Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Religion parameter

There is a discussion at Talk:Ivo Josipović#Beliefs about what to enter under "Religion" for people that are not religious. E.g. for agnostics, the current practice is apparently to put "Agnostic" or "Agnosticism", which seems to imply that agnosticism is a religion. The template instructions say nothing on this, and maybe they should. GregorB (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree that advice would be welcome, but why not just omit the information unless it is relevant? I can't see that every office holder's religion is relevant, but it may be relevant, for example, that Tony Blair became a Roman Catholic within days of resigning as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Roman Catholics being barred from that office. I think it is a delusion to think that if a field is available it is always desirable that it is used.

It is diffult for the case of non-believers, since many would hold that they are on equal footing with religions, and many indeed have organisational structures such as the National Secular Society. Some would argue that these are not religions, others would, but it is a can of worms, probably, to say what is and is not a religion. I can think of a case for changing the title to "belief" or "beliefs", but that opens a can of worms for putting "The tooth fairy" or "men never landed on the moon" and so on.

Is it best not to just stay silent on the matter and trust common sense, that is, Assume Good Faith (or perhaps, Assume Good Belief/Nonbelief)? Si Trew (talk) 08:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this is certainly not a mandatory field; at any rate, person's beliefs can also be discussed in the article body, if relevant. But if we do it in a compact form in the infobox, we might have to be a bit more stringent about it. GregorB (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible that this is a solution in search of a problem? I knew a major American Atheist, who did not object to having anyone say her "religion" was atheism. Collect (talk) 11:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

As an old joke goes: if atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. Whether people object or not is perhaps beside the point here; anyway, I've provided a link to the discussion because it is relevant to this template (and not individual articles to which it is transcluded). Whether there is an actual problem or not is anyone's guess. Personally, I'd say that entries for atheists and agnostics should say "None" (in some form or other). GregorB (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Just leave it blank. We don't say 'None' under spouse if not applicable, we just leave it out. Why should religion be any different? There are plenty of people who aren't religious who aren't agnostics or atheists, either. Let's not make the infobox unnecessarily complicated. Unless someone is well-known for their beliefs on religion (Richard Dawkins, for example), or lists religious affiliation on his/her profile (as many politicians do), just leave it blank. Flatterworld (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point too. GregorB (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Spaced endashes in date ranges

The Featured Article Review for Samuel Adams pointed out a problem in its use of this infobox: it creates ugly-looking ranges such as "1789 – 1793", in which spaces surround the en dash. There's a simple fix, namely, to give the invoker the choice as to which separator to use. The default behavior would remain unchanged, but this would be overridden with a new |termsep= parameter to specify the separator between the start and end of the term. In Samuel Adams's case, this would be "|termsep=–". I suggest this sandbox patch to {{Infobox officeholder}}, and this sandbox patch to {{Infobox officeholder/Office}}. (Improved suggestion below.) Eubulides (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

OK I was gonna quote the dash policies but will go and see what is wrong there, with my gnoming head on. Si Trew (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

As I do, use {{ndash}}, which ensures where breaking and nonbreaking spaces go. Do not use a space before or aft. Remplacecer la comme veut vous aves rit un dash. Si Trew (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not the point. The point is that "1789 – 1793" is clearly incorrect because it has spaces around the endash: it should be unspaced endash as in "1789–1793". ({{ndash}} is for spaced endashes, and is not what is wanted here.) The problem is that {{Infobox officeholder}} currently always uses spaced endashes, and there needs to be some way to get it to use unspaced endashes. By the way, a simpler fix, and one that I'd actually prefer, is to modify {{Infobox officeholder/Office}} to always use unspaced en dashes; however, some editors may not like that style when dates contain spaces, which is why I proposed the more complicated fix. (Improved suggestion below.) Eubulides (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Come to think of it, perhaps this much-simpler patch to {{Infobox officeholder/Office}} is all that's needed. An editor who prefers spaced endashes can simply put spaces in the respective arguments. (Improved suggestion below.) Eubulides (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

