Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Total time in office

It'd be convenient if this infobox displayed the total time in public office at the top. Many politicians occupy more than one, two, or even three offices throughout their career, and sometimes they serve many roles in a single office (e.g. senators may also be Senate Majority Leader, Whip, etc...), obscuring the length of their careers. This makes it hard to tell whether their public office carrers are contiguous, and when they leave (to become lobbyists or media personalities). It'd be useful, I think. Test35965 (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC) Test35965 (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 6 November 2016

Hello. Can someone please add another non-breaking space after "of" and before "death" in = Cause of death (nbsp shown in markup). Thanks.--Nevé–selbert 20:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 21:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Denomination revisited

I had forgotten that I started this discussion nine months ago. There was support for adding the parameter then, and since then consensus was found for it to be added to Infobox person. The way it was done there is that what is put in the denomination parameter automatically shows on the page in parentheses after the religion. I figure, since the religion parameter is probably used more in politician's infoboxes than any others, then this should be added here as well. [Pinging John of Reading, wbm1058] —Musdan77 (talk) 18:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I've read that discussion to which you have linked. The last comment there suggested that you wait until this concurrent RfC was completed before discussing your proposal. That RfC was completed with an overwhelming consensus to remove the "religion" (and also any "denomination") parameter from those Infoboxes. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I was not aware of that RfC, but that doesn't matter now. Obviously, consensus was not to remove the "religion" parameter; as it says at Infobox person (which you failed to read): "Per this RFC, this parameter should be included only where significant to the article subject...with a citation in the article body to a reliable source." And as I said, a denomination parameter was added. —Musdan77 (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

No sir/ma'am, I didn't fail to read Infobox person. When the article subject is also a living person, there are additional requirements that must be met (i.e.; the subject's religion must be a defining characteristic, the subject must self-identify through direct speech, etc.) as outlined at WP:BLPCAT and WP:CATGRS. The Infobox guidance certainly could be a little clearer on that, I suppose. As for a |denomination= field being added to the "Infobox person", no, that already existed long before the RfC was conducted. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

1) If you'd just take a second to go to my user page, you'd see whether I'm a "sir" or "ma'am" (2) You seem to be retracting what you said before (which is good) that the religion parameter should not be used at all. (3) We're not talking about a category here, although WP:BLPCAT can be a helpful guideline. (4) It's true that the denomination parameter was there before, but there was a recent discussion (which I tried to find, but couldn't) about whether denomination should be in the IB, and the result was to change it as I explained above. —Musdan77 (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

If you'd just take a second to go to my user page, you'd see whether I'm a "sir" or "ma'am"...

Naw, but thanks. Most people don't have gender on their user pages, so I've stopped looking. Besides, the gender of my fellow editors isn't really of interest to me, so I tend to address editors with a conjunctive formulation (i.e.; "s/he", "sir/ma'am") out of habit and convenience.

You seem to be retracting what you said before (which is good) that the religion parameter should not be used at all.

No; you've misunderstood. What I said is that the community-wide RfC determined that the |religion= parameter is to be removed, and that is still the case. In my follow-up comment, I was just clarifying for you that there are rare cases when a person's religion is a defining characteristic of their notability, (i.e.; they are a member of the clergy, a Nun, Pope, Bishop, Friar, Rabbi, etc.) yet they aren't using a religion-based Infobox, but instead use a more general Infobox. In those cases, a custom field may be created, or the information can just remain in the body of the article. This is also explained in that same RfC.

What is key to understand here is that there is no prohibition against covering a person's religious beliefs in the body of the article. But in order to additionally highlight those beliefs with Wikipedia Categories and Infobox fields, the article subject must be famous because of those religious beliefs. Those religious beliefs must be a defining characteristic of the article subject. That means that when reliable sources mention the person, they must also routinely mention their religious beliefs. In order to have their religious beliefs billboarded in an Infobox, it is not enough that the person practice a religion. It is also not enough if they are extremely devoted or outspoken regarding their religious beliefs. Their religion must also be a defining characteristic of why they are notable. If their religious beliefs don't belong in the lead of the article, then they certainly don't belong in the Infobox and Categories. Does that help make it clearer?

We're not talking about a category here, although WP:BLPCAT can be a helpful guideline.

Um, no, WP:BLP is not merely a "helpful guideline", it's one of the most rigorously enforced top-level Policies of Wikipedia; part of the core Five Pillars, in fact. And we're talking about both Categories and Infoboxes, as WP:BLPCAT reminds us: These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements (referring to living persons within any Wikipedia page) that are based on religious beliefs ...

...whether denomination should be in the IB...

The same community-wide RfC decision applies. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 07:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, I'll respond to you first reply on my talk page, where it's more appropriate.

Okay, this is the way I see it:

As I said, I did not know about that RfC at the time, so I wasn't able to give my view there, but this is basically what I would have said: Since, according to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, an infobox is "to summarize key facts that appear in the article", if the religion/faith of a person is notable/relevant to their occupation or public persona, and is reliably sourced with self-identification, then it should be able to be included in the infobox. It should be according to local consensus. It has always been that way, and I see no need to change it now. If it's verifiable and the person professes it (and virtually all politicians/officeholders do – because that is one thing that people consider when voting) then it doesn't violate BLP.

Now, you,  SMcCandlish, and others, may have the best of intentions, but it just seems that some who are so adamant on removing religion from infoboxes have an anti-religion agenda.

I didn't say that WP:BLP is merely a helpful guideline. I didn't realize that the section about categories mentioned infoboxes, so it just seemed strange to reference WP:BLPCAT when talking about infoboxes. —Musdan77 (talk) 03:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

...it should be able to be included in the infobox.

Well, everything should be able to be included, but obviously isn't. And for good reasons. Per that same INFOBOX guideline page that you just cited, "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose". Information that can not be accurately conveyed with just a single word or two is not included in Infoboxes. Information that may be controversial or contentious is not included in Infoboxes. Information which does not lend itself to standardization is not included in Infoboxes. Ethnicities and Religions far too often fail these requirements.

It should be according to local consensus.

And I disagree. But it's out of our hands. Regardless of what you or I think, Wikipedia policy is clear: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.

... I see no need to change it now.

Sorry to hear that, but that's not my fault.

...it just seems that some who are so adamant on removing religion from infoboxes have an anti-religion agenda.

