Template talk:Marriage/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Sudden key change to item in this template

Hi, AGK. That's a key change to the template, with no apparent discussion here on Talk page before the change was made. Perhaps I'm not looking in the right place, or the discussion is in a spot reserved for template editors and administrators like yourself and Neveselbert and DrKay and Wbm1058, to name just a few others who recently made adjustments (mostly cleanups) to this template? (not being a smart alec - I acknowledge that the discussion might not be intended for editors who can not change the template anyway)

Roughly 20,000 articles use this template, so this change is spread far and wide. Reason given was "amended abbreviation to avoid confusion with 'divorced', particularly because details of whether the spouse is living will not be immediately to hand where the spouse predeceased the subject." The template already had been setup to produce abbreviation information (hover mouse over the letter) d. for died and div. to address this issue. The documentation on the main Template page also explains the use of d. for died. Jmg38 (talk) 21:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jmg38. First, I'm aware of no other discussion – and definitely nothing that is open only to editors with certain user rights! We are all editors here. However, I don't think we need to discuss changes to templates merely for the sake of discussing them – this is a wiki. Any obvious improvement can be made when it pops into an editor's head.

I don't think whether "div." is used on other articles helps to disambiguate "d.". As I said in my edit summary, the average reader of an article that employs "d." will see only "d." (not "div." too). The tooltip explains, yes, but if someone jumps to assuming divorce after reading "d." then they have no reason to hover over it to see the meaning. (If indeed they know what a tooltip is in the first place!)

I'm a Wikipedia community member, and I confess that I read it as "divorce" when recently reading a BLP. I spent a good couple of minutes reading the spouse's biography before realising the original article's "d." meant died, not divorced.

Stupid me, I know. But why run the risk that a single other reader will make the same mistake? The abbreviation appears to be unnecessary (we aren't so short of space in the infobox that three more letters matter). The template functions exactly as before; indeed, it is less ambiguous. I do not see that the documentation discusses the merits of "d." over "died"; and in any case, documentation documents rather than governs. And the number of pages that use this template is, again, not to me a factor needing considered. Indeed, it makes it all the more important that we fix that one unnecessary, jargonistic shortening of an already-short word… AGK ■ 19:04, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi AGK. Thanks for the response and details.

The number of articles impacted is, in fact, a factor to be considered - that's why the template pages specifically carry the extra header "This template is used on approximately xx,xxx pages, so changes to it will be widely noticed. ... Please consider discussing changes on the talk page before implementing them." There is, indeed, a different level of scrutiny for templates, as compared to "being bold" when making a random change to a random detail in a random stand alone article.

The change is made, this talk page has now raised my "probably should be discussed" worry, and no one else has added anything. Done. That leaves one other small item that needs to be touched up, and I know you would have caught it eventually... the template still says, under the section "Syntax and parameters", that "... d, d., or died includes d. within the parentheses if the marriage ended on the death of the spouse." Your change means that it no longer shows d., but will show the full "died", so this bit of cleanup in the body of the template page just needs to be done. Thanks. Jmg38 (talk) 00:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Accessibility

This template uses {{hover title}}, which has accessibility issues. It should be replaced with {{abbr}}, or similar. Compare:

{{hover title|dotted=no|2={{get year|13 January 2019}}|1=13 January 2019}}

2019

{{abbr|13 January 2019|{{get year|13 January 2019}}}}

2019

Note that {{abbr}} can take CSS styles as a parameter if it is desired to remove the dotted underscore. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

See #Green above. DrKay (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point in that is relevant to my comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

That two editors claimed that abbr shouldn't be used for anything other than abbreviations, partly because of accessibility issues. DrKay (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Gary Cole

Sincere apologies if something like this has been discussed before, or if the answer is really obvious, but I'm wondering what the etiquette is for something like Gary Cole. He and his wife announced their separation in 2017, but then his wife died in 2018, and it appears they hadn't divorced by then. Should it be listed as something like m. 1992, sep. 2017, died 2018? Thanks Nohomersryan (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Teddi Siddall

​

(m. 1992⁠–⁠2018)​

. An infobox doesn't need to go into specifics—it's a supplement. Details go in text. Jay D. Easy (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Is parameter 1= really required?

Is parameter |1= really required? The documentation is mute on the issue, and the template code does not enforce a requirement for parameter 1. The TemplateData code has the parameter marked as required. Which is it? Here's the latest list of transclusions missing 1=.

On a related note, I have adjusted the template to prevent an unmatched closing </div> tag when the template is used without |1=. – Jonesey95 (talk) 08:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Line break

@Neveselbert: It appears that since your most recent changes to the template, a line break is appearing whenever the template is immediately followed by a footnote. I've put the revision of the template following your 28 February changes in the sandbox and the problem went away. I'm not quite sure what is causing the problem. Would you be able to have a look? Thanks, 142.160.89.97 (talk) 04:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The problem can be seen in the last test case at Template:Marriage/testcases. – Jonesey95 (talk) 09:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I have removed "width:100%;" from the div style. That seems to fix this problem. I don't know what that style was intended to achieve. – Jonesey95 (talk) 09:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Neveselbert: Please stop editing in the main template until you have your problems sorted. We have a sandbox and test cases for this reason. --Izno (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry. Reverted my edits back to the last stable version. Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Template parameter syntax showing in articles

@Neveselbert The article Peter Davison is showing in the infobox: "…Russell{{{3}}}…" and "…Dickinson{{{3}}}…".

When I preview the article with the version of this template before your recent edits, it appears to be rendering fine.

I don't know if this is an isolated issue with that article, or something more articles are suffering from. Could you take a look? Thanks. --Krinkle (talk) 00:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

