Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

How to add a nonmilitary award or prize

I would like to a nonmilitary award to a governor. Is there some way to do this? GcSwRhIc (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Bullshit parameters

I created Articles containing bullshit template parameters (configuration), which happened to focus on uses of this template ("Infobox officeholder"), even though the logic is abstracted to apply to any template (in theory). It might be nice to catch some of the listed parameter names in the code ("birth_name" instead of "birthname" looked like particularly low-hanging fruit). Just a thought. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems like a good idea. Looking through the list, it looks like a lot of these have been picked up already. --Philip Stevens (talk) 21:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Translated names

{{Infobox settlement}} and {{Infobox person}} have the parameters |native_name= and |native_name_lang=. This template, should have similar parameters so that such names are not shoe-horned into the |name=, as is currently the case on Nat Wei, and can be marked-up with the appropriate language code. So, immediately after {{{honorific-suffix}}}</span>}}, please add:

{{#if:{{{native_name|}}}|<br /><span class="nickname" {{#if:{{{native_name_lang|}}}|lang="{{{native_name_lang}}}" xml:lang="{{{native_name_lang}}}"}}>{{{native_name}}}</span>}}

which code is taken directly from the settlement template.. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done. In future, a working sandbox version would be appreciated. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Deputy parameter

The Michael McGinn article uses the mayor version (it used to use the general one, but I changed it). In either version, the deputy parameter ends up wikilinked with the assumption that it should point to "Deputy Mayor of Seattle". I don't see anywhere in the documentation that it says that will happen. Is there a way to prevent the wikilink, in this instance a redlink?

Also, at the moment, the deputy parameter specifies two deputies. I tried using deputy2, but it doesn't seem to work. Why?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's stupid, but if you change |office= to |title= it won't use the "office" to invent wikilinks for the deputy (or any) fields. By the way, changing "infobox officeholder" to "Infobox Mayor" does nothing, since it redirects here. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the deputy redlink. I didn't change it to Mayor expecting that to help - I did it because the documentation says to use the more specific office, so I was just being fastidious. What about the deputy2 issue?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You would only use |deputy2= if the officeholder has held a second office (i.e., |office2= or |title2=) and there is a deputy associated with that office. Does that make sense? In this case, you did the right thing to put both in the same field. To be entirely semantically pedantic, you can wrap any "lists" inside the {{unbulleted list}} template, which will emit proper html list markup (e.g., this could also be done for the list of children). Otherwise, it looks fine to me. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Aah, so deputy2 will only work if office2 is also specified. That makes total sense, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Source parameter without date parameter

I notice that if a value is specified for the "source" parameter, but no value is specified for the "date" parameter, then the "Source:" line is actually displayed outside the infobox (see this version of the Vijay Mallya article as an example). Was that intentional? DH85868993 (talk) 03:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that's bad. Now fixed! Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Use on articles other than the person articles

Should {{infobox candidate}} or others be used on articles that aren't about the person, but about a particular campaign? For example, Al Gore presidential campaign, 2000. AWB apparently assumes that any article with this template is a person article, and adds persondata to it.[1] I just need to figure out if that's a misplaced template or something to update in AWB. Thanks! -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously the template was designed for biographical articles, but I don't see any reason it can't be used on other articles if appropriate. As for what the folks who manage AWB do, that one's beyond me. How big of a problem is this? If it's a major problem, I suppose we can always come up with a "not_bio=yes"-type parameter, though AWB would have to be set to recognize it. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Service number

Would it be possible to add the service number to the military person data after the rank? In Australia it is often the easiest way to look up and WWII service personnel. It is in the military person infobox but you cannot specify it for an officeholder. I tried using the wild card military_data params, but this puts it down the bottom, unlike the usual name/rank/service number that you find in the military box. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Infobox peer

Could {{Infobox peer}} be merged with this template? As best I can tell, the only parameters it would need that this one does not have are "|known" and "known_for", which could either be added here or ignored. The template is used at fewer than 200 articles, and I'd be willing to do whatever mop-up work is needed at the articles, but I writing the code changes is beyond my abilities. -Rrius (talk) 02:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Support. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Do the existing parameters function in the same way in both infoboxes? If so, the technical way to do it would be a redirect {{Infobox peer}} to {{Infobox officeholder}}. I'm not sure that "known" or "known_for" are appropriate parameters for {{Infobox officeholder}}, though - and even if they are added just for the peers articles, they would end up being used elsewhere before too long...