That makes no sense, and in addition, you are now being downright nasty. No one has argued to remove religion from articles; only the field from Infoboxes where it has been repeatedly abused, misused, weaponized and become a major source of contention and wasted time. When it comes to properly and encyclopedically conveying the ethnicity and religious beliefs of our article subjects, removing the problematic and limited fields from Infoboxes was a major improvement. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:56, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 December 2016

Remove |salary= and |net_worth= between |label44= and |label45= 219.79.97.173 (talk) 02:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Done Primefac (talk) 03:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Head of government title

Could someone please add the Head of government title "Minister president" (and "Vice minister president") to the template? It's pretty much the same like a prime minister and often used similar e. g. in German. As the Heads of state and government of the 16 German federal states are always called minister president (excluding three mayors), it would be nice to use the term in English Wikipedia as well. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 01:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if this should be done, because it indicates in the article at Minister-president that this is not a frequently used term in the English language. I won't toggle this just yet in order to see if others agree or disagree.  Paine  ^u/c 11:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

These appear to be subnational titles. Why do we need to include them? If they do need to be included, I would do it the way the requester suggests, since our articles on jurisdictions like the federal states of Germany do in fact use "Minister President" (for those in which that's the title; some, like Berlin, have a different one). Our article at Minister-president may in fact be incorrect about usage. If there's a question about this, I would suggest RfCing it. Just because WP articles are using it doesn't mean it's common, but they may be using it because it is.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

So, what do we have to do to implement that parameter? Articles like Matthias Platzeck, List of Ministers-President of Austria, Minister President of Prussia, List of Ministers-President of Brandenburg and also Minister-President of the Walloon Region clearly use that term. So infoboxes of federal ministers referring to their "boss" should be able to use Minister President as well and not Prime Minister. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 06:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Height again

I'm confused. I came to the Talk page here thinking there was a |height = line in this infobox. It's right there in Template:Infobox officeholder#Personal data. But I searched the archive before starting my new section and found, most recently, 'Height again!' from 2014 with the clear sense that there was no |height = option in the infobox. It's one of half a dozen or so archive entries with 'height' mentioned. 'Heightism' is mentioned also in the archive discussions.

My case in point is Donald Trump. There's been a bit of a controversy about the President-elect's height, I've found, nicely summarized here in "Trump's driver's license casts doubt on height claims" by Darren Samuelsohn in Politico today: Public, televised assertion by the P-e, "an open-records request" yielding contrary evidence, an “it irritates him" assertion et c. I first added the basic '6 ft 2 in or 6 ft 3 in' info to the 'Personal life' part of the text of the article -- just noting the options and letting the source do the rest -- and at last check it resided there still. I worried that 'height' and 'life' don't fully work together and thought about renaming the umbrella section just 'Personal'. Then I thought about the infobox and tried to do the '|height =' personal-data addition there. I wasn't sure it could handle the 'or' part of the text but was beginning to accept it would just have the P-e's assertion with the cite doing all the rest. In any event, nothing. No sign of 'Height' in a preview of the edit. I placed it after 'other party' as it's placed in the template listing.

Without having reviewed the archives in detail, I assume either the line has been blocked or eliminated somehow despite its being on the template listing; or it's somehow been blocked in the P-e usage of the template or in the Donald Trump infobox usage alone. I go into the particulars of my case at some length here because wherever it's been blocked I think the case gives good reason to revisit the blockage.

Or maybe I'm just using the infobox wrong. If that's so, I am sorry for all the detail and hope one can set me straight. I have just now tested | pronunciation = Trump and | branch [of military] = none solely for test purposes, also to no avail, so there's definitely something I don't understand here.

Cheers and thanks. Swliv (talk) 17:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 28 December 2016

I think we should add a coalition parameter to the Infobox. There are many politicians in coalitions around the world, and in some nations coalitions may actually be more important than political parties. (such as how the Italian coalition The Other Europe was more powerful than the parties in the coalition) Overall, I don't really see why we shouldn't have it. Gavinjgrotegut (talk) 15:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Disagree because a)this doesn't give us necessarily any information about the subject of the article; b) the addition would be meaningless without the addition of a mass of other information, e.g. constituents of the coalition, nature of the coalition (whether formal or informal), date of creation and if appropriate end of coalition, etc., which would make the infobox unwieldy. "Not really seeing why we don't" have it is not a reason why we should.--Smerus (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Ordering of offices

I apologize if this question has already been asked (I did search the archives), but is there any facility in this template for specifying whether the offices are to be displayed in ascending order vs. descending order? In other words, if an infobox lists three "office" fields, "office1" thru "office3," is there any way to set it to display "office3" first in the infobox, followed by "office2" and "office1"?

I am asking because I have run into many infoboxes that list the titles in reverse chronological order, where "office1" is the most recent or current office, and "office2" is the previous one, "office3" before that, etc. See John McCain for example. When the officeholder moves to a new office (if McCain were to become President, for example), the editor must insert the new office as the new "office1," and renumber all of the other offices to fit into the sequence. With eight offices to renumber in McCain's case, there's a lot of room for error.

If there were a switch to specify "descending sort," then the "bottom" office could be "office1" and when the officeholder moves to a new position, the new one could be added with the next number in sequence, eliminating the need to renumber the old offices. Does this facility already exist? Phlar (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Numbering

Howdy. What's the views on numbering office holders, in their infoboxes? We've sorta gotta disputes going on at Joyce Banda, Paula Cox, Alex Scott. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

To avoid repetition, my position can be found on Talk:Joyce_Banda#Numbering. If GoodDay finally has a rational counter-argument, or anyone else has more to say than "I like the numbers" etc., I'll be glad to discuss. Note that this is a general issue, these particular articles are just random places where conflicts occurred. It affects thousands of articles where such bogus numbers are used, almost all added by GoodDay, or by others after him mindlessly intending to "establish consistency" with the numbers used "everywhere else." Mewulwe (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd have less of a problem with your anti-numbering stance, if you'd apply it evenly. Removing Banda's numbering, while not removing the numberings from her predecessors or successor's infoboxes is a problem. Same thing at Paula Cox & Alex Scott infoboxes. You deleted the numberings there, but not from the infoboxes of the rest of the Burmuda premiers. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't need to have 10 edit wars with you at once. If you stop reverting, the other numbers would be removed too. However, I can't be responsible for removing all the thousands of numbers you added. Once a policy against using such numbers is agreed on, they will disappear soon enough. Mewulwe (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

It would help until then, if you'd stop removing numberings. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I 100% support numbering in the case of established numbering systems which are recognised by their governments, I would also be in favour of numbering for major office holders (elected heads of states/governments) if we a consistent method is applied (i.e. repeats are numbered both times, acting leaders are not numbered, etc). I think this would allow extra info without becoming unwieldy Lalichii (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

