Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Templates Gone Wild!

This has probably been discussed somewhere before, but the way this template is being used is overkill. I know that's heresy on Wikipedia, where people enjoy making templates more than writing articles. ;-) I like making them too.

Take a typical example: John Major. This infobox shows us that he was Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary, etc., tells us the dates, and tells us who his predecessors and successors were. He's held enough offices that the template runs down several screen pages. About the only thing we don't learn from the infobox is his shoe size.

Near the bottom of the article, we get much of the same office holding information in a different form, via the succession boxes. I guess this is just in case you've forgotten who was Prime Minister before and after him, although you've been told in the infobox and in the text. But if you still forget, just below that we get another set of navigation templates, showing us all the Prime Ministers and Foreign secretaries, etc.

Overkill? I'd say so. Personally, I'd leave out all of the predecessors and successors from this template, since that information clutters the top of the article and is available in multiple forms below.

Now, do I think there's the slightest chance the trend towards massive and redundant templatization can ever be stopped? No, of course not. But someone ought to point out the silliness now and then, and it's my turn today. As you were. —Kevin Myers 05:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I go the opposite route, and omit the succession boxes, putting everything in the info box. I agree that doing it all is silly, though. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Biographical data move

The biographical data should be at the top, before the titles held. It currently looks unprofessional as there is no clear headline before the biographical info. ☆ CieloEstrellado 22:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Image

{{editprotected}} The following case fails:

Test
Personal details
BornSome text
{{Infobox Officeholder
|image=Bad Title Example.png
|width=
|birth_date=Some text
|name=Test
}}

Please can you edit the image code to add the green bits and remove the red bit:

{{#if:{{{image|}}} | {{!}}colspan="2" style="text-align:center;" {{#switch:{{{image}}}|Replace this image male.svg|Replace this image female.svg|Replace this image1.svg|Replace this imageb.svg=class=dummy}}{{!}}[[Image:{{{image}}}|{{#ifeq:{{{image|}}}|Replace this image1.svg|150px|{{#if:{{{imagesize|}}}|{{{imagesize}}}|{{#if:{{{width|}}}|{{{width|225px}}}|225px}}}}}}|{{PAGENAME}}]]<br/> <small>{{{caption|}}}</small>

Thanks --h2g2bob (talk) 10:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC-5)

Done. --- RockMFR 10:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC-5)

Size of the main image

The size of the main image in certain articles stays relatively small (see Bob Dole, Hillary Rodham Clinton) but the image is much larger in other articles (see George W. Bush, Dick Cheney). I originally thought that if I simply removed the 'image_size=' parameter from the pages with smaller photos, the specific size would be eliminated and the photo would size would increase (as it seems to have become the norm on American political articles). But my attempts failed, as the photos still remained small. I'm one for consistency, so does anyone know what the problem is? Happyme22 (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC-5)

Oh my gosh, I was writing it incorrectly. My sincerest thanks for your help. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 15:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC-5)

"Office" breaks when "order" used

Can somebody provide a justification for "office" (and equivalent parameters) behaving differently (specifically, getting automatically encased in double square brackets) whenever "order" is used? It makes the use of offices such as "Provincial secretary of Quebec" impossible.

More generally, why should only offices which have a dedicated pages be allowed to use "order"? Circeus (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC-5)

It was done when all the politician infoboxes where merged. Can you give an example of a page where the template becomes 'impossible'? --Philip Stevens (talk) 12:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC-5)
See Étienne-Théodore Pâquet for a textbook example. Circeus (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC-5)
So it's the use of "office" Vs. "title" (legacy of conflicting implementations I assume) that was at fault. I think the template needs to be better documented rather than just randomly listing the original basic implementations. Circeus (talk) 10:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC-5)

Nominee/Candidate section

The nominees and candidates for the ongoing US presidental election, and several previous elections, have had a section added to their infobox. I feel this only adds to the page, surely the object of the infobox is to quickly inform the reader of the most important information in the rest of the article. To not mention of the fact that McCain, Obama and the others are or were the nominee or candidate of their party seems to leave out one of the most important pieces of information about the person documented. There are examples of the infobox being used for titles, when Dmitry Medvedev[1] was President-elect and First Lady Laura Bush for example. I think the infobox works well in all these cases. --Philip Stevens (talk) 10:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC-5)