I'm going to mention this at Template talk:Infobox peer, so they know we are discussing this. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. I see a problem with the several titles of peers. Lord Burghley is not a good example because he only had one (and we do not even get the information when he was made a peer). The solution would perhaps be to treat the several titles as offices, but we would get incredibly large infoboxes that way. Infobox peer is often used with medieval and early modern peers, whose offices were important in terms of honour but do seldom constitute the reason why the person is notable (and they often held quite a number of offices, we cannot list them in such a huge format in an infobox). Also, peers already have the succession boxes at the article bottom, containing the details of office-holding. Buchraeumer (talk) 11:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

alma_mater parameter

For some reason, User:WOSlinker is removing the alma_mater parameter, and possibly others from articles. I don't recall any consensus to remove this parameter. What's up? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The parameter |alma mater= was removed, but |alma_mater= is still there. I suppose it has something to do with trying to keep the use of "underscores" consistent. Thanks for the note. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

"Alma mater" is reported as a bad parameter because it was never supported. The correct is "alma_mater" (with underscore). WOSlinker didn't touch the code on the that. Check Wikipedia:Database reports/Articles containing bullshit template parameters -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Got it. Is there any way to have the "text space text" parameters replaced with "text underscore text" parameters instead of simply removing them, though? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking at others on the list, |education= should also probably be changed to |alma_mater= instead of being removed. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course is better to fix the parameters instead of removing them. That's what I do and I am pretty sure WOSlinker does the same. Maybe the parameter was already duplicated or perhaps a temporary user mistake? WOSlinker spends a lot of hours everyday dealing with these parameters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't remove any alma_mater parameters. What I did was replace alma mater with alma_mater (see [2], [3], [4], etc. ) For the other parameters those don't exist in the Infobox and I'm only tracking those where they are blank. I'm not currently tracking any with a value set to anything, even although they are not used in the Infobox. -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a good idea to remove the blank ones as otherwise someone may feel inclined to fill them in even although they don't do anything and won't show up in the infobox. -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It would have been nice to have more discussion or a "courtesy notification" though before this was executed. I logged in today to find that WOSlinker had been tinkering with 18 of the Missouri politicians I've either created/expanded and monitor. Freaked me out at first. If the Mo. Sec. of State office ever gets it in gear and sends me the permission to use the pols "official" pics here on WP, I'll be adding photos to those infoboxes. If there is to be an entire new format/template for infoboxes, I'd appreciate a notice on it. Sector001 (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with WOSlinker now that I realize what's going on. I saw primarily this edit, which removed |alma mater= and didn't notice that it left |alma_mater= in place. Whoops! --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Parents vs Children

Does anyone else think that parents should be a field if children are listed? Currently I use the "person" template since "office holder" doesn't have a "parents" field. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why we shouldn't. A person's parents, if notable, are just as important to highlight as their notable children. MitchellDuce (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm starting to think we should have a section for perennial proposals - this issue has been discussed at Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 14#Relations and at least one or two other places without concensus to add a "parents" parameter. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

What should be done when one parent is notable, but the other is not? My understanding is that only the notable parent should be included in the infobox. However, me removing the mother has been met with disagreement on Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose father has an article and whose mother does not. Jim Michael (talk) 02:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Birth name parameter

Can someone move the "birth_name" parameter above birth_date and birth_place? (See Template:Infobox_person)

Infobox person
Born	Name Date Place

Infobox officeholder
Personal details
Born	Name Date Place

Done. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

How to use term_start when an Acting officeholder subsequently becomes permanent?