First thing is not in dispute. As for the other, no. Even if a consistent method could be applied, this would be arbitrary, yet, since the method could hardly be explained in every infobox, would give the false impression of being absolute. But aside from the different possible counting methods of one and the same list, you have to also consider that in many cases the lists themselves are not cast in stone. If a change is made in a list, one might have to re-number dozens of articles. Mewulwe (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Generally no but include on a case-by-case basis: numbering should only be used when there is well established use of such numbering in reliable sources. For example it makes a certain amount of sense to number US Presidents, but it would make no sense to number UK Prime Ministers. To establish numbering you one should be able to point to widespread reliable secondary sources which use the same numbering system, and which refer to individuals as, e.g., "the 4th President of Malawi" and not just "the former President of Malawi". Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Contrary to Mewulwe's claim, I haven't went across many officer holder infoboxes & added numberings. GoodDay (talk) 13:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, that wasn't aimed at anyone in particular; now edited for clarity. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Using the Malawi presidents as an example, if Mewulwe had deleted the numbering from the infoboxes of all 5 individuals? it wouldn't be a problem. Instead, he only deleted from Banda's infobox, thus throwing the series of articles into inconsistency. GoodDay (talk) 13:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Consistency in editing is a good thing, but inconsistency in editing is not an argument for any particular version. In the case of Banda the description "fourth President of Malawi" is used occasionally, but is much rarer than "former President" or "first female President", so I see little reaon for numbering in this specific case. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't mind the numbering being removed from Banda, if it were also removed from the infoboxes of her predecessors & successor. It makes no sense to have 1st President of Malawai, 2nd..., 3rd..., nothing then 5th... GoodDay (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Now, if we could just get Mewulwe to apply deletions evenly as you just did, there'd be less commotion. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I have always argued they all should be removed. But when you reverted me on Banda already, I naturally didn't bother with the others before you'd stop. And anyway I can't remove all such numbers on my own, I will do so as I come across them. If there's no further objection here in the next days, I'll boldly put up a policy as per the position expressed by myself and Jonathan above. Then I guess some gnomes just need to be pointed to that and the numbers will be gone soon enough. Mewulwe (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

But you can remove them all, by yourself. Anyways, it would indeed be helpful if a guideline for numbering were established. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Should predecessors and successors be included in officeholders' infoboxes?

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 predecessors and successors continue to be part of the 'Infobox officeholder' template? And should it continue to be general practice to include them in officeholders' articles? Example of an article which includes this info: Barack Obama. Example of an article which does not: Michael Portillo. Specto73 (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Yes: The inclusion of predecessors and successors in officeholders' infobox templates has been a useful and valuable feature of Wikipedia for many years, which aids navigation between pages and helps readers put politicians into their historical context. Moreover, as such information is generally not available in the body of an article it is very tiresome for readers, especially those using a mobile device, to have to scroll through a subject's article (which, in the case of a notable figure, can be very long) to get to the footer template to find it. Conversely, the inclusion of predecessors and successors does not overly clog up infoboxes and it does not damage their aesthetic quality, readability or ease of use. To illustrate the broad base of past precedent and consensus which supports the inclusion of predecessors and successors in officeholders' infoboxes, let me give some examples of politicians whose predecessors and successors are named in their article's infobox: Barack Obama, George W Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, George Washington, Margaret Thatcher, Henry Kissinger. Indeed, all past U.S. Presidents, U.K. Prime Ministers, and other important political leaders include such information in their infobox; virtually no articles, however, omit it. Specto73 (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
• Of course. What is the argument against this very useful information? – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Some of the arguments against are a) that it's meta-information about the office, not information about the subject her/himself; and b) it's redundant, because we have page-bottom navigation templates specifically for succession series.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
    • A better argument is the bottom one is redundant and less useful, and rarely seen. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
• Optionally. The features should be retained in the relevant infobox templates (officeholders, albums, etc. – there are various unrelated templates that use a succession format of one kind or another), and use of them subject to article-by-article consensus. In particular, a short bio should use the infobox fields and not use the page-bottom succession nav templates, since the former is a more concise presentation. A longer, richly detailed article with an already-complicated infobox should probably use just the page-bottom nav templates, and keep the infobox lean. Infoboxes become less effective the more trivia is shoved into them.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
• Should be decided at each individual article. Contents of infoboxes are determined at each individual article per unanimous ArbCom ruling and longstanding consensus at the style guideline. DrKay (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
• Yes This is useful information and, though it technically pertains to the office instead of the person it provides an important biographical time setting for the subject of the article. Predecessor / Successor information should always be included in the infobox if it's available and the only reason an editor should have to object to the completion of these fields is in cases where there is a question of RS. LavaBaron (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
• Default No I can see the sense of inclusion where the person has held a relatively small number of posts. Where the person has held a large number of positions, (as is often the case in the UK system with alternating Govt and 'shadow' positions) the sheer volume of info detracts from, rather than enhances the account of the individual, or even of his/her political career and simply becomes a complicated account of the office itself. For this reason I would support SMcCandlish's proposal of keeping the template, but judging on a case by case basis whether the use is actually helpful. Pincrete (talk) 20:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
• Usually no, I looked at Obama now, and find the information distracting in the infobox, much clearer in the bottom navbox. I'd also support the proposal to keep the infobox option for cases when it seems useful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
• Sometimes but default no. Broadly speaking, I don't think it's helpful to have an overarching "These must always be included" or "These must never be included" rule - it depends on the circumstances, and is best decided at the article rather than template level. In some cases it may be key, in many cases it will be clutter. Officeholder boxes tend to be on the overly long side (per Pincrete), which reduces their usefulness for many readers and contradicts the spirit of MOS:INFOBOX. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
• No. We already have a standard place for predecessors and successors go, and that's in a succession box at the bottom of the article where they can all be grouped together. The fact is that successors or predecessors in office are not actually a biographical detail of the person, but rather of the office itself. That's the pertinent difference I see in whether it belongs in the infobox or not. Co-office holders, on the other hand, could be appropriate, since they work with the officeholder subject. I picked a random article with this infobox and found Paul Moriarty (politician) which shows perfectly how succession boxes can be implemented and how much all the information about predecessors and successors clogs up the infobox, drowning out actual biographical detail. VanIsaac_WS^cont 23:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
• Yes in general. Who a person takes over from and who they pass the baton to is generally part of the information pertinent to their career. In some cases, however, particularly with multiple offices held, it can overload the infobox so should be omitted when there is consensus to do so. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
• Keep in general. As noted above, there could be cases of long-standing MPs who have alternated between government and opposition roles. I would think that if the infobox is growing too long, I would drop shadow cabinet positions entirely from it, as these tend to be less significant (and predecessor/successor is essentially meaningless if it occurs at change of government). --Scott Davis ^Talk 01:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
• In general, it is much better if they are at the bottom. Certainly against an insistence that they should be in the main infobox, where they can create far too long a box. Johnbod (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

With respect, any 'office holder' article is about the person, not the office. In the case of a longstanding MP, their roles in opposition can be as significant as their roles in Govt. Their may well though be an argument for omitting (or hiding) minor early roles. Pincrete (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Absolutely Yes: AIs like Google Now and Siri get their information from infoboxes and in mobile searches I see the infobox first and it provides a fast way to access the next person. It is also the primary navigation method I use when reading for fun, rather than to answer a specific question. I am sure it is that way for others. I rarely make it to the bottom of an article if my question is answered at the top of the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
• Often, but include on a case by case basis - sometimes this feature can be very useful, in other cases it produces serious info-box bloat. We should always be selective about the information we communicate to a reader through an infobox. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
• Generally no. Per Pincrete and Nikkimaria, these parameters seem to act as attractive nuisances, tempting editors to bloat the infobox with extra detail. Succession boxes are at the bottom of the page precisely so that they can be comprehensive without eating huge amounts of screen real estate. The lead and infobox should be devoted to the most relevant information about a person, not "trivia that I like to browse without bothering to scroll". I'd lean towards removing the parameters in favor of some ad hoc solution for the few cases where it's really worthwhile; the temptation they create to re-do an entire succession box in the infobox outweighs their value, IMO. Choess (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
• The proposer has in fact asked two quite separate questions.