This looks entirely ugly and unprofessional, and starts to veer into WP:CRYSTAL territory. Certainly things like the nominees for elections (especially US Prez that's ongoing) can get prominent mention of the fact in article leads (as they do), but putting what they might do in an infobox detracts terribly from the real use of such boxes in reporting actual highest achieved office. The recent addition brings WP down to look like a blog rather than an encyclopedia. Incidentally, Bob Barr is actually done right, since Congressman comes above candidate... and Ralph Nader has not held a previous office, so that's not germane. LotLE×talk 11:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC-5)
What aspect looks ugly, unprofessional or blog-like? The section doesn't look that much different to other sections the infobox can produce, see here. I don't think it is crystal balling to say Obama and McCain are the presumptive nominees of their respective parties, because that is what they are. Also, Bob Barr is not done correctly as sections are not positioned due to their significance. In general, the most recent term is put on top, see William Howard Taft for example. However, if you think the section is acceptable if it comes underneath other sections, I wouldn't have a problem with that and it might make a good compromise. --Philip Stevens (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC-5)
I don't like these nominee entries in infoboxes either. They aren't offices or positions held, but rather milestones towards gaining an office (that half the time, didn't happen). Also, I personally think they're visually confusing with the many different names in them — look at Bob Dole, for example. And they treat "nominee" too much like an office: Al Gore did not "succeed" Bill Clinton (!), John Kerry did not "succeed" Al Gore in any meaningful sense, and Obama is not "succeeding" Kerry. As for presumptive nominee, that seems ... presumptive. That's an informal media designation that we use in the article, that isn't formal enough to warrant being in an infobox at all. Past editors at Talk:John McCain and its archives have objected to the presumptive nominee entry being at the top of the McCain box because it looks a lot like it's predicting a McCain victory, in which he will succeed George W. Bush on November 4, 2008.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasted Time R (talk • contribs)
I think Wasted Time R gets at what's wrong with (presumptive) candidate in infoboxes: It lacks formality! The infoboxes are meant to describe the formal, official capacities of persons; "candidate," however great an achievement or honor it might be, isn't formal in that way. For comparison, think of what might be put on an official Congressional biography (i.e. by the Senate Historian); that would look a lot like what infoboxes should be. In fifty years, the official Senate "infobox" for the losing candidate in the current US Prez race will mention terms in the Senate, but will not mention unsuccessful campaigns.
As a concrete example, go to http://bioguide.congress.gov/biosearch/biosearch.asp and search for "Strom Thurmond." Thurmond, obviously, had a very notable candidacy for president (the only non-Dem/Rep to get electoral college votes in a hundred years). That fact is wholly unmentioned in the "infobox" from the official Congressional site (sorry I don't know how to link directly to that box). However, if you click on Thurmond's name, it links to a short biographical description that greatly resembles a WP lead. In that, the failed candidacy is mentioned (not as the first thing, but in the paragraph)... which is exactly how we should do it here, put it in the lead. LotLE×talk 12:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC-5)
I'm also opposed to putting the presumptive nominee information in the infobox. I don't think anyone looking at the McCain or Obama articles is not going to realize that they are running for President. As we've had this discussion multiple times before, with the consensus always overwhelmingly against inclusion, I'm a little bewildered as to why it is back in again currently. I would like to think with the back history of this subject that the default would be no nominee information in the infobox unless there is a change in the consensus. Looking at past discussions on this, I'm betting such a change is unlikely. BTW, I don't think that moving an edit that has been repeatedly opposed to a slightly different place in the article without gaining consensus is a "compromise". If that compromise technique caught on the political articles would become chaos. Quenn (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC-5)
To say the section shouldn't be included because anyone looking at the McCain or Obama articles is going to realise they are running for President, is like saying the infobox on George W. Bush's page shouldn't have a section on the President of the United States as anyone looking at his page is going to realise he is the President. Also, the other discussions all said the section shouldn't be included because neither McCain nor Obama is the nominee yet, however the infobox now states they are presumptive so that complaint has been answered. --Philip Stevens (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC-5)
No one here is proposing removing the fact persons are (presumptive) nominee from their articles, nor even from the leads. This fact occurs in the first sentence of McCain's lead, and the second sentence of Obama's, prominent positions. The point is that infoboxes are meant to have a greater formality than article text, which by-and-large they do. Likewise (admittedly a dog-and-pony analogy), I might tell my friends/coworkers/colleagues that I have applied for some new fabulously prestigious job; however, what I'll put on my resume is only the jobs I've actually held (regardless of my odds of getting the new one, or of how hard it was to get the interview). LotLE×talk 17:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC-5)

