university across multiple subjects: it describes Boris Johnson as having "studied classics at Balliol College, Oxford"; Liz Truss as having "matriculated at Merton College, Oxford"; J. R. R. Tolkien as having "attended Exeter College, Oxford"; and Stephen Fry as having been "awarded a scholarship to study English at Queens' College, Cambridge".

The official GOV.UK biography of Liz Truss similarly states she "studied philosophy, politics and economics at Merton College, Oxford".

Oxford University Press (via Oxford Reference, independently authored from the university) describes Tony Blair as having been "educated at Fettes College, Edinburgh, and St John's College, Oxford".

The National Portrait Gallery, London biography of Blair similarly states he was "educated at Fettes College and St John's College, Oxford".

The Law Society Gazette, the journal of the Law Society of England and Wales, profiling Truss on her appointment as Lord Chancellor, described her as "going up to Merton College, Oxford".

The Biography.com profile of Tony Blair, published by A&E Networks, describes him as having studied "at St John's College at Oxford University".

The Royal Society's own Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society describes Stephen Hawking as having "studied at University College, Oxford".

The Institute of Physics obituary of Hawking likewise states he was "educated at St Albans School and at University College, Oxford".

The American Institute of Physics states that, as an undergraduate, "he attended University College Oxford".

The Nobel Committee, in its official press release announcing the 1998 Prize in Economic Sciences, identifies the recipient as "Professor Amartya Sen, Trinity College, Cambridge, U.K." (Sen's own autobiographical essay on the Nobel Prize website similarly refers to "my old Cambridge college, Trinity".)

PBS NewsHour, the flagship American public broadcasting news programme, in its obituary of Margaret Thatcher, specifies that she "studied chemistry at Somerville College".

The Library of Economics and Liberty (EconLib), the major economics reference resource published by the Liberty Fund, describes Amartya Sen as having been "a professor... at All Souls College in Oxford" and as "Master of Trinity College at Cambridge University".

Profavi1 (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

OPPOSE I take a dissenting view, on the basis that the Oxbridge colleges are not the degree-awarding bodies. In the majority of everyday life situations, a person will be spoken of as 'having gone to Oxford/Cambridge' – not 'having gone to Brasenose (or wherever)'. Let me make a suggestion: 'University of Oxford (Merton College)', using the Liz Truss case as an example, since it's under discussion there Billsmith60 (talk) 10:46, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

"In the majority of everyday life situations" is not the test? The test is what do reliable sources record. SamWilson989 (talk) 12:59, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

It wouldn't just say the college though; it would say "<x> College, Oxbridge". cf the sources I provided above Profavi1 (talk) 11:55, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

• I would support this exception. It is standard in good-quality British sources (see, for example, any obituary in the Telegraph or Times), to give an Oxbridge graduate's place of education as e.g. "Trinity College, Cambridge". In many complicated ways, the colleges are the primary institution to which Oxbridge students feel affiliation and belonging, and ironically degree award is one of very few times that university-wide affiliation takes primacy. The broad strokes of the guideline are good, but it needs to be able to adapt to exceptions, following the fundamental principle of the MoS that Wikipedia follows practice in reliable sources. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:13, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  The good-quality British sources you cite will naturally reflect and perpetuate what is important to them, i.e. where they themselves were educated. To my mind this proposal reflects an elitist British Establishment mind-set. Moreover, an Oxbridge student or graduate who represented their *institution is often described as an Oxford or Cambridge 'Blue'. Does anyone really dispute this? Anyhow, other than those points, I've no objection. Regards Billsmith60 (talk) 10:25, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I've fully understood the point you're making, but I wonder if WP:RGW might be relevant. On being a "Blue", that's a specific status conferred through certain sporting achievements: someone doesn't become an Oxford Blue simply for graduating from there. You do sometimes hear people described as e.g. a "light blue", but that's peculiarly intra-Oxbridge argot and wouldn't be appropriate for a general audience like Wikipedia's. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:00, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

  Hi, my point is that elites cherish and preserve their elitist status by revelling and repeating in what is important to *them, e.g. their Oxbridge college, when everybody else thinks of them only as attending or having attended the respective university. My point about the sporting Blue surely reinforces the primacy of the university over the constituent college Billsmith60 (talk) 15:11, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

  You don't earn a Blue without first having represented your college at the same sport. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support. This is a standard component of the prose about the education of these alumni and the infobox should reflect that rather than deliberately vagueifying it. There are other universities where everyone is assigned a residential college (Princeton, Santa Cruz, etc) but these are the only ones I know for which it is so central to their alumni identity as to routinely be reported in biographies. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
  • There are other universities where everyone is assigned a residential college (Princeton, Santa Cruz, etc): this really is the key thing -- at Princeton, you apply to Princeton, get accepted by Princeton, and then get allocated to a college to live in. At Cambridge, you apply to King's, get accepted by King's, and only then become a member of Cambridge University. The "hierarchy of belonging", as it were, is the other way around -- the college isn't just a place to live; it's membership of the college that makes you a member of the university. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:05, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
• Support We go by sources on Wikipedia, yes?----3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:53, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Weak Support: reliable sources often specify the college, and it’s not too much information for an Infobox. But I think we should extend this to all institutions, not just Oxford and Cambridge. I haven’t yet seen an argument as to why these should be treated differently to other institutions. They may have a different structure, but as other editors have pointed out, we should go by sources.