No, many if not most dates include the month and day. Because "January 28, 2010" and "28 January 2010" both include spaces, the correct format is to have spaces around the en dash. While "2009–2010" is clearly better than "2009 – 2010", the solution is not to turn "December 25, 2009 – January 28, 2010" into "December 25, 2009–January 28, 2010". I am indifferent to the more complicated fix you proposed (adding an option to remove the spaces), but your new solution is just wrong. -Rrius (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ouch, you're right; how could I have missed that? I struck my suggestions above. However, I've thought of a better heuristic: default to unspaced endash if both sides are simple numbers (i.e., years), and use spaced endashes otherwise. The editor can override the default with |termsep=. I've implemented this improved suggestion with this sandbox patch to {{Infobox officeholder}}, and this sandbox patch to {{Infobox officeholder/Office}}. You can see the result in the Samuel Adams test case I just added to Template:Infobox officeholder/testcases: the current template messes up most of the endashes, and the proposed template handles them all correctly. Eubulides (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} No further comment, so I've added an {{editprotected}} request. To summarize, please install this sandbox patch to {{Infobox officeholder}}, and this sandbox patch to {{Infobox officeholder/Office}}. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 04:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool! Good work. -Rrius (talk) 04:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you're complicating this more than necessary with the new termsep parameter. If you can do it automatically, then this parameter is not needed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

As can be see in MOS:ENDASH and in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 112 #Spaces in endash there is currently no consensus as to whether en dashes should have spaces around them in date ranges where the lower or upper bounds have spaces. I put in |termsep= so that editors who dislike the style rule I've programmed automatically can override that style and use the style they prefer. Eubulides (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Even if there is no general consensus, I'm saying that surely we can reach a decision on which is better for this template. Honestly, I like the automatic detection you've added but adding an override parameter is over the top. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} OK, then let's add just the automatic detection part, since that's the part that has consensus. Can you please install this sandbox patch to {{Infobox officeholder/Office}}? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Think I've simplified your code a little. Can you just check it does what it's supposed to? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, it works fine on the test cases. Eubulides (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

 Added — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Ordering of different offices held

For individuals with multiple offices, should the offices be ordered in ascending or descending order? I would think that descending order--with the most recent office at the top--would be preferable. Does that seem reasonable?--Blargh29 (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that is a question for this talk page. Decisions like that should be taken article by article or topic by topic. -Rrius (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Order and Office parameters

I tried looking for something related to this in the archives and was not able to find it.

I am finding dificult to use the order and office parameters for certain individuals. For example, Colombia's Horacio Serpa was the 1st Minister of the Interior, the problem is that the Ministry of the Interior has been renamed Ministry of the Interior and Justice, and there is no article for the defunct "Colombian Minister of Interior", any information pertaining to this ministry would be contained in the current "Colombian Ministry if the Interior and Justice", and I don't want to say that Horacio Serpa was the 1st Minister of Interior and Justice because he was not and is misleading because the ministry then had no Justice related business. I want to have:

|order = 1st
|office = [ [ Ministry of the Interior and Justice|Minister of the Interior ] ]

but this will only give me "1st [[Minister of the Interior]]" (with brackets showing), and if I put:

|order =1st
|office = Ministry of the Interior and Justice|Minister of the Interior

It will only show as "1st Ministry of the Interior and Justice" totally ignoring the second part making it seem like he was the first office and not the first officeholder.