 Fixed restored {{MultiReplace}}. Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 00:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Think it makes more sense to just remove the break markup from affected articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Neveselbert, please copy the template usage from that article into the testcases page so that if someone makes a similar change to the sandbox in the future, it will show up as an error in the testcases. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Separation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the marriage template be amended when a couple is separated? Joeyconnick doesn't seem to think so. I'd appreciate some input from other editors. Cheers! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• Yes I think that a lack of separation notice implies that they are still together. Also, a separation does not mean a divorce is imminent. For example, Kyril, Prince of Preslav and his wife announced their separation in 2009 but said at the time that they had no plans to divorce. Given that they haven't been together for at least ten years, I think it would be odd not to include a separation note in the infobox. Per H:IB, an infobox is to "quickly summarize important points in an easy-to-read format" and not for "details that are too trivial to include in the article body". So, I think the separation should be noted in the infobox. —Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 16:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• No Separation isn't a formal ending of a contractual relationship. Marriage is ended by divorce, annulment, or death. While a mention of separation can be appropriate in an article, until the marriage is appropriately dissolved, we shouldn't act as a crystal ball in forecasting that potential dissolution. —Trumblej1986 (talk) 12:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Yes First of all, I think it's ridiculous that we have a binary system for this, in that you either fully married or you are fully unmarried, despite the fact that many people live in a situations that doesn't fit any of those criteria. Trumblej1986 especially comes of as a legalist when it comes to this ("Marriage is ended by divorce, annulment, or death" is one of the creepiest things I've read on a Wikipedia talk page). Wikipedia should give the best information available regarding the life of someone, regardless of the legal status. By the same logic, should we also exclude stage names and pseudonyms from the pages of people who haven't legally changed their name? PraiseVivec (talk) 12:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

How is what I said creepy? Yes, it is legalistic, but that's because marriage is a legal arrangement. Trumblej1986 (talk) 20:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• Yes (Summoned by bot) it is a change in marital status. Coretheapple (talk) 12:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• No (Summoned by bot) per Trumblej1986. Strikerforce^Talk 15:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
• Yes (Summoned by bot) I think Trumblej1986 raises an interesting idea of having a more general relationship template, but until one exists I vote yes per Abbyjjjj96 and some of PraiseVivec.

It sounds like the consensus would be to have a relationship template, instead of a marriage one. A separation isn't a change in marriage status (since you either are or are not married), but it is a change in relationship status, and usually a good indicator that the marriage could be dissolved in the near future. Trumblej1986 (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Yes per Abbyjjjj96, Trumblej1986, and Coretheapple. Gerntrash (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Not as such Especially since separation is not always permanent (especially nowadays). The requirement should be an official announcement thereof, nor a bit in a celebrity gossip column and should be designated as "official separation." Collect (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• Generally not. Separation doesn't terminate marriage. In cases in which there are high quality sources, possibly a judicial decision, it may be worthwhile noting - particularly in cases in which the couple remains(ed) married despite being separated for a long time. Icewhiz (talk) 11:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• No The legal recognition and the arrangements for separation are different in different countries, such that the references and substantiation needed make this modification to the template unwieldy. There is no one "separation"--rather there are many forms of separation. Best treated in the article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

carriage return?

What determines whether there is a carriage return between the name and years of marriage? — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Use of |end= will cause a line break between the name and the dates. This break has been deliberately placed into the code (i.e. it's not accidental white space in an if statement, which sometimes happens in templates), but I do not know why. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Dictating unknown date of marriage beginning, but known end.

Some articles (Namely Jacopo_Tiepolo, which brought this to my attention) may need to represent a marriage with no known beginning, but a known end. Any solutions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoonyTheDwarf (talk • contribs) 23:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Leave parameter |2= specified but blank: {{marriage|Maria Storlato|<!--unknown-->|1240|end=died}} →

Maria Storlato

​

(died 1240)​

Does that work for you? – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

A Bug?

It looks like this template displays the current year (2019) if there are any letters in front of years. Here is an example where the wiki markup {{marriage|Ian Kessner|2007|d.2018}} renders as:

Ian Kessner

​

(m. 2007⁠–⁠2024)​

--Russian Rocky (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

You must have clean numbers, i.e. 2007 and 2018 in this case. Any format for death or divorce needs the added |end= parameter, which has been corrected on your linked example. — Wyliepedia @ 05:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Errata

I'm seeing the X-in-box (⋉) with the template years now. — Wyliepedia @ 05:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Please link to a page where you are seeing a problem. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Trailing spacing?

{{Marriage|First Last|1952}}{{sfn|Author|2011}}

produces:

First Last

​

(m. 1952)​

i.e. with an undesirable newline between the ')' and "[1]". Is there a reason for this? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

This happened with the latest change at Special:Diff/929785269, which added ";width=100%;" to the style, causing the div that encloses it to fill the entire width of the containing element, so whatever follows it has to be on the next line. The edit summary was "Width correction" and it was the last of a bunch of edits on 2019-12-06 and 2019-12-07 by the blocked editor Neveselbert. Any ideas why this style was deemed necessary? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

References

I don't know that the above statement is true. Here is a simplified test case:

<span>First</span> anything

<div style="display:inline-block">First</div> anything

<div style="display:inline;">First</div> anything

First anything

First

anything

First

anything

My understanding is that "display: inline-block" is supposed to make a div tag act like a span tag, but there is a newline after the div tag anyway. I don't have time to test it more right now. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Not sure I understand what you're saying. The result does include the "display:inline-block;" style, but it doesn't help because of the "width:100%". Removing that style in the debugger moves the "[1]" back where it belongs. Processing this page with the previous version of the template does so as well. I've had input from the editor that says he does not recall the reason for it and is ok with a revert. I'm looking at other examples here and here. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed I reverted the last change, which eliminates the "width=100%" style and solves the problem shown above. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

New issue with ref position

The "display:inline-block" style seems to be producing another issue, which I'm not sure about. Adapted from Ronnie James Dio's infobox:

{{plainlist|
* {{marriage|Loretta Berardi<br />|1963}}{{R|marriage1}}
* {{marriage|Wendy Gaxiola Blah<br />|1978|1986}}{{R|marriage2}}
}}

Loretta Berardi

​

​

(m. 1963)​

Wendy Gaxiola Blah

​

​

(m. 1978⁠–⁠1986)​

which leaves some extra whitespace between the ')' and '[' because it places the ref outside the "box" that encloses the "Loretta Berardi[newline](m. 1963)". If I change the "display" value from "inline-block" to "inline" in the debugger, the refs get moved back where they belong. That style is much older, though, so I don't want to remove it without understanding/discussing the issue. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

References

• I also noticed this at Harry Houdini. On mobile, due to the restricted width, the ref is shoved onto the next line. Why is this a div at all, rather than a span? Hairy Dude (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• I have removed the "-block" statement from the div style declaration in the sandbox. I have placed a new testcase on the testcases page that. It uses the plainlist code above to test the sandbox and the live template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

What values can the "end" parameter take?

Right now the "end" parameter is documented as follows:

Reason for marriage's end.

d, d., or died includes died within the parentheses if the marriage ended on the death of the spouse.

div, div., or divorced includes div. or divorced within the parentheses.