• To question one ('Should predecessors and successors continue to be part of the 'Infobox officeholder' template? ') the answer is clearly Yes. In the discussion which precipitated this RfC, which I recommend editors who have not read it to peruse, no one suggested removing these qualifiers; the only issue was whether they should be regarded somehow as compulsory.
• Question two ('should it continue to be general practice to include them in officeholders' articles?') is in fact a non-question. General practices may or may not persist; the question here is WP procedures. I refer to User:Nikkimaria's and User:Pincrete's responses above, and I agree with them and some other editors that these qualifiers are optional, not compulsory. I am not aware of any WP guideline stating that template parameters should be regarded as compulsory. Disagreements can be resolved by RfCs at individual articles. In fact, as I understand it, the general WP is that such disagreements should be resolved locally, and I do not comprehend how this RfC could override that.

The examples given by the proposer, Obama and Portillo, indicate exactly the weakness of suggesting that these qualifiers should be in any way compulsory. Obama is a head of state: his article gives three offices, with predecessors and successors; entirely reasonable. Portillo was a politician from 1984 to 2005, since when he has been a broadcaster. He is perhaps best known today for his TV documentaries on rail travel, etc. His template does not mention his present career; but lists seven offices (the predecessors and successors to which have been removed, in a move which was supported by the following RfC). The inclusion of predecessors and supporters is clearly disproportionate here (WP:UNDUE); no one following Portillo's career in an infobox is likely to be concerned as to who preceded him as Secretary of State of Employment. Moreover, contrary to the standards of WP:INFOBOX, many (or maybe most) of the names of the predecessors and successors were not even mentioned in the article, and were therefore not sourced. The relevant information is all available in templates at the foot of the article. It was for these reasons that the successors/predecessors were removed; the RfC at the article supported this.

• There are other issues which relate to Infobox Officeholder for British politicians (e.g. repetitive naming of a Prime Minister under which they served) and I will be bringing up an RfC with proposals on these issues on this page when the present discussion is resolved. I note that the 'Infobox officeholder' template is categorized entirely under US political template categories, and it may be a consequence of differences between UK and US political institutions and customs that the problems of this thread and of my proposed RfC have arisen.--Smerus (talk) 07:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I would gently remind Smerus that the reason I chose Portillo as an example was that, to put it bluntly, no other examples exist and that, as I recall it, the argument at the Portillo RfC was based on the idea that either a) this information is not "key facts" and therefore never qualifies for inclusion (which I think this RfC has refuted) or b) that it overly "clogs up" the infobox and makes it visually unappealing – we are not artists, we are writers. Specto73 (talk) 09:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I would forcefully say to Specto73, "So what?" I am not rearguing the Portillo RfC, which is settled, but responding to the present one.--Smerus (talk) 09:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• Yes - I believe that this is something that consumers of Wikipedia content very frequently use and navigation would be rendered significantly more difficult without.--Rpclod (talk) 11:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Without any doubt Yes, it is absurd to be asking this question, in my mind, as the arguments in favour of inclusion (ease of access for readers, important information in one place, &c) are so much stronger than those against (personal preference, purported duplication). Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 11:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• The argument hinges on your reading of "importance". Is the fact that Bush preceded Obama as president important enough to include? I think most people would say yes. What about the fact that Obama was an Illinois senator between Palmer and Raoul? I think most people won't know or care who those individuals are. We don't want to prohibit the former, but we also shouldn't mandate the latter. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, but keep them Optional For those promoting "ease of access for users", remember that adding them adds two lines of information about other people for each office held before you get to most of the information about the subject of the article. For people that have held a lot of minor posts, that could be a big issue. Chuntuk (talk) 13:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Generally yes, with a 'strong preference' for consistency for major offices There are major offices (like President of the U.S.) and minor ones (like Chair of the G8). We need a place to put all of them, which is currently the bottom footer. This is good for completeness, but it means the bottom footer is nearly impossible to use to quickly navigate from king to king, minister to minister, secretary to secretary. You have to scroll down past all the references, find the right office, click show and hide, then repeat for the next one. (Try this for five officeholders before you vote!) So, for the major offices, we need an easy, consistent place to put the links, ideally near the top of the page. (Try this too!) That's the infobox. While it is slightly less aesthetic, a long infobox isn't even an inconvenience, but breaking the links between officeholders creates a major inconvenience for the student who is going from king to king, or the reader who is interested in a particular office, or the reader who is trying to find who held an office when a particular issue came up, but can't remember exactly when . . . all classic uses of an encyclopedia. Chris vLS (talk) 02:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

But how valid is "navigating from king to king" as a use case? If you're interested in a particular king, wouldn't you use search to go straight to their page? If you're interested in an office, or want to know who held it on a given date, wouldn't you go to the page about the office instead of grinding through all the office-holders? Chuntuk (talk) 22:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Chuntuk. This is why these discussions are great. I see this use case as extremely common. (It would never occur to me that it wasn't!) The case for going from king to king, or president to president is when you are studying an era in history, or studying an issue across officeholders. I know that in my area, students outline history classes king by king, or president by president to review. If you are studying a person, the succession is non-core. But if you are studying an era or an issue, following the chain of succession is core. Chris vLS (talk) 06:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