So my question/complaint/request is, is it possible to fix the template to either disregard the brackets [[]] when brakets have been used, or at least properly enclose the link accounting for the information after the "|"? Sure I could disregard the order parameter and put
|office=1st [ [Ministry of the Interior and Justice|Minister of the Interior] ]
but then what is the use of having the order parameter at all? mijotoba (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the order parameter does serve any real purpose other that to encourage people to include an ordinal number at the beginning. In any event, since there is no actual problem, I don't see much point in fixing it. -Rrius (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You should be able to solve the problem by using your second example, but using {{!}} instead of the |. The template reads the | as starting a new parameter, {{!}} is read as a | within the current parameter. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! it worked! I'll definately be using that more often now. mijotoba (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Death date

{{editprotected}} Template:Infobox officeholder death date: Use of this field will also make the background color silver since I am requesting it to be edited. --Editor 410 (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)}}

Please explain why this would be a good idea, and show that others agree with you. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

major awards for Officeholders

There is no satisfactory place to record Stephen Chu's Nobel Prize. When I try "awards" it bring up "military service". NBeale (talk) 06:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You can use the "prizes=" parameter. See Martin Luther King, Jr. for an example. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} via alternate account 20:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Tried it and doesn't seem to work with officeholder template. NBeale (talk) 22:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Whoops! Didn't notice that MKL, Jr. wasn't using Officeholder - appears he's using {{Infobox revolutionary}}. So, I'll propose that either "awards=" be disassociated from the military header or that a new "prizes=" parameter be copied over from {{Infobox revolutionary}}. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 09:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Net worth field

I don't know how to add this myself, but I think it would be useful to include an optional "net worth" field. Since most politicians in the United States are wealthy businessmen or lawyers, it would be useful to have a field to mention their personal fortunes (kind of like the networth field in {{Infobox Celebrity}}. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem with this is that net wealth is liable to change and WP:RS may often be difficult to find. Net wealth at death might be appropriate, provided a WP:RS can be found. This may be less difficult, due to it being in probate records. It was data collected for Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how useful it would be in general - not only does it change, but with a very few exceptions, it isn't even terribly relevant to their life "as a politician." If the networth is significant for a particular politician, it may be a better idea just to mention it in the article. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} via alternate account 20:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The field is used in {{Infobox person}}. If it works there, it should work here; if it doesn't, it should be removed from there. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah. If it is already there, then no need to discuss whether to add it to the template. I would still urge that it be used with caution, in any event. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} via alternate account 20:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Overlap with Succession Boxes

My concerns have been addressed, no more input required on initial query :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Initial context: Someone raised concerns over the length of the infobox at Otto von Bismarck, and I thought/replied that most of this information should probably be given in the footer Succession Boxes (which it already is). -- If the information is also in prose, it is getting repeated 3 times. One repetition seems fine (per most infobox content), but twice seems unnecessary/problematic.

Background: I searched the talkpage archives of this template and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization, and only found 3 key mentions of the overlap (here and here and here). There are probably more discussions elsewhere (try this search to find them?).

1. Neither this template's docs, nor Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization, mention the other. That's the main problem, which I hope someone here can address. (I have no background, and no hours to catch-up on everything relevant :)
2. Has there been (please link to), or should there be, a more complete discussion concerning the overlap? What potential solutions are there?

One possible solution would be to remove the "preceded/followed" information from the infobox, and instead include a link to the succession boxes.

Examples for discussion purposes: Winston Churchill and Otto von Bismarck. I'll notify the Succession box project (I arbitrarily decided to post this thread here, out of the 2 possible locations). Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it as a problem. The infobox should show the most prominent roles/titles and the succession box should show the full list of roles/titles. For Winston Churchill 3 offices are displayed in the infobox and 30 offices and titles are displayed in the succession box. For Otto von Bismark 5 offices are displayed in the infobox and 9 offices and titles are displayed in the succession box.

If a discussion at Otto von Bismark forms a consensus that fewer offices should be displayed in the infobox to make the remainder more prominent then there is no problem with that. Road Wizard (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