Otherwise, |end=item includes customised text. For example:

{{marriage |Miss Doe |January 1, 1882 |December 31, 1905 |end=annulled}} which produces:

Miss Doe

​

​

(m. 1882; ann. 1905)​

Use of the values w, w., wid, wid., widow, or widowed is deprecated. See Category:Marriage template errors.

Problem is, this doesn't give any indication of what texts are supported except that "d" and "div" are supported, "annulled" is probably supported, and "w" is not supported. Suppose the marriage ended in one of the following ways:

• Subject's own death. Should we use "end=her death"?
• Separation. Should we use "end=sep" or "end=separated" or something else?
• Unknown resolution. Should we omit the "end" parameter entirely?
• Unknown date of resolution. Right now, using "?" for the end date doesn't work.

It would be nice for the documentation to explain these situations. --Quuxplusone (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Separation does not end a marriage, so it should definitely not take anything that indicates that as it would be factually wrong. See the archived discussion. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed new error tracking

This is a proposal to modify, and add new, error tracking.

1. Instead of emitting a script error when parameters |2= or |3= contain an invalid year, the sandbox displays a normal-sized red error message and adds this template's error category (in article space only).
2. Instead of rendering the (deprecated for four years) reason "widowed", the sandbox displays a normal-sized red error message and adds this template's error category. I was going to get rid of the handling for "widowed" altogether, but the RFC was unclear on how this parameter should be handled. Should a |reason= of "widowed" be rendered as "died"? That would be easy to handle.
3. I have added tracking of unsupported parameters to the sandbox, using the standard unknown parameter checking module that is used by hundreds of templates. It looks like there are currently about 50 articles using unsupported parameters, out of 50,000 uses of the template. As part of this addition, I have removed the specific check for |4=.

Difference between live template and sandbox.

I have added a variety of test cases to show new functionality and to demonstrate that other functionality should remain unchanged.

Comments are welcome, especially on item 2 ("widowed"). Pinging participants in the RFC (my apologies if I missed anyone): @Cunard, Manxruler, DrKay, Thincat, Pincrete, NinjaRobotPirate, Fraulein451, and Snow Rise: – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think 'widowed' should be rendered as 'died' because 'widowed' was generally for when the marriage ended on the death of the article subject and the spouse survived. DrKay (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

So should "widowed" be ignored entirely (rendered as blank), or assigned an error category, or both? I prefer both. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I think both too because it is unclear and ambiguous, so shouldn't be displayed and should be corrected. DrKay (talk) 19:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support as proposed. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Resolved

I have made all of the updates listed above. Thanks for the feedback, everyone.

As part of this edit, marriage templates missing all three of start date, end date, and reason will display a red "no value" error (see section above). I have also updated the documentation and the descriptions of the errors at Category:Marriage template errors. If I have made any errors in these updates, please let me know here or fix them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Trailing spacing/ref position redux

Recent editors Pigsonthewing and Jonesey95: Greetings and felicitations. In the article Vince Offer the Marriage template causes the following reference to have about three spaces (or a tab) inserted in front of it. I don't have the correct permission(s) to edit the template, but in any case I can't see what the problem is. Anyone? —DocWatson42 (talk) 03:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

For some reason, I never implemented the sandbox change described above. I have implemented it just now. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Thank you. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

gendered additions

Hi... so, we shouldn't be adding gendered parameters like |his_death and |her_death. We should have something like |spouses_death that could use "their death" wording. At the very least, a non-gendered version should be available. —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:31, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

No such parameter has been proposed or implemented, as far as I know. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Isn't that what this is? Or is it simply tracking? —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

No, that's part of a switch statement. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

New error messages that may be false positives

I haven't looked at the new Wikidata code in detail, but I think that it is causing false positive errors, e.g. at Bert Acosta. Pinging Neveselbert. At that article, a full date is used, and if it is trimmed to just the year, the error message goes away; that may be a clue. A full date is normally acceptable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Reverted for now. Articles that had the error because of this include:

• William J. Bell
• Arlen Ness
• Roger Clinton Sr.
• Elizabeth Barnard
• Angelo Poffo
• John Henson (puppeteer)
• Iron Mike DiBiase
• Ron Cyrus
• Emperor Yingzong of Ming
• Godtfred Kirk Christiansen
• Arthur Summerfield
• John Huggins
• Charles L. Livingston
• Charles Mintz
• Zheng Yi (pirate)
• Charles Willing
• Sydney Lotterby
• Roger Nelson (politician)
• Nathan Sanford
• Hillevi Rombin

Nardog (talk) 13:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Even if working correctly, this seems something that should only quietly add a category instead of flashing an error. The infobox may sometimes be used for someone other than what the Wikidata entry is about, not to mention Wikidata can be wrong. Nardog (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the feedback. I'll rework the code so the flashing error appears only when in preview. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

It still shows the error when the end year is the same as the year of death on Wikidata. Also, the template seems to be adding Category:Marriage template errors in just about any article about a dead person if the template has a third argument. Nardog (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Note that {{#time:U|YYYY}} converts to the Unix time of whatever day it is today of said year, so that {{#time:U|2005}} is equivalent to {{#time:U|2005-08-16T00:00:00Z}} right now. Perhaps you should just pass both the third argument and the Wikidata date to {{get year}} and compare the years directly. Nardog (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@Neveselbert: I think you should let other experienced template editors review the change instead of implementing it yourself this time, by e.g. using {{Edit template-protected}} or posting at WP:VPT. I know you're trying to improve the template but I regret to say the disruption earlier was too large, and the fact it still produced false positives after your fix doesn't give me too much confidence. Nardog (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nardog: OK, I understand and much appreciate your advice. Would you mind possibly looking at this comparison of the live and sandbox versions? I think I've fixed all the pertaining issues. Thanks, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Why are you using {{#time:Ymd}}? Like I said, #time: interprets whatever part of a date to be a substitute of that part of today, so {{#time:Ymd|2005}} becomes 20051124. That's clearly not suited for comparisons. What was wrong with this version? Also, what happened to the idea of not flashing the error in articles? (I may be off-wiki for the next hours but please don't implement the change without having other editors review it.) Nardog (talk) 22:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

With respect to your first question, I'm only using {{#time:Ymd}} as it pertains to the following code: {{#time:Ymd|{{wikidata|property|P570}} }}. This way, we're able to straightforwardly compare the date of death with {{get year|{{{3|}}}}}{{#time:md|{{{3|}}}}} (without encountering the inclusion of the present day and month in any further cases). As for what had been wrong with said version, I'm going to have to revert back to it temporarily when I find the time, as I can't precisely recall the issues I had with it off the top of my head. As regards the flashing error in articles, (in my humble opinion) it should only flash when the year is set after the death of article's subject, although I'd be fine with simply flashing the error in preview mode. (I don't plan on implementing the changes without your agreement to them.) ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nardog: just checked and I've remembered. Special:PermaLink/973370472 permitted DMY end dates being set following the article subject's death within the same year (such as July 3, 2016, even if the subject died on July 2, 2016). ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@Neveselbert: You said I don't plan on implementing the changes without your agreement to them and then you implemented them anyway? I know I was off-wiki but you could have asked other editors to review it like I suggested.