What is the preferred value for term_start when an individual is designated as "acting" for a vacant office, and then subsequently becomes the permanent office holder? Do you use the date on which she became Acting, or the date on which she took office pursuant to the appointment?

I'm leaning toward using the "Acting" date. My basis is that, if an officeholder was only acting, that would obviously be the date to use, so why not for an Acting who later becomes permanent? And besides, otherwise there would be an undocumented hole in the continuity. Thoughts?

I'm specifically thinking of Maria Pallante, who was named Acting Register of the U.S. Copyright Office effective January 1, 2011; and then was nominated for the permanent position and took office permanently yesterday, June 1, 2011. After some dithering, I've used the January 1 date. TJRC (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I would tend to consider those to be separate offices and list them separately in the infobox. After all, the way they get the job is very different - for many jobs, including the one you cited, there is no certainty that an acting position will become a permanent one.--Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 14:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

President-elects outside the anglosphere

Hello, Can anyone confirm a precedented standard of using the term "president-elect" for incoming presidents in countries outside the anglosphere? Furthermore, is the concept president-elect an official title in the anglosphere or merely common usage? ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 19:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Significant code cleanup

I've gone through the codebase (and that of the sub-templates) and stripped out a lot of crufty old code and styling material. The result is a leaner and more readable codebase, and a more compact and consistent output. See the test cases page for a comparison. Suggestions welcome. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It's good, but I think there should be a barrier or line between the offices and personal data. --Philip Stevens (talk) 09:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Nice work. I agree with Philip, and I also think that the blue section headers should be a touch lighter in colour. Otherwise I'm all for the changes. Adabow (talk · contribs) 10:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Excellent (I, too, agree with Philip). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks folks. I've added a "personal details" header: this was an oversight on my behalf. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I've now (finally) synced this, after picking up the code changes made to the main template since April. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Parameters not on documentation

There are a couple of parameters (ethnicity and citizenship) that aren't on the documentation. As a result other editors won't realise that they are available for use unless they come across them by accident as I did. Could these be added to the documentation. There may be other parameters that aren't on the documentation.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 17:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I've removed ethnicity. It's undocumented, unused, and not a particularly relevant parameter for an officeholder. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Terrible Changes

What has happened to the template! It seems to have been massively changed in style without any consensus. It appears amateaur in its presentation and now looks exactly like the kind of infobox's that have slowly been being removed over recent years. Because of the protected nature of the template I cannot revert the template under WP:BRD, however if the editor who made these changes does not - and thereby allow for discussion - I will be making an application to have it reversed. Shatter Resistance (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm agreed. Major changes seem to have been made with no discussion and no consensus. And I also agree that the new infobox looks far less professional than what it replaced. --Lincolnite (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Name
United States Senator from State

Agreed. The new background blue is way too dark, for example. WP:Accessibility (and common sense) require dark text to have a light background. The links are almost the same color as the background, see?: —Designate (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Reverted it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

That said, there's some merit to reducing the physical size of the infobox. Maybe some differences can be hashed out here if the creator uses a sandbox. —Designate (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for making the reversion. Shatter Resistance (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The changes were proposed above. The concerns raised have little merit: at most they would suggest a lighter field shading, but this is at best subjective (the likes of {{infobox football biography}}, written specifically with accessibility in mind, manages fine with the proposed shade and is far more commonly used), while all the other comments are nothing but gut reactions, and starkly ill-informed for the most part. I'll leave this for a while in case it generates constructive commentary, but currently there's very little suggesting that the proposed changes would not be a significant improvement. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 22:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Or that they are a significant improvement. —Designate (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Contrary to the comments above, the changes bring the template's styling in line with the prevailing {{infobox}} defaults: they also improve the template's microformats output and improve its appearance when parameters are omitted. The code was in the sandbox at all times, again contrary to what those who felt so strongly about how ruinous the changes had been so quick to assert. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

There are some examples at Template:Infobox officeholder/testcases if anyone wishes to compare. -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