• 'Generally yes But only for their most important position. It would seem inapropriate to have a Predecessor/Successor for Commander of OKH for Adolf Hitler for example.--Adam in MO Talk 04:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Default no. Looking at Churchill, his massively long infobox is unwieldy and mostly pointless. Knowing he was preceded by The Viscount Milner and succeeded by the Duke of Devonshire as Secretary of Stae for the Colonies in the 1920s does not aid anyone's understanding of Churchill at all. Trying to scroll through the endless lists of names on a mobile to get to the lead is soul destroying! The ephemeral information on other holders of an office is non-core information; the MoS guidelines state that "the less information [an infobox] contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance". Predecessors and successors are not "key facts" by any stretch. - The Bounder (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• ’’’Yes’’’ While I can understand the occasional exception, I think the general rule of thumb should be yes. The Happy Warrior (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Generally no but include on a case by case basis. Many articles suffer from severe infobox bloat, entirely contrary to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE which states that infoboxes exist "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article" and "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." I can see that for some very major offices it makes sense to put the officeholder in context by listing predecessors and successors, but in most cases this information is of specialist interest only and should be confined to the succession boxes at the bottom of the article. See Pope John Paul I for a good example of how things should be done (predecessor and successor only for the papacy) and Winston Churchill as an example of severe bloat. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Informational Nirvana must be an empty infobox since "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves ..." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• No - IMHO these are better off in the little tables at the bottom of the article, Most "predecessor and "successor" are normally in most article ledes so I don't really see the need to include it in the ib. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 01:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Most officeholders' ledes don't seem to include this information; see Margaret Thatcher or Barack Obama. Specto73 (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Like most readers, I find the fact I am looking for then stop reading, so I never make it to the bottom of the page. Most people are not reading for pleasure, they are there to find a specific fact. The closer to the top, the easier to find. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• No this detail is better discussed within article body. The infobox isn't supposed to be stuffed with too much detail, and the focus really should be on the individual in office rather than who came in right after or before. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• Yes it should continue to be part of the template, but No it should not be standard practice to include them. Predecessor/successor information doesn't tell much about the person who is the subject of the infobox. As a general guideline, I feel that, if predecessors/successors need to be summarized in a table, they should always be in a succession box instead of an infobox. Phlar (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, but standard practice should tend towards only having the most important offices in the infobox (e.g. in a Westminster system, the constituency they represent, Cabinet posts, and the speakership would be included, but chairing a committee or being part of a committee wouldn't be). ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, while avoiding excess mentions for minor offices of a person otherwise more notable for higher offices. — JFG ^talk 08:51, 29 January 2017 (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.

Template-protected edit request on 6 February 2017

I added "image_upright" in the sandbox. It should be included to modify image scale while to respect user's preferences per WP:IMGSIZE. template:infobox person has one. George Ho (talk) 07:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Done — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Also added "image_upright" in the "if" preview portion (or how else do you call it?) of the sandbox. Should be added. --George Ho (talk) 20:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Collapsing some of the offices

I notices that several articles are using a hack to collapse some of the offices in the infobox, e.g., see Floriano Peixoto and Margaret Thatcher. it occurred to me that we could add this as a feature to this infobox. would this be useful, or is it too much for under 100 articles (see what links to Template:Collapsed infobox section begin)? Frietjes (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• I use it where the box runs way past the text. I stop the box info at the bottom the text as it fits on my standard aspect ratio monitor. It is rare where this happens. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I think in some cases it's entirely unnecessary to fill in "successor" and "predecessor" boxes, especially when they can be found on the bottom of the page anyhow. What we've done for Chinese politics articles is grouping together some offices and collapsing it on the bottom of the infobox (see Xi Jinping, Hu Jintao); I think some Israeli politicians follow a template with only the positions listed but no predecessor/successor fields. Colipon+(Talk) 19:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
• I like the idea of collapsing some offices as a way to deal with infobox bloat, but I've noticed that the hack described above has no effect in mobile view. For example, I collapsed some offices in Lien Chan, and now these offices are hidden by default, and can be revealed using the "show" link, if viewed in a desktop browser. But when I visit the page on an iOS device, the mobile view doesn't collapse these offices, and there's no show/hide link. This is unfortunate, because mobile view is where I find infobox bloat most problematic, since mobile users have to scroll & scroll past the entire infobox before they get to see the lead. If the "collapse" feature we're "officially" added to this infobox template, would it then begin to function in mobile view, too? Phlar (talk) 10:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Chief minister slot

Hi, i would like to request a slot "chief minister" be added into this infobox. There are many instances where a office holder has been a member of a provincial cabinet in which case having Chief minister name would be must. --Saqib (talk) 11:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• I have no opinion on your request to add a "chief minister" parameter to the template, but I'll just point out that you can add it on a case-by-case basis using |1blankname= and |1namedata=. Phlar (talk) 11:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

| other_names

Does this field exist here or is it under a different name? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

From looking at the code, this field is not implemented in this template. Officeholder only has |birth_name, and |nickname is part of the Miltary Service section. If needed, you could use Infobox person with this template embedded in order to use the parameter. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 15:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

non-political offices?

Should this be used for non-political offices? e.g. Business positions? I notice Bill Gates doesn't have "CEO of Microsoft" (etc) in the info box. Should he have? What about people who are heads of charities or non-commerical, non-business entities? ____Ebelular (talk) 08:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Note that Satya Nadella does have "CEO of Microsoft" in the info box. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

But as occupation. Would it acceptable to change the Infobox person to Infobox officeholder and add office=CEO of Microsoft|term_start=2014? That's what I'm asking ____Ebelular (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

That would be inappropriate, in my opinion. I believe Infobox officeholder is intended for political office holders, specifically people whose notability is based on the political offices that they hold or have held. Even if Gates has held a political office (has he?), his notability comes from other aspects of his life. Phlar (talk) 16:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Default name

Please remove default name appearing without using name parameter in case the infobox is used as a module in infobox person. Eg. Yogi Adityanath -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 10:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Capankajsmilyo, I fixed it for you. you didn't tell the infobox it was being embedded. Frietjes (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Frietjes -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 18:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Political party

The infobox is being used on various polical bios, a lot of whom had been a part of multiple political parties. Some of them contain all parties in a single tab, while others have divided it into party and other parties. Further, some contain the period of association while others don't. Can we bring some standardisation into this? How about we introduce |party= |party2= |party3= along with |party_start= |party_end= for each. For visible content, we can group all older parties in a single tab along with tenure in "small" tag in template coding itself. This will allow users without knowledge of various codes, to present party info more appropriately. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 18:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Some of them contain all parties in a single tab, while others have divided it into party and other parties. Could you provide links to some examples as a basis for discussion? Phlar (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Eg, Rita Bahuguna contains multiple parties in a single tab, while Shazia Ilmi uses both the tabs. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 18:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

For more examples, you can check Category:Pages using infobox officeholder with an atypical party value. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 01:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the examples. Based on what I've seen, I'm OK with your proposal. Care would need to be taken to implement this feature in a way that |Party1=, |Party2=, etc. are not associated with |Term1=, |Term2=, etc. in layout. Phlar (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Political party logo

I have added the party logo in some of the infoboxes. But certain users have opposed it. Is it possible to open it for RFC? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 07:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