Again, the use of {{#time:Ymd}} and {{#time:md}} makes very little sense. The truth of {{#time:Ymd|{{wikidata|property|P570}}}} >= {{get year|{{{3|}}}}}{{#time:md|{{{3|}}}}} will vary depending on the time of the year if the third argument is only a year, not a full date, which is the case more often than not. Besides, even when it's a full date, the template shows only the year anyway. So what's the point of checking if the input end date exceeds the death date within the same year? Nardog (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nardog: Sorry, I should have clarified that I was referring to visible changes.

if the third argument is only a year, not a full date, in which case, {{Str ≠ len}} will render an entirely different argument. So what's the point of checking if the input end date exceeds the death date within the same year? because the input end date is still available as a tooltip. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I now understand what you're trying to do. But your implementation strikes me as a very circuitous way of achieving it. For example, I fail to see the need for {{#time:Y|{{{3|}}}}}{{#time:md|{{{3|}}}}} instead of just {{#time:Ymd|{{{3|}}}}}. Nardog (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed Special:Diff/973703524 - thanks Nardog. Would it now be OK to reimplement this code? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

No, that was just an example. At this point I would advise against any implementation of your code without having an experienced template editor review it. Nardog (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

OK. I take it you're unable to review the code at this time, Nardog? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes. The code is so verbose and complex I'd have to rewrite it if I took it on myself. I suggest consulting WP:VPT if you want to rush this. Nardog (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, can you review this? I see that you're the one who granted this user the TE right. (See also #Bad formatting implemented twice without testing above.) Nardog (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed (visible only in preview) changes to template ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

For the record, by "this" I mean the whole situation discussed on this talk. Nardog (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

New problem

The edits that Neveselbert made today seem to have resulted in a crop of new error messages in article infoboxes (about 80 of them). See Henry VIII and Peter the Great for examples. Deor (talk) 22:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Deor: Self-reverted, thanks for the heads-up. I don't know why this issue occurred, but I'll investigate. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed problem resulting from "(Julian)" being appended to the death date. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

And reverted again. Neveselbert, you were doing a good job with testing for a while there, but an old pattern of inadequate testing has emerged. More false positives from the latest version at articles include Alexander Tilloch Galt, Alfred Corning Clark, Alix of France, Amos Adams Lawrence, Andrew Goodpaster, Anna Hall Roosevelt, Bert Acosta, Caleb Heathcote, Charles Best (medical scientist), Charles Hanbury Williams, Charles J. Colgan, Charles Manigault Morris, Charles Ruijs de Beerenbrouck, Charles W. Sawyer, Clemens von Ketteler, Constantine Phaulkon, Cornelius Newton Bliss, David Huddleston. Please use these examples to create better test cases. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: those examples are not necessarily false positives. Most if not all of them are using parameter 3 to mark the end of a marriage with the article subject's date of death (contrary to the documentation), though without the use of an end/reason parameter value. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 02:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The error message incorrectly said "posthumous date". Please add test cases, or at least test some of the above articles in the sandbox. When you think you have the sandbox working correctly, let us know here so that we can test the sandbox in preview mode in some articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

OK Jonesey, I see where you're coming from. I've reconfigured the template /sandbox (see here) so that such cases will instead flash (in preview) same death date and categorise separately (under sort key Death date). (I'm not sure though whether adding to /testcases would be of any use, given how they rely on a specific Wikidata property to function.) ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 03:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Where was the discussion that said we are not supposed to insert the article subject's death year as the end of the marriage? The only discussion I see linked from the documentation was closed as "no consensus". – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: see Template talk:Marriage/Archive 5#Death ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 06:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I was hoping for a link to a discussion that ended in a consensus decision. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Jonesey, I should've read your reply properly. Inserting the article subject's death year solely is allowed and these proposed changes won't affect such cases (though it should be omitted if their spouse outlived them). Rather, it's just the insertion of the article subject's date of death (day/month inclusive) that's the issue here. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Why are full death dates a problem? The template strips them to display only the year. Again, is there a consensus discussion about not having these full death dates in the template transclusion? Also, if you want to use Wikidata calls from this template, please use WikidataIB with the default onlysourced option so that we are not exposing ourselves to unsourced Wikidata items. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Why are full death dates a problem? because they still appear in full as a tooltip. That being said, I've changed the colour of the preview message in /sandbox from red to grey, since this is less of an error and more of a deprecated format that should be avoided as a matter of style. is there a consensus discussion about not having these full death dates in the template transclusion? not explicitly, which is why I'm not proposing to hide them behind an error message in articles, rather solely in preview mode to alert editors and keep track of cases. please use WikidataIB with the default onlysourced option so that we are not exposing ourselves to unsourced Wikidata items will do, I'll look into it shortly. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 00:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done replaced all instances of {{Wikidata}} with {{#property:}}. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 01:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

First, as for {{#property:}}, I don't think that meets the sourcing needs that are provided by Module:WikidataIB. See the documentation for that module, and this 2018 RFC about Wikidata, which concluded that information pulled from Wikidata into infoboxes should be sourced to reliable sources.

