Template talk:Infobox Latter Day Saint biography

message: I have been contemplating a chance in how the Start and End Dates are displayed.  What if it was something like this instead:
I moved the date to the top (like the political offices) and "Reason" up to separate it from "End Reason".  For those who currently hold a position it will read as shown above, but for those with an end date it will show the end date instead.  I think this looks better and it will shorten some of the really long infoboxes (not by much), but I'm concerned that such a significant change may be an issue for other editors.  What do you all think?--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 15:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: After looking at it when working I see that the (Age X) thing becomes an issue and since almost all usages use this template its a bad idea.  Never mind--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 18:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start and End Dates 

message: While I would appear that some of the individuals have redundant fields removing "| position_or_quorumX = LDS Church Apostle" is actually not really accurate.  There is a difference between being an "Apostle" and being a member of the Quorum of the twelve.  That is why, in the past, this issue was discussed and they were left in (but I cant remember where.  However, for example, These individuals were Apostles but never members of the 12.  Additionally, you are an Apostle even when you are in another calling such as "President of the Church".  That is why the Start and end dates are different.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 13:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There are also cases where person who were not "Apostle" held postions where you would normally be an "Apostle", such as J. Reuben Clark who was Second Counselor in the First Presidency April 6, 1933 – October 6, 1934 then called as an "Apostle" in 1934, but was only in the 12 for a few minutes.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 21:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That is precisely why I haven't removed the fields from the special-case people, but in most cases, the info is repetitive and/or trivial. I think the infobox should be about positions (either ecclesiastical, military, or political), not ordinations (bishop, seventy, apostle). —Eustress talk 22:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

text: It is not trivial—they are completely different things. One is an ordination and the other is a calling, and at least within the LDS Church, the ordination is definitely more important, since that is the process whereby someone receives all of the priesthood "keys of the kingdom". Outside of the LDS Church, the calling (membership in the Quorum) is far more important, because it determines who is in the heirarchical order to become the president of the church. The start dates for both rarely coincide. Because of the different meanings and the differences of dates, I think we should keep both and not treat one as if it's "redundant". It's not, in my opinion. (I don't think the same considerations necessarily apply for ordination as a bishop or as a seventy, because the same issues of all of the keys are not involved—seventies do not receive any keys, and bishops do not receive all the priesthood keys as apostles do.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it is not trivial and because of the different meanings and the differences of dates, I think we should keep both also.  This is why they were listed that way in the first place.  Additionally we have never limited or defined these fields to "positions" only.  That is why the field is called "position_or_quorum".  It was meant to be broad in it's inculcation. --ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 22:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Apostle Fields 

message: I have reverted the inclusion of a parameter for Find a Grave because it is a commercial venture (WP:NOTADVERTISING) and is based on unverified, user-provided content. I don't believe it is appropriate for inclusion in an infobox. —Eustress talk 15:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue I have with this is that large number of pages already link the Find a grave page using .  It seems silly to not include this standardized information what pages already use it.  All that is going to happen is that the information is going end up right back in the "External Links" sections.  I also dispute that it is a WP:NOTADVERTISING as I see no "Advertizing" on that page.  It may be a private company, but that doesn't make it "Advertizing".  The Find a Grave has proven extremely valuable.  Almost all of the pages that include a resting place come from that page.  If it isn't accurate, then all that info has to be removed.  Additionally a huge number of image come directly from that page.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 16:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: According WP:EL, external links only go in infoboxes when they are official sites, which Find a Grave pages are not. See also Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#Find-a-Grave, which echoes my concerns about reliability. —Eustress talk 20:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Inclusion of parameter for [[Find a Grave]]

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

message: PD_image is in one of the examples, but it still comes up as an unknown parameter when the infobox is checked.Naraht (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like  was working on a mini-project to simplify the parameters, but maybe got interrupted. I have restored that valid parameter; if it is to be deprecated, there is a separate category for that. Here's a list of all of the pages that currently include , in case it is useful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jonesey95, thank you.  yes, there used to be data templates for each biography, and not all images were allowed to be used everywhere, so we had to distinguish between image and PD_image.  however, now that all the data templates have been substituted and deleted, this infobox should only be used in the subject's main biography article, so there should be no need to restrict image use.  I have updated the parameter check to only throw a warning if there is a potential collision, and fixed all the articles on the list provided above. Frietjes (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have fixed all the articles above,  should probably be removed from the template and documentation entirely, unless you have some other grand scheme. It is non-standard. Any stray uses of it will pop up in the unknown parameter category and can be fixed easily. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: okay, now removed. Frietjes (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is PD_image allowed or not?