This was discussed in Archive 1 (2006) and Archive 14 (2010), and maybe more recently (I only searched for "logo" in the archive search box, not possible alternative terms such as "graphic" or "flag"). The discussion didn't go very far in 2010, but I agree with another user's comment: Adding political party logos beside the name of the party would serve no encyclopedic purpose and would be purely decorative. It would be in violation of WP:ICONDECORATION. Phlar (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's used on various other Infoboxes. For example Shivaji, Maratha, Sikh Empire -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 18:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how your addition of a party logo to the infobox on Shazia Ilmi adds any value to the reader. It's purely decorative, and I find it distracting & confusing (what is that thing?). Phlar (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Have you seen the examples, I've highlighted above? What value do they bring in? Are they merely decorative and distractive too? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 16:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

My take:

• Shivaji: the flag next to his title should be removed per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. This page uses Template:Infobox royalty, where I see nothing in the documentation advising that it should be exempt from MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. It does contain a warning to "AVOID FLAGCRUFT" in the context of |birth_place=.
• Maratha: the icon next to the religion should be removed per WP:ICONDECORATION. It's purely decorative--adds zero information to the article. The subject of this page is not an individual person, so I don't see that it has much bearing on the current discussion about Infobox officeholder.
• Sikh Empire: This page is about an empire, so it also does not have much bearing on this discussion. That said...
  - The flags near the top of the infobox are fine, of course.
  - The predecessor/successor flags seem like overkill to me, but I would not change them, even though I think bullets would serve just as well.
  - However, I don't see any need to include the flags for China, India and Pakistan at the bottom of the box. They take up too much space and call too much attention to themselves. I would remove them and list the countries as a line of text, separated by commas: China, India, Pakistan

Phlar (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

future terms

Is there a standard way of using this infobox to represent terms in office that have not started yet? I am thinking of elections that have been held and the results declared before the winners take office. My specific example is the Western Australian Legislative Council where candidates were elected on 11 March for terms to begin on 22 May. If we use |term_start=22 May 2017 it shows them as "incumbent", which is currently wrong. Thank you. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

If you specify the incumbent's name after |succeeding=, the "Incumbent" label should disappear from the resulting infobox and "Assumed office [date]" should become "Taking office [date]." Phlar (talk) 12:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. How should this work with multi-member electorates where several of them will change at once? As the Liberal Party has lost quite a few seats in the LC, there is not alwas a one-to-one correspondence of retiring and incoming MLCs. For example in Electoral region of East Metropolitan it would be completely arbitrary to allocate the new Greens and One Nation MLCs to a particular outgoing Liberal one, ignoring the Labor ones. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

You might try experimenting with one of the "-elect" sub-templates, such as "Infobox representative-elect." Hopefully someone else will come along with a better answer than this—you've stumped me. Phlar (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Embedding modules

This template already has many params of Template:Infobox military person. I suggest either merge the infobox into this one, or remove those params from this so that the said infobox can be embedded into this one. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 02:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Disagree with merging; what parameters would you propose removing? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

allegiance, service/branch, years of service, rank, unit, commands and battles/wars -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 04:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Image not visible

The image on Ranjit Singh is not visible. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 15:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Fixed it - some curly brackets were in the wrong place. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks John of Reading -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 15:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

website parameter

What is the intention for the website parameter? For example, articles P.G._Sittenfeld and Chris_Seelbach_(politician) use it for .com promotional sites. Article John Cranley uses the .gov site provided by the office. I have directed editors to this question from WP:RS/N, where I asked other similar WP:RS questions not related to this template here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RS_for_politicians. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Religion parameter

Supposedly, it was determined at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes that the religion parameter be removed from bio infoboxes. So, either it should be removed from this template or at least the message: "Do not insert religious denominations in this parameter by themselves; always enter the religion first. Also note that per WP:BLPCAT, categories or infobox statements regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources. Please provide source or discuss in Talk for 1°) a public statement and 2°) relevance to the subject's notability before adding any religious affiliation." needs to be changed (and hopefully shortened). --Musdan77 (talk) 02:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

You are correct, and I agree. See below for similar concerns. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Religion RfC

The documentation for this infobox includes a long (visible) comment with the usual disclaimers about the religion field. However, is there a reason religion is present in this infobox given its removal from {{Infobox person}}? Please see Template talk:Infobox person#Religion in other infoboxes. Johnuniq (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

You are correct. Unless the religion is a substantial piece of the notability of the person, it ought not be used. See Elizabeth II who appears to be head of the Church of England but whose infobox does not include her religion. Collect (talk) 13:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

It appears to be a simple standardization issue across related templates. User:RexxS was leading the implementation of the community decision (see here for example), but the wheels of Wikipedia turn slowly. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Parameter for Chief Minister

I need information about a parameter named "Chief Minister" in the "Infobox Indian politician". I need to add the Chief Minister's name when I write the politician's Ministerial term, since the Chief Minister in India is the head of the State Government and his responsibily is "first among equals". The cabinet enjoys a collective responsibilty. But the paramter for "Chief Minister" seems not present. Could someone pelase guide me about this? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbdessai (talk • contribs) 20:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kbdessai: I have moved your new section to the bottom of the page, per WP:TALKNEW. If I understand your request correctly, you could accomplish it using |1blankname= and |1namedata=, for example |1blankname=Chief Minister and |1namedata=Pema Khandu. Phlar (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Phlar: It helped, thanks! But I wnt the 1blankname=Chief Minister and |1namedata=Pema Khandu on the same link. For further reference, kindly refer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishwajit_Pratapsingh_Rane edited by me.

Template-protected edit request on 12 April 2017

Please add {{subst:tfd}}, per a nomination by Dabao qian Pppery 21:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Party tenure

I have started the discussion before, would like to relist for RFC. There should be params like party_start and party_end for politicians who have switched between parties. The display, however, should be using small template showing the duration besides party name. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 03:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 April 2017

Please replace | data31 = {{{spouse|}}} with {{#invoke:Wikidata|getValue|P26|{{{spouse|FETCH_WIKIDATA}}}}}. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 11:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Please gain consensus for this change first. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 May 2017

Replace image and caption with

| image = {{#invoke:InfoboxImage|InfoboxImage|image={{#invoke:Wikidata|getValue|P18|{{{image|FETCH_WIKIDATA}}}}}|size={{{image size|{{{image_size|{{{imagesize|}}}}}}}}}|sizedefault=frameless|upright={{{image_upright|1}}}|alt={{{alt|}}}|suppressplaceholder=yes}}

| caption = {{{image caption|{{{caption|{{{image_caption|{{#invoke:Wikidata|getImageLegend|FETCH_WIKIDATA}}}}}}}}}}} -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 09:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, please gain consensus for this change. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

the proposed code is flawed, you should only load the caption from wikidata if you load the image from wikidata. otherwise, you risk having a caption that doesn't match the image. Frietjes (talk) 13:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Religion in officeholder infoboxes