Second, when it comes to the current consensus around implementation of this template, I feel like you are not doing a good job of listening to the other editors on this talk page, both now and in the past. I have not seen a demonstrated consensus for the changes you are proposing to this template. Even the "his death"/"her death" discussion appeared to end in "no consensus", but you have made changes that recommend removing it. As a template editor, let alone a regular Wikipedia editor, it is important to try to understand the existing global or local consensus, even if that consensus is implicit. Making up your own rules, which appears to me to be what you are doing, is not how things are done. I could be wrong in my interpretation here; if so, please help me understand what I am missing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jonesey95:

• which concluded that information pulled from Wikidata into infoboxes should be sourced to reliable sources. I think you misunderstand. I'm not proposing the pulling of any information from Wikidata into infoboxes, I'm only proposing limited tracking of the information (pulling information from Wikidata into previews, purely for editorial/technical purposes). Again, I must stress that absolutely none of these changes shall be made visible to readers, and therefore WP:RS cannot reasonably apply to this situation.
• I have not seen a demonstrated consensus for the changes you are proposing to this template. I'm not proposing any visible changes to the template.
• but you have made changes that recommend removing it. You yourself made this edit several weeks ago which made such a recommendation.
• please help me understand what I am missing. please understand that I'm not seeking to make up my own rules. I'm only interested in tracking incorrect uses of this template, that's all. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 05:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

P.S., Module:WikidataIB will not return a value if only sourced to Wikipedia, and so it likely won't track numerous cases. Again, this is purely for maintenance purposes, for tracking malformed transclusions. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 06:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

It is my view that you are wrong with every point above. I know that must be frustrating. It is certainly frustrating to me. I think we need help from a third party here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

If that's your view, then clearly we're communicating at cross purposes. I'm going to ask Primefac if he can offer an opinion. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I've read through this entire thread three times (including the section below), and there are a half-dozen different conflicts all in some status of discussed, fixed, re-broken, or otherwise under contention. I honestly can't tell what I'm supposed to be weighing in on, but I am concerned that all of this is happening on the live template. The way I see it, as soon as an issue has been identified, there needs to be a consensus and sandboxing before any new changes are made to the template. And not just "I fixed it so I'll implement" but "I fixed it and sandboxed it and put it in the testcases".

Again, with all of the mess of conflating issues above, I can't tell what was tacitly approved and/or fixed and what are hot fixes/patches attempted to deal with any perceived issues. Hell, I can't even find the "last good" version. Honestly, I think the best thing to do would be to start an entirely new thread with specific issues, what is being done to deal with them, and what (if any) progress has been made on any errors/bugs/tracking. And most definitely, unless something is seriously broken, no more edits to the live template until things have been resolved. I'll be watching this page so no need to ping. Primefac (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the intervention. My primary concern is that Neveselbert has repeatedly made unilateral changes to the live template despite fellow template editors' (Jonesey95 and me) pleas to have other editors approve of them beforehand. Do you think Neveselbert still merits the TE privilege? Nardog (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Honestly? Depends on what happens next. It's been two years since I granted the perm, and this is the first major issue that I've been aware of; let's not be too hasty. Primefac (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

First off, the last good version prior to this dispute appears to be Special:Permalink/972414822 (or maybe the next edit, I can't tell). Neveselbert made a lot of edits to this template prior to that, but none of them appear to be contested. Second, independently of any brokenness caused by them, the edits made by Neveselbert appear to be an introduction of feature creep. The purpose of this template is to format data, and there's no reason it should care about whether the data provided to it aligns with Wikidata. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Category:Marriage template anomalies

@Jonesey95: in the meantime, would you mind if I just included the code to track cases in a separate subcategory? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I am getting incredibly tired of asking you politely to do things that you should know to do already, but I will AGF and do it again. Please put your proposed new code in the sandbox. If you want to use Wikidata calls in the template, please use Module:WikidataIB in order to comply with the RFC linked above that clearly explains that Wikidata calls from infoboxes need to use third-party-sourced information only.

I do not think that you have consensus for "matches date of death", as I attempted to explain above. Please link to a consensus discussion that says that full death dates are not to be included in this template. If you are unable to link to such a consensus, please remove that "anomaly" check from the proposed changes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, understood, and I apologise if I frustrated you.  Done in replacing all instances of {{#property:P570}} with Module:WikidataIB. As regards I do not think that you have consensus for "matches date of death", please consider that you put the following into writing: If the marriage ended because of the death of the article's subject, do not provide a reason. Surely this would imply that we shouldn't include the date of death? At least, that's my interpretation. Because if you're not including a reason, then readers could easily mistake the subject for outliving their spouse before dying on the same day, and that's why we need to track this. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 05:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Jonesey95: would you be OK with tracking matching dates of death if there is no end/reason provided? This, to me at least, seems like a reasonable compromise. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• I don't see a reason to track something that is not a problem, error, or anomaly of any sort. If someone died on March 1, 2014, and their marriage is noted as ending on March 1, 2014, there is nothing there that needs to be tracked or changed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Jonesey95: that's not clear though. The full date isn't shown, simply the year and would imply that the subject outlived their spouse, as opposed to the other way round. It's entirely ambiguous for anybody unfamiliar with tooltips and thus fails to comply with MOS:ACCESS. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
    • There is nothing ambiguous about someone's death date being shown as March 1, 2014, and their marriage being shown as ending in 2014. If the marriage is shown as ending in 2015 (the year after the person's death year), that's a different story. I would support checking for that sort of anomaly. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
      • But their death date isn't being shown as the full date, it's being shown as the year only. That's the issue, which can easily lead to confusion. If there's a reason prepended to this, e.g. d. same day (in front of 2014), then there's no potential for ambiguity. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
        • Do you have evidence that the 2014/2014 situation I described is leading to actual confusion for actual readers and editors? I think you may be looking for a problem where none exists. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
          • Per MOS:NOSYMBOLS: "Do not use techniques that require interaction to provide information, such as tooltips or any other "hover" text." That should be enough reason to track cases. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 00:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
            • Then track the use of a full date, which has nothing to do with Wikidata. I have to unwatch this page for a while. Our failure to communicate effectively is too frustrating for me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

End date when the death of the article's subject ends the marriage

According to the {{marriage}} template itself, it "is intended for use in infoboxes; specifically {{Infobox person}} and templates calling Infobox person."

The {{infobox person}} template guidance says this for the spouse parameter (emphasis added):

Parameter	Explanation
spouse	Name of spouse(s), followed by years of marriage. Use the format Name (married 1950–present) for a current spouse, and Name (married 1970–99) for former spouse(s). Use article title (if linking) or common name. For multiple entries, use an inline list. For deceased persons still married at time of death, close the date range with death year.

Guidance recently added to the {{marriage}} template ([1] and [2]) changed with respect to disallowing the addition of the death date (or year) of the article's subject when the marriage ended due to the subject's death.