The parameter description currently gives Harvard Law School and Kellogg, School of Management as examples of places where we should list the degree granting parent institution.

But reliable sources often specify the school when referring to graduates. I asked Google’s Gemini (language model) to look for how grads of the two schools are referred to in the sources above. I have taken the links it gave me, verified they say what it claimed they said, then formatted them below.

Encyclopædia Britannica says Barack Obama has "graduated (1991) magna cum laude from Harvard University's law school".

The official GOV.UK biography of Baroness Vere of Norbiton says she "completed a MBA at The Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University", and its announcement of the appointment of Richard Snowden says he "obtained a Master of Laws degree from Harvard Law School".

The Oxford Reference entry for Loring Cheney Christie says he "attended Harvard Law School, where he was an editor of the Law Review".

The National Portrait Gallery biography of Mary Arden, Lady Arden of Heswall says she completed a "Master of Laws at Harvard Law School".

The Law Society Gazette says Wesley Gryk is a "Harvard Law School graduate".

The Biography.com entry for Ruth Bader Ginsburg says that she "enrolled at Harvard Law School" and for Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. that he "began attending Harvard Law School" in 1864.

EconLib mentions a lecture given to "MBA students at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management" in an article titled “Do Profit Maximizers Leave $4,000 on the Table?” which Wikipedia’s link filter is preventing me from linking here.

It didn’t find anything in the physics specific sources, which I think is understandable.

It also didn’t find anything on the Nobel Prize’s website. I checked Obama’s entry and it just said he “attend[ed] law school”.

It only found mentions of staff on PBS Newshour.

Based on this, I think we should go with something more along the lines of “Use the name of the higher education institution (school, university, college, etc.) which most reliable sources use. Where reliable sources differ, err on the side of specificity.”

Also means we don’t have to worry about Durham which has a similar collegiate system if I understand correctly. SpelunkerOfMine (talk) 11:25, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

When is political_party relevant?

When should we fill the political_party for a person's infobox? Yes, sure, for politicians but what about others? If a person works at a non-profit on a cause whose supporters tend to be more of one political party than another does that make a person's political_party relevant? If one is an entertainer who occasionally speaks out on political issues, does that make the political_party relevant? Just because we happen to know the political_party of an individual, I am thinking that alone doesn't make it relevant enough to make it to the infobox. What do others think of all this? —Quantling (talk | contribs) 14:50, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I have in mind the case of a scientist who, as a student, ran for office as a Libertarian but for whom all notability is for their later nonpartisan academic career. I don't think their infobox should include the political activities or party. So, to get back to your question: the party affiliation should be central to their notability. In this case it was not. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Can we come up with guidelines that we can include in this article? I'd like guidance on questions like: is it relevant/appropriate to list Melinda French Gates as a Democrat in her infobox? —Quantling (talk | contribs) 21:43, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Ending-cause in partner= date-range

The documentation for |spouse= says "For deceased persons still married at time of death, do not include an end year. {{Marriage}} may be used" and that template's documentation agrees ("If the marriage ended with the death of the article's subject, do not provide a date.") The result in this usaage is a single year that is annotated "m." rather than a date-range whose ending year is the death of the person that has an annotation. What should we do for the |partner= field when a relationship similarly ends? By analogy with |spouse=, we shouldn't give an ending year. Is there a standard annotation we should use for the start of a non-marriage relationship? Specific case is Sally Ride, current FA on the mainpage. DMacks (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree, this is particularly relevant in the United Kingdom, which has both Marriage and Civil Partnerships. Both are a legal union and both have legal status of legally binding two individuals in a union of two people. Take for Example Matt Lucas he was in a Civil Partnership, to his now divorced husband. The way it is annotated in the Info box, makes it look like they were not actually in any form of legal union.

Canada is another example which has common law and statutory marriage.

France is another which has Marriage and Civil Unions.

I think it is time to begin to realise "marriage" is a hangover of being one size fits all. I dont like cricket I love it (talk) 02:54, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § RFC: Alma mater vs Education in Infoboxes

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § RFC: Alma mater vs Education in Infoboxes. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2026 (UTC) —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2026 (UTC)