I have commented out the infobox sections from leading candidates pending support by more than this single editor. Given the voices of large majority against this new use of the infobox, established consensus is the right approach. LotLE×talk 16:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC-5)

Personally, I'm neutral on this topic. What I will say though is people always complain about something that's different simply because it is different. Let me make a prediction; the day after the election, there will be a group of people who will complain about the President-elect section on the page of who ever wins. Despite the fact the section has been used on dozens of previous President-elects, and Prime Minister-elect, despite the fact a President-elect section was requested on this page and gained a consensus, there will be people who will find some reason to object to it and ask for it to be removed because it's different. I ask all editors who are apposed to this or any other section to bear this in mind.
About this section, if a consensus to not use the nominee section is reached (this normally requires a majority of four users) then I would recommend editing the code to prevent users adding it to other pages in the future. --Hera1187 (talk) 17:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC-5)
I will not be opposed to a "President Elect" infobox section for the winner of the US presidential race. Obviously, I can't speak for every editor on WP, but it seems pretty unlikely any real opposition to that box would exist (unless it's some kind of legal tangle like the 2000 election, where some real doubt exists about the status after the election). LotLE×talk 17:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC-5)
I hope you're right. --Hera1187 (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC-5)
I have no problem with "President Elect". It goes away in two months, in any case. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC-5)
I'll support a "President Elect" infobox section, assuming of course, a clear cut winner. Also, I'm behind editing the code to prevent future users from adding the nominee section so we don't have to rehash this discussion. Quenn (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC-5)
We need to find an admin who is well-versed in template intricacies to fix it. The page is protected; but it's also a widely-used and complex template, so a wrong keystroke or two could cause wide breakage. I am, of course, in favor of Quenn's idea, just stating the mechanics of the actions. LotLE×talk 19:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC-5)
I agree completely with Wasted Time R and LotLE and Quenn- these additions were confusing and inconsistently applied as well - for example, what is the function of "incumbent"? doesn't "election date" imply that the person was elected? what does it mean to succeed or precede? who won the election if there was more than one opponent? why were none done for presidents running for re-election and losing (Carter 1980, Bush1 1992)? But mostly - encyclopedia style is to highlight positions held, in reverse chronological/importance order,even going so far as to include the last held position as the top spot in the infobox along with the official photo from that time, even for people no longer in office - see John Edwards for example: He's correctly shown in the infobox as a Senator, with start and end dates and his official Senate photo - consistent with other previous officeholders. Having an entry for Democratic VP nominee (which I removed) didn't make sense chronologically, nor is it clear if it's a higher or lower position than an actual Senate seat. Was Adlai Stevenson's status as an Ambassador to the UN higher or lower than his status as a Presidential candidate? It just confuses. Also, the editor who added these items to infoboxes all over the place did it somewhat inconsistently and in a haphazard manner, with fields included or not without apparent reason. I think that a change of this nature should not be done wholesale - however well-intentioned it was - but should be discussed here as we are, on the pages in question, and/or on various relevant wikiprojects, such as the one for members of congress, and I would oppose it. I also removed it from various former candidates, pending the outcome of these discussions. (I have no problem with President-elect, although not sure it's all that valuable. Would have to see what it looks like.) Tvoz/talk 19:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC-5)
To give an idea of the problem, please take a look at this one - and compare to this one - same "position", different fields, inconsistently applied - and wrong in part - Ferraro wasn't "appointed" by Mondale. The whole point of infoboxes is to have consistent facts across articles - and these aren't, and i tnhin k they don't help clarity. Tvoz/talk 20:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC-5)

{{editprotected}} All an admin as to do is remove | candidate = {{{candidate|}}} | election_date = {{{election_date|}}} | nominee = {{{nominee|}}} | opponent = {{{opponent|}}} | party_election = {{{party_election|}}} | runningmate = {{{runningmate|}}} | incumbent = {{{incumbent|}}} and all the equivalent fields with numbers on then end. This will stop the fields working without disrupting the use of the infobox on other pages. --Hera1187 (talk) 01:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC-5)