These changes to the {{marriage}} documentation and to the template itself which flag that situation are clearly contrary to the guidance from {{infobox person}} and should be rolled back. If editors think this change to the {{marriage}} template is the appropriate behavior, then a discussion should be held at Template_talk:Infobox_person to get consensus to change the guidance for the |spouse= parameter. Absent a change to the guidance at {{infobox person}} for the |spouse= parameter, the changes to {{marriage}} that implemented this disallowance of death date for the end of the marriage should be rolled back. – 108.56.139.120 (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on the merits of the dispute, but the edit you reference cites a discussion that ended in "no consensus" as consensus not to do something, which makes no sense (especially when it contradicts other guidance). Independently of the merits of this change, this template is too magical, and I think the code of the template shouldn't have an opinion. If give a reason or date, it should display it, and if it is not given one, if should display nothing, and declare neither case an error worthy of fixing. This template is way too complicated right now. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

There's been no recent change at this template: look at the documentation from a year ago: "[3] "Date ended" is defined as "Date the marriage was dissolved or the spouse of the article's subject died". Indeed, that same wording is still present on the documentation page, it hasn't changed at all. This template has never parsed as "(married 1950–present)" either. DrKay (talk) 07:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

That's not what is being disputed. What is being disputed is If the marriage ended because of the death of the article's subject, do not provide a reason, which was added on August 2 (The edit summary says Update documentation after error checking has been updated, but I can't find the change to the code that the edit is reflecting), and If the marriage ended because of the death of the article's subject, do not provide a date., which was added on August 17 with no edit summary. I don't see any actual consensus for either addition (the second addition claims to be supported by a "no consensus" discussion from 2017, which can't be right: "no consensus" doesn't change anything). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, I for one support the change. Infoboxes should be simple and succinct, and should not show the same content twice in the same infobox. DrKay (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my complaint is about this change, which says (emphasis added):

Parameter	Explanation
<end date>	(Third unnamed parameter) Year or full date when the marriage ended. Only the year will be displayed. If a full date is provided, it is given via a tooltip; i.e., {{Hover title}}. (See first and second examples above.) If the marriage ended because of the death of the article's subject, do not provide a date.

That clearly contradicts the guidance from {{infobox person}} which says: For deceased persons still married at time of death, close the date range with death year.

This is more than just a change in the documentation. Multiple changes to the template (starting, I think, with this one [4]) have implemented a scheme whereby providing a date that coincides with the death date of the subject of the article is flagged in preview and the article is added to category:marriage template anomalies.

I'm advocating for undoing the documentation and the code in the template that implements this scheme that is in contradiction to the guidance from {{infobox person}}. While I think there are other contradictions between the two templates, I am only complaining at this time about the death date issue. – 108.56.139.120 (talk) 01:37, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

If "deceased persons" refers to spouses, which would seem to be the case as it is in the spouse section, there's no contradiction. DrKay (talk) 07:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

In your view, what guidance, if any, does {{infobox person}} provide for what to do with the spouse entry when the article's subject dies? – 108.56.139.120 (talk) 13:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Accessibility, redux

As I have noted previously, this template uses {{hover title}}, which has accessibility issues. It should be replaced with {{abbr}}, or similar. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

We can't use {{abbr}} because of accessibility issues. DrKay (talk) 19:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Bad formatting implemented twice without testing

Neveselbert, your two most recent edits have reintroduced problems that have been resolved in the past after discussions on this talk page. Please read this talk page to see the problems that have been solved, and use the testcases page and the sandbox carefully to ensure that future edits do not reintroduce those problems. It is unseemly for us to be making so many changes to this template in rapid succession, but you have broken the template twice, leaving me little choice but to revert. If you have a proposal to make that will be an improvement, and you can illustrate it on the testcases page, please discuss it here, and I am likely to support such a change. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The fundamental problem with display:inline is that it does not permit any height and width properties, so the margin and line-height statements cannot take effect. The best solution IMO is to remove display:inline altogether (swapping margin for padding) and to warn editors in the documentation not to use line breaks after the template, and to instead use the recommended format for lists, namely {{Plainlist}} or {{Unbulleted list}}. (Using breaks is discouraged anyway as per WP:LINEBREAK#Lists.) Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: I've just had a look at the testcases, and I see that my proposed solution will cause issues for reference citations. Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 00:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the annoying and tricky "reference after the template" formatting is why I reverted. I am open to a change in the sandbox that improves the template's performance. As for advising editors to use or not use specific syntax: first, I support valid instructions and wish you good luck, as editors are a pesky lot and will do crazy things especially if they appear to work; and second, a few demonstrations of good and bad syntax here on this page would help me understand what sorts of problems you are hoping to avoid. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

This is SO frustrating. I have just reverted undiscussed, broken edits for a third time. This time, an opening div tag was added without a matching closing div tag. This pattern of editing is disruptive. Neveselbert, I have asked you to discuss any proposed changes here before implementing them, but that has not happened. I do not understand why a normal process is not being followed, but please do not edit the live template, which is used in 42,000 articles, without discussing the sandboxed changes first. The template editor permission comes with responsibilities. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I won't edit the template again before consulting you. --Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 14:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: can you review Special:Permalink/968458457? The div has been closed and there don't appear to be any other issues on /testcases. Thanks, --Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 14:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing. The sandbox version still contains unclosed div tags in many examples on the testcases page. If you do not have LintHint installed, you can use Special:ExpandTemplates to see the resulting code for an example like {{Marriage/sandbox |Text |28}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: can you please clarify which div tags need closing? I'm not seeing any visible issues on the testcases page. Aside from the expected error message, the example you gave looks fine in the sandbox version. --Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 01:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

All or most of the examples in "Uncommon dates" currently have unclosed div tags. Special:ExpandTemplates should be able to help you figure out where the missing closing div tag should go. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not very familiar with Special:ExpandTemplates, unfortunately. --Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 02:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

It's a useful tool to see how templates get expanded to wikicode. Paste {{Marriage/sandbox |Text |1228}} into the big box and click OK. You will see the expanded wikicode in a lower box. You can see there how the #if statements are rendered. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you please help me correct the following Special:ExpandTemplates code?:

<div style="display:inline;line-height:normal;margin:2px 0px;">Wendy Gaxiola Blah<br /> (<abbr title="married">m.</abbr> 1978⁠–⁠1986)</div><ref>Reference2</ref>

The undesired result is this:

Wendy Gaxiola Blah
(m. 1978⁠–⁠1986)

While the desired result would be this:

Wendy Gaxiola Blah
(m. 1978⁠–⁠1986)