There's no connection between improving the code and changing a color. The infobox defaults are wrong if they use such a dark blue background with blue/black text. —Designate (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I often see this logic: "we do things right around here, so it must be everyone else who is wrong". The colour scheme chosen here is as arbitrary as anywhere else on the project, but at least if one colour is standardised on then it makes later discussions to change that colour more straightforward. Right now, the darker blue is widely used across some of the most widely-deployed infoboxes on the encyclopedia, whereas this one is largely confined to this particular template. If any of the concerns regarding the negative impact of that change held merit they'd have prompted a change away from that shade by now elsewhere. There's therefore little to suggest that this is anything except knee-jerk opposition to change. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

For a user who seems to want to correct others it should be noted that thumperward/Chris Cunningham is not accuratley portraying the claim that the changes were proposed. Rather the talk page was informed that changes had been made which is an entirely different situation. On another point, the claim that the changes improve its appearance when parameters are omitted as claimed by thumperward/Chris Cunningham is WP:POV which it seems the vast majority of comments so far disagree with. If the template can be made simplier or improved in formatting without the change of the style of the infobox as it currently is then I'm sure no user would have an objection to that, however, that is not what has happened. Shatter Resistance (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I put up a full sandbox and test cases and waited two full months for feedback. As for your comment about "POV", when confronted by such a display of logic as "It appears amateaur in its presentation and now looks exactly like the kind of infobox's that have slowly been being removed over recent years", I would have to agree that it is I who is operating on my gut instincts and obviously "Shatter Resistance" who is the neutral party. Ahem. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there any way that the changes are made and the color remain as before? -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The colour can be changed trivially, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with the darker colour: it's already used on several of the project's most widely-used infobox templates, and was chosen here to eliminate the existing problem whereby the officeholder's military history uses the darker blue (as it's the MILHIST default header colour) and thus looked incongruous next to the other headers. My personal preference would be to have no background colour at all, but the kvetching from the peanut gallery for a change like that would make it not worth the effort. In two weeks everyone will have forgotten that the template used to have a slightly lighter field shading colour and our encyclopedia will be a little more internally consistent. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing arbitrary about what I'm saying. Dark text on a dark background is bad design. It's not the color I'm uncomfortable with, it's the contrast. I don't care if it's light blue or light yellow or light gray. I'm totally fine with removing the background color entirely, as you said. But every guide to accessibility recommends dark text on light backgrounds. The smaller the text, the more contrast is required. The MILHIST version uses small, low-contrast text, and that's an aesthetic that many people oppose, either because it looks bad or because it's harder to read for some users. We're creating a universal encyclopedia and it needs to be well-designed and easy to read.