Pretend for a moment that I don't want to read this lengthy discussion. Is there consensus for this change? --MZMcBride (talk) 13:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC-5)
Yes, there is consensus. Only one editor who initially inserted the new information supports it, everyone else wants it out (both on this template talk page, and on various affected articles' talk pages). LotLE×talk 14:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC-5)
Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC-5)
Consensus?!?!?! What are you talking about?! This template has been transcluded in many articles and you just decided to 'break' it because a few of you don't like its use? You certainly didn't bother notifying me about it, and I've been using it - as an existing, recognized template, for quite awhile. All you had to do was check the transclusions page - if you actually cared about Wikipedia instead of your own private political agengas. So this is how you celebrate the Fourth of July? Trying to trash the democratic process of the U.S.? Big joke, isn't it? Just leave the incumbents with the only voice, and everyone will be SO much happier - right? CERTAINLY don't allow their infoboxes to point to their opponents! People might use Wikipedia to learn something? Heavens no! We can't have THAT! MZMcBride, I have NO idea how you became an Admin if this is what you think your job is about - just doing, no thinking, no checking. You should be ashamed of yoruself! Flatterworld (talk) 15:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC-5)
You simply must calm down. We discuss changes to templates on the template talk page. We've been doing so for years. We don't generally notify every editor when making a change to a template. In this particular case, the template is fully-protected in order to prevent vandalism or disruption to the site's job queue. It is not my role to reject (or accept) requests to fully-protected templates based on my personal views. There seems to be a consensus here for the change. If not, you can calmly and rationally explain why you believe differently. Capital letters and exclamation points really aren't necessary or helpful. Thank you. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC-5)

Hi, I haven't logged in to wiki for a while, but I felt I had to ask about this template. It is not working on several pages, Mary Jo Kilroy, Bob Conley and many more. Most of the discussion above is about the next POTUS. Wouldn't it be better to return the template to how it was and remove the unwanted fields from the presidential candidates?Schoolboy123 (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC-5)

The template is still working on those articles, it just isn't considering "nominee" to be an office, which is the intended change for lower-level elections as well as the presidential ones. And those articles have bigger problems than the template change — the Bob Conley one has near-zero biographical information and only criticism about his candidacy! Wasted Time R (talk) 06:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC-5)
'Working' meaning it doesn't blow up? Appear in red with no box? Rather a narrow definition, don't you think? The entire discussion, and therefore 'consensus' was about the presidential candidates. Then Hera1187 did a bankshot by requesting the deletion of all the relevant fields so the original purpose of the infobox (note the name is Congressional Candidates) would be broken. LotLE claims he posted in the comments sections of the 'affected' articles. Rubbish. He posted in the Barack Obama article, but not in ANY current congressional candidates that I'm aware of. If you want to argue about what should or shouldn't be included in the infobox of current presidential candidates, feel free. But this template's changes should be reversed because there was NO consensus for what was actually requested, nor should there have been. (As for Wasted Time R, your comments about the Bob Conley article are irrelevant and gratuitous insults. There are templates requesting cleanup and so forth if you want to add them, but Schoolboy123 was pointing out the broken Infoboxes. There's no call to bully him or try to intimidate him.) Flatterworld (talk) 08:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC-5)
Oh come on, I'm not insulting or intimidating anyone; your hyperbole isn't going to win you any converts. I was simply pointing out that Bob Conley doesn't meet the basic requirements of WP:BLP, and in WP, BLP concerns dominate everything else. I agree that the "Congressional Candidates" context wasn't considered in the previous discussion. I still don't like all those nominee fields, even in the "Congressional Candidate" context, but perhaps one or two should be included, if being a congressional candidate is the only reason for the article's existence. Wasted Time R (talk) 09:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC-5)
Of course you were, in trying to change the subject of this discussion. No one would disagree with you on your comments on the 'Criticism' section of the Bob Conley article, simply their appropriateness and relevance in this discussion about the template. Wikipedians deal constantly with inappropriate additions by anonymous users (in this case, 98.194.110.160) who presumably thinks he/she is 'helping' Conley's opponent (that would be Lindsay Graham). It's a stub article, and only about a week old, so of course it's incomplete. That's the definition of a stub article. Now let's get back to the topic at hand. You agree the 'Congressional Candidate' context wasn't considered, so can we reach a consensus to request that yesterday's change be reverted? Flatterworld (talk) 11:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC-5)