Much appreciated, --Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 02:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The only difference I see is a slight difference in the space between the two lines. In the second version, you have wrapped the whole thing in <div style="line-height:normal;"></div>. I don't know exactly why that changes the line spacing, but if it works, why not do it? – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but that's because I did so manually. There's seemingly no way to have the template do it automatically without causing the ref to collapse into the next line. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: are the end tags really necessary? I can't find a way of resolving this issue with them. I don't think their absence would cause any visible issues? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I messed around with the template a bit. I see why you are having such a hard time; it's a tricky bit of business. In my last couple of revisions, I implemented a better way to track invalid date entries (although it may not be entirely compatible with the live template code), but I wasn't able to resolve the formatting challenges related to line heights and div tags. Unfortunately, you can't leave unclosed tags lying around. It's unsightly, and causes errors that some gnomes will see on various reports, and can cause other parts of the page to fail in unexpected ways, either now or sometime in the future when the rendering engine decides to stop fixing human editors' messes as much as it does now. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed @Jonesey95: would it be OK to implement this? There are no unclosed divs, and testcases look fine too. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 03:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I think you finally got it! Amazing. I have implemented this change after adding one more test case showing that line breaks in |1= are processed better in the new version. I will be on a wikibreak for the next 24 hours or so; if the changes need to be reverted for some reason, any template editor is welcome to do so, and we will keep on testing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

It definitely took a while to get it right, that's for sure. Would you be OK with these subtle adjustments that would ensure an additional pixel separating this template from multiple uses in a list? Best, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 08:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Neveselbert: In your discussion above, just below "The undesired result is this:", you have two examples using {{!xt}} and {{xt}}, which expand to <span>...</span> markup. Inside these templates, you had <div>...</div> markup. That results in <span><div>...</div></span>, which is the div-span-flip lint error. I changed your two examples to change the markup inside {{!xt}} and {{xt}} to <span>...</span>. This preserved the appearance, didn't involve the markup under discusion, and fixed the two lint errors. The div-span-flip is a real thing, and it's sometimes subtle, but it's good to avoid it. —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Remarriages with the same person

Update: I've also added functionality for remarriages with the same person, so that something like {{marriage|<!--John Q. Citizen-->|2012}} would tuck nicely underneath the previous marriage with said same person, and so on and so forth if need be. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 09:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Please add a test case to the testcases page that demonstrates this new functionality. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

 Added Special:Diff/969613559 ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 14:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: would you be OK with these adjustments? There are no issues in /testcases. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Was it your intention to remove the stripping of line breaks? Also, I don't see a test case showing a change in a "remarriage to the same person" case. It looks like it is already possible to simply leave |1= empty to show that circumstance. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it was unnecessary clutter when the divs were already stripping them automatically. I added the new test case with this edit. As you will see, the line height between the parenthesised texts has been reduced slightly. It's more of a subtle adjustment than a new functionality. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 13:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about divs stripping the line breaks; the sandbox version shows line breaks that are stripped in the live version.

As for the new "remarriage to same person" test case, it looks like a reference wraps to the next line if it is included. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I've reworked the template so that it will only strip line breaks if the string exceeds 20 characters, which would exceed the width limit for text in most infoboxes. As for the new testcase, I've just corrected the reference issue. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there is consensus to change the line break behavior at this time. I am OK with introducing minor cleanup that fixes syntax, but less OK with significant rendering changes. There are thousands of articles in which editors have manually inserted <br>...</br> tags, and we need to make sure we know what we are doing if we change their behavior. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear on this, I meant to say the break tags are stripped and replaced with a div that breaks the line. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

If you remove the changes to line breaking, I will take a look at the test cases to see what other changes you are proposing at this time. If you do not see me responding on this page, it is likely that a close inspection of the test cases page will show you that there is a problem with the sandbox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I feel we might talking at cross purposes here? To clarify, there are absolutely no changes to line breaking. The stripping of line breaks with line-breaking divs will not remove line breaking itself in any way. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 14:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

When I look at the testcases page, I see differences in line breaking between the sandbox and the live template. Specifically, in the test cases containing "Text with line breaks in it" and "Eudoxia Lopukhina". Because of those line break changes, I do not think the sandbox code should be moved to the live template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the issue. The "Text with line breaks in it" case respects the line breaks, as opposed to the live version that strips them completely. The "Eudoxia Lopukhina" case contains a line break in the sandbox because it exceeds 20 characters. These aren't really significant line break changes. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 14:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed @Jonesey95: the "Eudoxia Lopukhina" case now appears the same in both the sandbox and live templates. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 11:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

After hunting down a few more oddball test cases, I have implemented the proposed new code with slightly different spacing for remarriages to the same person. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Jonesey95. What do you make of this new code (see testcase #4 and #5)? Marriages where the dates are unknown, but the end reason is known, will simply display the end reason rather than include the error message "undated" in front of it. I've also taken the liberty of renaming this error message to "empty", since it will only appear when nothing has been parsed within the parentheses. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 13:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

You are proposing changing the behavior of the template to ignore terminated marriages without any date information, but display an error for an ongoing marriage (for a BLP, for example) without any date information. That seems inconsistent to me. Either the missing date is an error or it is not. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think missing dates should appear as an error if an end reason is known. If an ongoing marriage lacks date information, we could just include "(undated)" normally, without it being an error message in red. On the issue of undated marriages where the end reason is known, please see the Woodrow Wyatt article for two examples in the infobox where this is an issue. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:46, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I may agree with you, but it still seems inconsistent. I can't quite put my finger on it, and I may be wrong. I think it is odd to provide "undated" in black text as if it is something an editor wrote. Let me ponder it for a bit. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I think this would be consistent, with "(undefined)" being used rather than "(undated)". ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: might this be acceptable to you? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:34, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Alternatively, (no value) could work. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

 Implemented after no objections. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 14:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Text wrapping

@Neveselbert and Jonesey95: It appears that the spouse's name no longer wraps onto a second line. Is that intentional? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 04:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you point to an example of this? Thanks, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 04:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Neveselbert: I just saw it in the preview screen, I'm afraid. I was editing Henry Steele Commager and briefly had the subject's second wife's name listed as "Mary Powlesland Commager" in the infobox, causing the width of the box to expand. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 04:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, the spouse's name will only wrap if the number of characters used to display their name exceeds thirty, otherwise the name will remain on the same line. If you wish to wrap the text, you should be able to with inserting <br /> after the name. I hope this helps, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 05:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Am I correct in understanding this to be new, Neveselbert? If so, I really don't think it is suitable for the infobox of any subject whose spouse's name is between 20 and 30 characters to be of a non-standard width. And I'm pretty sure that the use of <br /> as you suggest would be in violation of our accessibility guidelines. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 05:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I misunderstood, forget that advice. You have the option of including the name outside the template, replacing {{marriage|Mary Powlesland Commager| with {{marriage|2=. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 05:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Neveselbert: Am I correct in understanding this to be new? If so, why is this change advisable (seeing as it will cause the infobox of any subject whose spouse's name is between 20 and 30 characters to be of a non-standard width)? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 05:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I've lowered the threshold to 20 characters. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 05:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a stupid question, but what is the purpose of having a threshold here at all? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, Neveselbert, I'm wondering if this has created some text alignment issues on mobile. Have a look at this screenshot. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