One does not generally bother agreeing on a slow connection, but the lack of replies after so many days is rather depressing. To put it simply: a rule of thumb is that the level of repetition rises with the subject's importance, and therefore the number of high offices they have held, as well as the distance from the infobox to the succession box (i.e., article length). These are not always connected, but they tend to be. But the repetition is rarely extensive enough to cause concern, and it is usually minimal (or at least so it seems to me), so I think there is no reason to create rules any more complex than "decide on a case-to-case basis". Waltham, The Duke of 01:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I object to the proposition that the successor and predecessor parameters be removed. There are many instances of this template on pages that do not include succession boxes. For many of those, including stubs and starts, adding yet more templates would be questionable. Also, I use this feature of the infobox quite a lot when I am dealing with holders of some specific office. The infobox presents several pieces of useful information about the article up top in a compact and clear manner. To the extent there is overlap, I see the succession boxes as the superfluous part. Obviously, Quiddity sees things in the opposite way. I think the fact that editors such as him find value in one instance of the information while others of us find it elsewhere means that each, despite the overlap, serves a role. -Rrius (talk) 02:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

To the wider point, I think any such discussion in the documentation is unwarranted. If the succession boxes in a shortish article only duplicate the infobox, consideration should be given to not including them. Infoboxes are provide more information than succession boxes. They are more important than succession boxes both in terms of article quality and of use to casual readers. As such, if precedence should be given to either template, it should be this one. -Rrius (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the point in your first post, Rrius, that both elements seem to play a role, and I believe that this is more important than avoiding overlaps. I do have to object, however, to your suggestion that infoboxes should take priority over succession boxes if there should be any removals. The whole point of succession boxes is that they serve as an organised chain of links connecting articles; if we are to start selectively removing boxes from articles, we might as well abolish them. Which would be a pity, because I regard them as more complete, organised and flexible than the links of infoboxes, and I find that, often in contrast to the latter, they transcend the boundaries of individual WikiProjects' spheres of interest. Waltham, The Duke of 03:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

My point was that if one must be curtailed, it should be the succession boxes. It was not my intention to suggest that they should be eliminated. I was merely pointing out that if one takes a view contrary to my belief that there is no problem with having both, then succession boxes should yield. -Rrius (talk) 06:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I did say "if there should be any removals"; I knew you were speaking hypothetically. In the same vein, I believe that the use of neither must be limited, but if one had to go, I should not necessarily agree with your take on the matter. Waltham, The Duke of 07:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I should have explicitly mentioned that I was just postulating/brainstorming with that one "option", and was really looking for background details or further factors to better understand the current situation. I have no course of action that I wish to see enforced :)

I mainly want to goad "the people that know what's what" around here to clarify the documentation (without getting instruction-creepy). Something along the line of: 1) Point to the alternative/additional system (succession box/officeholder). 2) Describe when to add both (what criteria determines when it is added to just the succession boxes, vs when it is also added to infobox officeholder (eg "suggest using the occupations mentioned in lead paragraph" or "individual article-based-consensus/decide on a case-to-case basis" or whathaveyou)). 3) ... 4) Profit! -- Quiddity (talk) 06:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I think His Grace and I would both answer that no such instruction is necessary as infoboxes and succession boxes operate on different tracks. Stunting the infoboxes harms the quality of the article, and removing succession boxes harms entire series of succession boxes pointing in to the article from other articles. I guess I just don't see the problem. The only tiny issue I've come across is people using full dates in succession boxes when I've been given to understand that they should only contain years. -Rrius (talk) 06:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is indeed my view as well. Quiddity, get lost. :-P

Regarding dates, I believe the old guidelines say that they should only be added if there is reliable data for the dates of the entire succession chain. This is obviously quite rare; most full dates in succession boxes have been added in isolation and ought to be removed. (Caveat: a month may be added for disambiguation, such as between two elections held in the same year; for music charts, full dates are common practice.) That said, I am not sure to what extent this guidance follows current practice, and whether it would be best removed. I suppose our guidelines ought to be subjected to a general review anyway, but this has been prevented from a relative inactivity in WP:SBS, as well as a certain doubt as to whether people really follow them anyway. Waltham, The Duke of 07:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Gadzooks! Well, alrighty then. Don't mention Succession boxes in this template's docs! Pretend they don't exist! And WP:SBSGUIDE can continue to not mention infobox officeholder!