I think that we should put in the infobox that McCain is the Presumptive Republican nominee for President of the United States. First of all, he is the current presumptive nominee, not a former one. True, it may not be a job, but he is still the presumptive nominee. Obama is the Presumptive Democratic nominee for President of the United States and we should do the same to the infobox on the page Barack Obama. Once the national conventions happens, then the things that say presumptive nominee will say nominee. Once the presidential election happens, it will go to President-Elect for whichever candidate wins and the Nominee box for the candidate that loses will just simply be taken off of the page. Footballfan190 (talk) 15:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC-5)

Other candidacies

There has been some discussion following modification of the template about the fact the change affects Congressional candidates along with Presidential ones. My understanding of the prior discussion was always that it was about both things; also about Mayoral candidates, candidates for Dog Catcher, and so on. The Presidential case (for both current and former US Presidency candidates/nominees) was the chief focus, and provided most examples, but the others were implied and most language did not exclude that.

I feel wholeheartedly that other candidacies have equally little place in a Officeholder infobox, for all the same reasons previously discussed. Conceivably, the infobox, Template:Infobox Candidate would be appropriate. I would be slightly opposed to that, since I would feel that even a separate box described something not of sufficient formality to belong in an infobox. Likewise, there are no infoboxes for "number of children/descendants", "spouses", "income and wealth", etc... all things which may be important for particular bio subjects, and may be mentioned in the body of their articles. Even if such a new infobox is created, I would oppose its use in most or all other articles where a person had separately achieved a political office (including winning the election described by the candidacy box)... an actual office should (in the hypothetical creation) supersede a candidacy alone. LotLE×talk 15:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC-5)