207.161.86.162: Responding because I was pinged. As far as I can tell, this text wrapping change was introduced on 29 and 30 July 2020, despite the objections that I raised above. Your question is not a stupid one. (Note: I have added some nowiki tags to editor comments above to prevent the syntax highlighter from complaining.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@207.161.86.162 and Jonesey95: I've changed white-space:nowrap; to white-space:pre-line; in the sandbox as it no longer appears necessary to maintain for line height consistency. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 00:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Primefac: would it be OK to include these fixes? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

If the objections by Jonesey have been met, the initial concern has been mitigated, and the testcases look like they're working as intended, then yes. Primefac (talk) 15:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Jonesey95, would you kindly clarify any issues/objections you have re these adjustments to the template? Thanks, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I can't tell what the changes are attempting to do, but the "Eudoxia Lopukhina" test case is broken. The editor who created it did not ask for a line break, but one has been inserted by the template. I do not think the template should do that. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Jonesey95, re the test case; there is no breakage, for the line break is automatically appended with the intended purpose of preventing this template from stretching an infobox. I made this adjustment in acknowledgement of the "non-standard width" issue raised by the IP above. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I edited Henry Steele Commager, linked above, and entered "Mary Powlesland Commager" as the spouse's name, and the infobox did not get wider. I also see no difference between the sandbox and the live template.

When I try the sandbox version at Peter the Great, I get an unrequested line break, and the current template is not making the infobox wider than the sandbox version.

Please provide an example of an article where the current version of this template makes an infobox wider. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Jonesey95, re Henry Steele Commager, there is no change as parameter 3 is not defined. Re Peter the Great, you will notice the current template does indeed make the infobox wider than the sandbox version if you switch between two tabs, one previewing the sandbox version and the other previewing the live template. This is but one example, another example of this can be seen at Josip Broz Tito. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: please compare Special:PermaLink/971382795 and Special:PermaLink/977094151. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Cropping of Template:Marriage Infobox text, within PDF files

seems to be a problem with some entries of Template:Marriage in Infoboxes on mobile view. there is cropping of text in the "spouse" field within PDF files (Page Size:ISO A1). as example :it does not occur in Albert, Prince Consort. however with additional marriage template parameters, as in Queen Victoria ,does occur..see Template_talk:Infobox#T271288_-_Cropping_of_Infobox_text_in_pdf_files Gfigs ^talk 04:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_187#tech_problem_(stalled)_? Gfigs ^talk 03:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Errors on Telugu Wiki

we are facing Lua errors (Error in expression: Unexpected operator) when we use this template on Telugu Wiki. There seem to be date related when we use full English dates. When only year is used, the template works fine in template testcases, but fails when tested using an existing page name in Special:ExpandTemplates. Any help would be appreciated, as it is used on lots of pages (Example page(permanent link)).--Arjunaraoc (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Married at time of death consistency

I just updated the documentation at Template:Infobox person to be consistent with what this template advises, that deceased persons still married at the time of death should not include an end year. Looking briefly through the archives, it seems there has been some dispute about this in the past. I haven't formed a strong opinion on that; my edit to infobox person was just for the sake of consistency, and if consensus is not yet fully settled, I'd encourage further discussion to make it clearer. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Change to template introduced incorrect information

Neveselbert, I admit that I am only deducing here, but I believe you may have introduced a change to this template in roughly August 2020 that has blown up some information on a bunch of pages. My deduction is based on examining your 60 edits to Template:Marriage/doc in the 10 months from December 2019 to September 2020. I do not know if these changes correspond to potentially 60 edits of Template:Marriage that you may have performed, so I am only guessing on the timing. I am including a ping to Jonesey95, only because it looks like the two of you worked together on touching up some other changes at that time, per your discussions above.

The closest I can get to the timing of the Template:Marriage edit is your edit of Template:Marriage/doc on 23:03, 11 August 2020, when you have adjusted the documentation to say

{{marriage |Juan Perez |2010|<!--uncertain-->}}

will produce

Juan Perez ​(m. after 2010)

I have recently come across a few articles where a past editor has entered

{{marriage |Joe Blow|1995|}}

which resulted in the article showing

Joe Blow ​(m. 1995)

but now, since your various changes to the template, has automatically changed the article to show

Joe Blow ​(m. after 1995)

Another variation I have come across are articles (such as Patty Duke, which I cleaned up today, but is visible in its "View history") where a past editor has entered

{{marriage|Michael Pearce|1986|<!--Year omitted under Template:Marriage instructions-->}}

which resulted in the article showing

Michael Pearce ​(m. 1986)

but now, since your various changes to the template, has automatically changed the article to show

Michael Pearce (m. after 1986)

I do not know how many articles have used these styles, which now give incorrect information since your various changes to the template, but I have come across many over the years where past editors have left a trailing "|}}", or a trailing "|<!--Year omitted under Template:Marriage instructions-->}}" in the article. I have also seen other variations of that note being added by editors, such as "|<!--Omitted when marriage ends with death of article subject-->}}".

Is it possible to undo that one particular template change, rather than having to search for all the articles that now have "m. after yyyy" where the original editors intended it to simply say "m. yyyy"? I realize that you may have been responding to a clamoring from other editors to make the change to have the template be able to automatically produce "m. after yyyy", though I admit I had not seen many (any?) articles where a married "after" issue needed addressing. Jmg38 (talk) 08:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed. Thank you, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 11:56, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

"m."

Can we have a template similar to Template:Circa in that its sole purpose is providing abbreviation marking for "m."? E.g. c. Alexander II of Scotland but instead of "c.", it says "m." (and "married" when you hover over it)? Surtsicna (talk) 10:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps it could also contain numbers in brackets indicating first spouse, second spouse, etc. This is frequently seen in genealogical tables. The numbers in the brackets could say "first marriage" or "first spouse" when hovered over. Surtsicna (talk) 10:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

{{abbr|m.(1)|first marriage}} and {{abbr|m.|married}} can be used to generate m.(1) and m.. DrKay (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks! Surtsicna (talk) 21:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)