I was only hoping there was some simple pointers we could dispense, explaining why Otto von Bismarck doesn't list his ambassadorships in his infobox; and why Winston Churchill has those 3 specific offices in his infobox, out of the 20+ political office titles in his succession boxes.

*Swirls his cape, and attempts to depart in huff, but trips on hem and falls on face*

My apologies to all for phrasing my initial foray poorly, and leading this discussion in the wrong direction. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have acknowledged the existence of {{Infobox officeholder}} here (raises nose disdainfully), but I cannot see much else that I could do. We include in our succession boxes all notable and verifiable titles fulfilling certain criteria (they have to be true succession chains), and we try to be consistent across articles, so what the infobox template includes on each page does not really affect us. You may very well have a point about the reverse, but I cannot really speak about that because I see no inclusion criteria. I tend to appreciate consistency, but I also understand the need to keep infoboxes down to a manageable size; indeed, these different priorities are part of why the two systems can co-exist. How does one choose what to keep in the infobox? No idea. These templates don't fall within my area of interest.

By the way, that gash above your eye looks rather bad. I can have my driver take you to the hospital if you want. Waltham, The Duke of 19:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• I have for sometime been concerned at the way that succession information is being added to {{Infobox officeholder}}, in a repetitious way. My view is that the job is done better by the succession box, and that an excess of information in the infobox is counter-productive, particularly when a person has held a lot of offices in their lifetime. My view is that the infobox should be brief, listing major offices and titles with dates held. The monarch under whom a person served as a minister is probably unnecessary (or should appear as a separate item, not linked to the office); predecessor and successor should be omitted (and left to the succession box). The status of being an MP could usefully be listed with dates, but the constituency(ies) represented should be left to the succession box. This means that the infobox will become (as presumably intended) a means of quick reference for the individual without unnecessary detail. On the other hand, the fact that a person was known by a courtesy title before inheriting a peerage (with dates) could usefully appear. For example, the article on Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 7th Earl of Shaftesbury (who does not have an infobox) would not need to start by saying that he was known as Lord Ashley during the early part of his career. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Good heavens! I don't know how you handle things in the UK, but for a Congressman, not including his district in the infobox would be unthinkable. I would argue that it is more important, even, than stating the political party represented - knowing that Steve King is from Iowa's 5th (Iowa's most conservative district) says a lot more about how he will vote than knowing that he is a Republican. It should, of course, also be listed in the successsion boxes. The balance of information in the officeholder infoboxes now is just about right, imho, with easy access to the most important information with details provided in the article. The only area I see a potential for concern is with office-jumpers who have held umpteen offices in their lives, but for them, as Road Wizard and the Duke mention, concensus can be derived on a case-by-case basis as to which and how many to list. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} via alternate account 20:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that in US, it is unusual for a congressman to sit for one district and then for another. In Britain, with constituency boundary changes, and the former need for an MP to seek re-election after taking ministerial office, it has been common for an MP to site for several constituencies successively. In my view infoboxes should contain brief bullet points highlighting a person's career. Even if we continue to include districts (US) or constituencies (UK), we should not include predecessors or successors. For ministers, I am not sure that it is really useful to induicate the monarch under whom they served. My plea is essentially for a simplifciation of the content of infoboxes. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The numbering of districts (and the number for a state) often change after the decennial census, so it is normal to have represented multiple districts, even though representing roughly the same geographic area. More importantly, I can say I have used the links to UK constituencies provided in infoboxes numerous times. As I said above, different people use them different ways; so if you don't appreciate the need for various items in the infobox, you could at least respect that others do. I think that succession boxes are largely useless and some sets of them (such as the ones dealing with the US order of precedence) seem created for the sake of creating more succession boxes. That said, I respect that some people derive a benefit from them, so I don't try to push for their elimination or alteration. I only ask the same thing from people like you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrius (talk • contribs)

I agree with Rrius on this with regard to infoboxes (though I appreciate and use both info- and succession- boxes) - similarly, links to the predecessors and successors are quite useful - there's no need for such a major change to the way political infoboxes work. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)