Should we remove from Template:Infobox officeholder the |religion= parameter (and the associated |denomination= one)?. --Anandmoorti (talk) 05:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I would think so, per the WP:VPPOL RfCs removing those parameters, across the board, from all infoboxes in which their inclusion was not vital to the nature of the infobox because it is for a religious leader, and where its use could be confusing or PoV, which is certainly going to be the case with politicians. It was in fact that very use (at Bernie Sanders) that triggered the RfC to be held in the first place.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@Anandmoorti: PS, you could start the conversation there simply by copy-pasting the above post and reponse to the template's talk page, if you didn't want to open a more formal proposal. I would suggest not to just go remove the parameters, or it will probably cause a predictable shitstorm. There are many people convinced (wrongly in my view) that religion is a vital parameter in politician templates, and they need to be out-argued the long way.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish:--Anandmoorti (talk) 03:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The religion label should be removed. Also see Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 21#Religion parameter. Johnuniq (talk) 03:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Please give your opinion on this issue should we remove religion level from the template infobox. @Robert McClenon: @Mduvekot: @Jayron32: @Ajraddatz: @Mandruss: @Curly Turkey:, @Pigsonthewing: @JzG:.--Anandmoorti (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: help nobody is commenting please go ahead and delete the religion parameter I can't because I don't have access to edit the page.--Anandmoorti (talk) 04:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to decline to do this myself, for blood pressure reasons.  :-/ I have too many grossly uncivil edit stalkers who like to revert me on anything relating to infoboxes, even when I obviously have an RfC consensus behind me. I would ask an admin to do it [update: I have done so below], or open an RfC about whether there's some alleged reason this template should be exempt from the results of the RfC, even though the RfC was specifically triggered by this parameter in politicians' infoboxes to begin with.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

---

Here's the most recent relevant RfC:

• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes (closed 11 April 2016): consensus to remove the religion and denomination parameters from {{Infobox person}} and its derivatives, with the exception of the infobox for religious leaders, for whom they are necessarily relevant. This RfC was triggered by disputes about Bernie Sanders, and very explicitly applies to politicians.

  That is more than enough, though it came on the heels of several other RfCs (mostly at Template talk:Infobox person) concluding that use of these parameters (and ethnicity, which was removed from bio infoboxes in another RfC around the same time as the one linked above) had proven problematic as infobox data, e.g. describing nations as collectively having a religion, labeling atheism and agnosticism as religions, etc.

  I'm not going to make the edit myself, because the TemplateEditor bit is for technical work, not for making changes to templates that involve consensus interpretation or enforcement. An admin should do it, as an administrative action to implement the results of repeated consensus discussion outcomes about this – including at Village Pump, our broadest set of eyeballs and brains, not just on "local consensus" infobox talk pages.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

  • I think Fram has already removed the religion field, and saw that there is no "denomination". That appears to be the case so I removed {{Editprotected}}. Is something more needed? Johnuniq (talk) 08:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I have removed religion. A first test shows that the template still works, but that you get a warning in preview if you use the religion parameter. I haven't found "denomination" in the template though. Fram (talk) 06:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Denomination may've been removed previously. I was just responding to the request, made here and on my talk page, to remove both parameters; I didn't go digging in the code. I'm not sure why I got the request to begin with; maybe because I was involved in the RfC and am a TE.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Great job @Fram: for removing the parameter from the infobox, but in "Personal data" and "TemplateData" area section religion definition has not been removed completely, I guess may be you forgot.--Anandmoorti (talk) 04:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

? I can't find it, perhaps you mean in the documentation? I think anyone can update this if needed. Fram (talk) 04:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Right I'm talking about the documentation. Since you missed it that's why I notified you.--Anandmoorti (talk) 05:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

This apparently was corrected by User:Hddty. this morning already, thanks! Fram (talk) 07:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Fram: Maybe you should make a tracking category for religion. Hddty. (talk) 13:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

These are included in (under "R"), I don't think making separate tracking categories for each parameter is useful. Fram (talk) 08:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Disagree @Fram: It has already been removed one I disagree with that, there should be rule for citation but religion should remain, same as political party. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 11:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm just implementing the RfC result. And in any case I think "political party" is more precise and in general more important for infobox officeholder (if it is a religion-based party, the party affiliation will give information about the religion anyway: if it is not a religion-based party, then how important is religion for the office anyway in most cases?) Religion is only removed from the infobox: for persons where it is important, it can still be mentioned in the article (and in the first sentence of the lead for those people where it is crucial), and in categories, so it is not as if their religion is removed from the articles. Fram (talk) 11:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Mayor

As with president/PM/chancellor/governor/etc., it would be useful to be able to denote the mayors individuals serve under (e.g. in the case of deputy mayors); I'm attempting to insert an infobox on Xavier Breton but no equivalent parameter exists. Mélencron 20:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Alma mater include drop-outs ?

There is an RFC at Melania Trump Talk page Over whether to list Alma Mater for Maelania Trump since she did not complete the college. Please do make a comment at here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markbassett (talk • contribs) 05:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

This is rehash. The answer is "no".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

SMcCandlish ☺ -- rehash where ? The template archives discuss Alma some, but do not seem to deal with the aspect and points like dropouts (Barbara Bush or when to say Education instead for drop out Bill Clinton. Whether to use guidance from IM Person is also of interest -- but in any case, a RFP on usage of this template seems like it should be noted at the template involved. (Even if it may be more about the individual reactions than the precedents or the intended use of the template.) Markbassett (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't keep a running list of every recurrent discussion.  :-) Try the Advanced Search features to find previous threads, which most often happen in article talk pages: [1].  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Parliamentary group parameter

I'm attempting to update French politics articles right now (which for the most part are outdated) and in the process one of the things I'd like to do is ensure that articles on all current deputies and senators have a decent article (i.e. infobox and well-cited). One of the limitations of this template is that it doesn't allow specifying a parliamentary group parameter. This would prove useful in certain circumstances where the parliamentary group is not the same as the party affiliation: e.g., Nuihau Laurey is a Tapura Huiraatira politician, part of the UDI–UC parliamentary group (Senate elections listed by parliamentary group, not individual parties; UDI–UC group contains numerous parties). It'd be included within the main office set of parameters if added, between the current "majority" and "predecessor" instances. Mélencron 01:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Mélencron: I implemented |parliamentarygroup=, |parliamentarygroup2=, |parliamentarygroup3=, etc. at {{Infobox officeholder/sandbox}}. Does that do what you want? If so, I'll move it into the main template. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Yep, quick test with the sandbox template with "show preview" seems to indicate that it works fine. Thanks! Mélencron 18:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Mélencron: Done --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Home town

Mirroring {{Infobox person}}, I am hoping to add a parameter for the subject's home town. As with {{Infobox person}}, the parameter would be used when the subject's home town, as documented by reliable sources, is distinct from their birthplace. I have placed the proposed code in the template's sandbox. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Is there any objection? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 06:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

What article would it be used in? Johnuniq (talk) 07:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Any number of articles, of course, but I had Ilhan Omar in mind when making the request. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 08:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I suppose I am missing something obvious, but what exactly do you propose adding to that article, with what reliable source? Johnuniq (talk) 09:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

It is noted in the first sentence of the article after the lede. Despite having been born in Mogadishu, Omar was raised in Baydhabo. The reliable sources are footnoted in the article. Usage of the home_town parameter would be inline with the specifications in the documentation for {{Infobox person}} which says the parameter is for "The place where the person was raised and matured, if different from birthplace and residence." 142.160.131.202 (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

This looks good to me, with the caveat that it should only be used where different from birthplace, as noted. I can think of a number of prominent individuals who may be born in one place (for example, when a parent is on vacation or foreign assignment) which really has nothing to do with where they self-identify as being "from". TJRC (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree, and if the parameter is added, I think that such a caveat would need to be added to the template documentation, mirroring the language at Template:Infobox person/doc.