Consistency is nice, but it needs to be consistently good. Those colors are bad, not because "I don't like them" but because there's a consensus among designers and accessibility gurus that low contrast is bad design. I rarely read MILHIST articles so I've never considered their color scheme, but there's a case to be made that they should change theirs, and I wish you'd respect that rather than labeling it "knee-jerk opposition". I even said up above that there was some merit to changing the layout, it's just the color that I think is inappropriate (and I linked to a policy defending it). There's nothing knee-jerk about that. —Designate (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for the tone of my last comment. While I disagree that the colour change has much in the way of genuine impact, it obviously has some impact in terms of contrast. However, I am firmly of the opinion that it is counterproductive to attempt to fight this in random pockets of the encyclopedia: rather, editors who believe that the darker colour should be altered should be encouraged to take this to a wider audience and thus see if they can get things improved elsewhere. It's all very well saying "low contrast bad, high contrast good", but that's equally an argument for making the present colour paler, and so when it comes piggybacked on other opposition to otherwise uncontroversial changes the impression is that it's arguing for arguing's sake. Nevertheless, I shouldn't have simply made that assumption. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 23:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree it should be a larger discussion so we can be consistent—is the color field coded into Template:Infobox or is it just added to each template separately? —Designate (talk) 01:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It's coded separately. Anyway, for the sake of compromise I'm willing to restore the original shading here prior to deployment, unless there are other concerns. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but you don't have the final say on the matter, it is the consensus reached on this talk page which does that, not just whatever you want, there is no point in trying to manipulate words to try and claim authority to change the template under the premise of reaching a compromise, if all your changes are negative then none of them should be put through. For one your edits weren't even to the template, that is a massive concern, instead you linked this template to its own sandbox, which obvisouly totally undermines the premise of having a sandbox. The changing of the font sizes means the information is now all the same size which makes the template title look ridiculous, the alteration of how captions work means there is no longer a default, changes to the way images work is just irritating and the fiddling about with the native name option means hundreds of templates would have to be systematically altered to the new way you have suddenly decided to change them. That is just a few of the issues you have created, there are more but those are the ones it took me under a minute to find. Shatter Resistance (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring the bold and whatever on Earth "your edits weren't even to the template, that is a massive concern, instead you linked this template to its own sandbox" means, most of those comments would apply to every {{infobox}} (font sizes and such), and the native name comment is simply indecipherable. As far I as I can see I have not altered the native name code in any significant manner. I certainly can't see how the new code would require current transclusions to be altered. If test cases or non-hyperholic critique is forthcoming in the next few days I'll be happy to look into it. Otherwiuse, unless anyone other than Shatter Resistance has problems with the current sandbox code I'll sync it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 23:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Again you do not get to change the template because you want to, look at WP:SILENCE. There is currently no support for your changes, in fact there has only been criticism by users, which constitutes a strong consensus against your changes. The template in its unaltered form currently has consensus and unless you achieve WP:CCC any subsequent edits to this template (or its offshoots) which violate the consensus will be reverted. As for the sandbox comment this link shows my evidence for this. You made alterations to Template:Infobox officeholder/Office/Sandbox and then linked them into this template instead of altering the template itself. Native names are often not understood by english speakers however they are important as some sources like to use native names, furthermore as they are widely used there is again consensus to keep them. Shatter Resistance (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't made any changes whatsoever to native name support. If you can see any, feel free to point me at a test case. The rest of your commentary isn't productive, and you'd be wise to turn down your hyperbole if you wish your commentary to be considered. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Chris, I've just looked at the test cases and the only major differences I can see between the current template and what's proposed are the horizontal lines between offices. As it happens, I quite like the presence of lines as an aesthetic device to clearly divide different offices but I'm open to persuasion if there are good reasons why they should be removed. Are there any such good reasons? --Lincolnite (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

They're distracting. The colour bands themselves suffice to separate the sections: they suffice to separate the sections fine on pretty much every other infobox. Furthermore, the implementation adds additional markup to the template (in the form of horizontal rule elements) which bulks up the code (2k per transclusion, and there can be up to over a dozen transclusions in a give article) and the <hr /> element itself is semantically rendundant to a new table row anyway. They're merely a throwback to the days when there was little or no consistency at all on Wikipedia's infoboxes. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Trying this again

The sandbox has been updated to use the present header colour. If there are no objective problems with the new code I'll sync it in a few days. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes there are. All the ones presented in the sections above. Lets examine what's going on here under WP:BRD: Thumperward has been bold. Then his edits were reverted. A discussion took place - and nobody supports the changes meaning there is a consensus against these changes and they should not be put into effect. Shatter Resistance (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The new version looks good. I think we should go with it. If folks want the thin black lines, you can always add a "border-top: black solid 1px". However, I don't think this is necessary, and would be unnecessarily deviating from the more standard format per WP:Deviations. Thanks for taking the time to work on this. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy with the sandbox code; it looks much tidier. Adabow (talk · contribs) 07:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay so finally Thumperward has got some support. I guess this means the discussion shall continue. HOWEVER, until this discussion is completed then I'm afraid Thumperward you can't go claiming you have a consensus for any of your changes. Shatter Resistance (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Changes now pushed again. If there are any bugs please ping me and I'll fix them ASAP. Cheers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

There is an error, as visible here. [[file:|frameless|alt=]] shows above the image, and this appears to be a result of the infobox change, rather than any extra or missing syntax used on the article. Spalds (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Sorry about that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 17:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not wild about it but I'm fine with it. —Designate (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)