And these cases come up more than one would think. In the case of foreign assignment which you raised, for instance, I just had to add the parameter to an infobox for just that reason just a few days ago (at Billie Flynn). 142.160.131.202 (talk) 01:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Constituency Parameter Standardization Discussion

I feel that there needs to be a discussion about whether this parameter should become standardized or not for Members of the United States House of Representatives, current and former. Jajhill (talk) 03:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Puzzled about "honorific prefix"

I am puzzled as to why Vice President Andrew Johnson's honorific prefix is set as Brigadier General when a Veep would outrank a General. And why does Washington have the prefix of General of the Armies when the office of US President would outrank the military rank? And how about Alexander Hamilton who held the military rank of Major General and yet the prefix is missing from his infobox... If someone could just lay out in clear language, for Wikipedia's purposes, what an honorific-prefix actually is that would be most helpful to me. Shearonink (talk) 05:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Bold

User:SMcCandlish your last edits made honorific prefixes and suffixes appear bolded. I think this is unnecessary and somewhat distracting, especially for people with multiple prefixes and suffixes. Could it be fixed? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 11:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Done (for now – someone might object in the other direction). Some of these templates had the bold, some did not. If people want to argue pro or con, please centralize the discussion at Template talk:Infobox person#Honorifics boldfaced?.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 26 September 2017

May I request that "employer" be added to the Personal data template, below "occupation"? Greg (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

You can suggest it, but that's a discussion that needs to happen. It's not a {{edit template-protected}} request. What is the parameter for? What are the use cases? I don't know if you mean you want a parameter that identifies what government and division they work for, or what their additional private-sector job is, or what. Is it meant to be limited to current employer(s)? The most important question is probably, what problem are you trying to solve, and can you show that there really is a problem?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Religion for Officeholder Infoboxes

Apparently the topic of inclusion of religion in political officeholder infoboxes was already broached in the past, and was acted upon earlier this year. I only noticed recently when I went to check on some U.S. Senators religions, to find out that information had been deleted, as it used to be a standard part of the Infobox. With the removal of religion from the Infobox it certainly makes many of the Infoboxes irrelevant to any quick reference. Was this deleted for the simplify the efforts of Wikipedian editors, or to obfuscate the reasons for an officeholder's election, or to dumbdown the information that Wikipedia provides? It certainly does add to Wikipedia's efforts to become increasingly irrelevant in the digital future. So many politicians in the United States were historically and still are elected on religious grounds, so why would this pertinent information be removed from an infobox? The religion box would, in many cases, provide a foundation for an inquiring encyclopedia reader, to quickly understand why and how an officeholder represents their community. Yes, in some states it probably doesn't matter very much, but in more than half of the U.S. it is undoubtedly the difference between being elected or not. I am an atheist, but I do recognize that 90& of the U.S. openly believes in a god, which is comparable to the Islamic World or ardently Catholic nations. While secularism, especially in the United States, is a political goal of some, it should not be a factor in the decisionmaking that governs the design and navigation of an effective encyclopedia. The U.S. is one of the most religious nations in the world, and our politicians reflect that. Shouldn't Wikipedia provide information to readers, to reflect current reality? Isn't one of Wikipedia's alleged purposes, to provide a resource for quick information? With all due respect, the removal of this information was and is absurd. I cannot fathom the reasoning that might have gone into its removal, unless they were British, who are less susceptible to the ardent religious dogma, that is unique to the U.S. in Western Civilization, and so theorized that it wasn't germane to a political officeholder, because in the UK it probably less relevant. In the U.S., however, probably because the European populations that originally settled it were more religiously fanatical than their European counterparts, the U.S. has emerged as still heavily influenced politically by religion. It has actually actively shaped U.S. politics since the 1960s, when Kevin Phillips devised the so-called Southern Strategy for the Republican Party in 1968. That strategy - premised on religion - has elected how many U.S. presidents, including the current one? Why would religion have been taken out of the Officeholders Infobox, if that is the case? Stevenmitchell (talk) 01:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

See this discussion for background. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't even bother trying to bring it up again, there's a group of hardcore anti-religion editors who have decided that religion is so unimportant that no public figure can ever have it mentioned in their infobox, or at all . Look at John F. Kennedy – it's not even mentioned that he was the first Catholic president! "Infobox royalty" is the only one that seems to have escaped the purge, god knows why. Lots of articles had that information only in the infobox, so once the parameter was removed it just disappeared altogether. The editors involved aren't interested in being informative or helping the reader, they only want to push their POV and get a powerrush. If you try to go against them they all tag their mates and dogpile whatever discussion has been started. The last time I got involved I had a couple of them stalk my edits and generally try and bully me away. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I did some background research on the JFK article and it just shows how utterly delusional they are. Despite the massive impact of his religion on his political views and the anti-Catholic sentiment that he was subjected to during the campaign – both noted by every single one of his biographers – the fact that Kennedy was a Catholic is "not a trait he is prominently noted for", "not something that comes to mind when people think about him", and "trivia". His membership in the Motor Torpedo Squadron 2 and the number and size of the stars on his campaign medals should apparently be of more concern to the general reader, judging by their inclusion in the infobox. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 16:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I can't comment on the JFK article as I haven't read the talk page, but it isn't forbidden to add a custom parameter so if it's relevant there should be no problem, although I'd discuss it on the talk page first. Doug Weller talk 18:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Person who uses two names

How do we note that someone uses two different names? Specifically, Gopal Goyal Kanda also uses the name Gopal Kumar Goyal. This is significant because election papers will show the latter but the former is his common name and, seemingly, a legal alias. - Sitush (talk) 04:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

We need to add a new field "other names" in the template. Who will do it? --Saqib (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Sitush, you can always used the |native_name= parameter. since this fact is so incredibly important, I find it strange that it's not in the lead section of the article. Frietjes (talk) 14:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)