I'd divide this into two classes: electoral candidates who would have a WP article anyway, for other reasons (in which case those other reason(s) will determine what infobox is used), and electoral candidates who only have an article because they're running for office (like Bob Conley, it would seem). We need some kind of infobox for the latter group (assuming they pass the notability criteria of WP:POLITICIAN). And yes, Template:Infobox Candidate certainly seems a better candidate for them than Template:Infobox Officeholder. If Template:Infobox Candidate needs to be enhanced to include additional fields, then we can do so. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC-5)
Perhaps the section should be returned but only used for people who have not held a previous office. This would stop the infobox looking sloppy. You could have a warning on the Template doc telling editors to only use the candidate section if the person was running for their first office, and remove the infobox from all politicians where this is not the case. As for the name of the infobox, please don't let that influence you as I'm the one who named it. --Hera1187 (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC-5)
It doesn't really matter who named it (two years ago), the name carries some meaning independently. Rather than adding fields back in for something that really doesn't fit under "Office holder", we should just use similar field names in Template:Infobox Candidate, then if a candidate (who, i.e., did not hold prior office) wins the contest, the data fields can remains mostly the same, and editors can just switch over to the now-relevant Officeholder template. LotLE×talk 16:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC-5)
I like Hera's idea, it wouldn't mean renaming the infobox on all those pages. Is there a way of only allowing the section to appear on pages of people who haven't had a previous office? Schoolboy123 (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC-5)
Yes there is a way, simply only return the fields without the number on the end, not only would this only allow the candidate section to be at the top, it would also stop the pages of presidential candidates from working again. I think this is the best idea so far. Also, the name of the infobox as an argument not to have a candidate section seems strange. I've always thought a better name for this template would be {{Infobox Politician}}. --Philip Stevens (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC-5)
I oppose creating a separate Template:Infobox Candidate exclusively for those who've never before held elected office. Quite simply, the vast majority of people who fall into that category do not meet WP:POLITICIAN and creating an infobox specifically for them will only encourage people to create articles on them. Already, we delete dozens of articles a month on people running for minor offices, usually state legislatures (most of them blatant copyvios of the candidate's own website). Let's not encourage them any more. — Lincolnite (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC-5)
It's too late to oppose its creation; at most you can support its deletion. I was slightly surprised to find it existed today. However, once I see it does, it seems to accurately match the requirement for that (perhaps small) class of notable persons who are candidates but did not hold an office. In any case, I really, really oppose conflation of offices held with those run-for within an infobox. The above discussion shows numerous examples where this presentation is quite confusing, even misleading. LotLE×talk 17:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC-5)
fwiw, I checked the translocution list for the 'Candidate' template and it's msot often used for sub-articles, not actual candidate articles. It doesn't include the fields one would expect for an actual candidate, so I'm not sure what it was actually intended for. Flatterworld (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC-5)
"Already, we delete dozens of articles a month on people running for minor offices, usually state legislatures". Oh really? I assume this doesn't include people who have won their primary election and are now the party nominee. Otherwise, you've out of line on your opinion of notability. State legislatures are NOT minor offices. I would not support a separate template, as the use of the Candidate fields is (or should be, imo) for an ongoing campaign. Obviously, that means that chronologically it will always be at the top of the infobox. After the election, the candidate has either won (at which point it's converted into whichever Officeholder name applies) or lost (and the fields are deleted from the infobox and the relevant information is only included in the article itself). Of course it's used for those running for re-election as well as those running for the first time as that's the point of the incumbent and opponent fields. I can only see its use being confusing if the candidate fields are kept as some sort of history of past campaigns, but that's an issue for Guidelines to address. Flatterworld (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC-5)
"I assume this doesn't include people who have won their primary election and are now the party nominee." Of course it does. Most candidates for state legislative office do not meet WP:POLITICIAN because, even as their party's nominees, they don't receive "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Outside of the very largest states, most state legislative candidates attract little media attention and, unless they've previously held an important local office (making them "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage"), then they don't meet notability guidelines. They therefore regularly get speedy deleted. — Lincolnite (talk) 04:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC-5)
I'm amazed you limit your definition of third-party coverage with 'media coverage'. Of course, that's only after my amazement that you think the people in charge of the government of U.S. states are of no interest and have no more power than the village dogcatcher? They each have entries on Project Vote Smart and Follow the Money, and yes of course they've covered by the media in their own dsitrict and state. What makes you think they aren't? Based on size and population, US states are the equivalent of countries in the EU. I wouldn't dream of telling any European country their legislative candidates don't meet even the minimal notability level according to Wikipedia. I would consider that quite arrogant and insulting. Flatterworld (talk) 09:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC-5)
As has already been pointed out, resorting to hyperbole does little to aid your case. No one is insulting any country's legislative candidates and I must admit to being flabbergasted by your attitude towards non-American editors. As it happens, I take a deep interest in U.S. state legislatures, have edited hundreds (if not thousands) of articles related to them and have visited quite a few. At no point have I said that "the people in charge of the government of U.S. states are of no interest and have no more power than the village dogcatcher". State legislators explicitly meet WP:POLITICIAN, but let me remind you that being an "unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability" (emphasis in original). The vast majority of non-incumbents who make a run for state legislative office end up losing and the mere fact that they've made a run does not, in my opinion, mean they meet WP:POLITICIAN. As to the comparative element, you'll note – in the interests of comparison – that losing candidates for national office in the UK (i.e., those running for Parliament) are almost always deleted from Wikipedia (except for those very few whose campaigns attracted an extremely unusual degree of attention). — Lincolnite (talk) 10:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC-5)
That's rather the point, isn't it? After an MP (or Senator or Rep) has lost, if there's nothing else particularly notable about them, they may well be deleted. (And with devolution you should have included Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in your examples.) While they're running, they are indeed notable. Contrary to what I've read, there's no 'eternal' level of notability. There are plenty of people who were notable in 5000 BC who simply aren't notable today. And no, 'hyperbole' is not applicable, and neither is 'flabbergasted' that I was supposed to know you're a non-American editor. I have read WP:POLITICIAN and we obviously have differing interpretations of it. I take it to mean just because someone declares himself or herself a candidate for dogcatcher (or even mayor) of some tiny village doesn't mean he/she is notable. If he/she is mentioned as winning best cake at the village fair, that doesn't count as relevant 'media coverage' either. That's not what we're talking about in this case. I do NOT take it to mean that Party nominees for state legislatures, duly elected in Primary elections, have to pass some additional test of yours to qualify for 'notability'. Flatterworld (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC-5)
Is this really serious? We're not a news service or a voter guide; the idea of creating a WP:BLP for an otherwise unnotable candidate, then deleting it if he or she loses, seems bizarre to me. And unsupported by guidelines I see: WP:ONEVENT says that "When a person is associated with only one event, such as ... for standing for governmental election, consideration needs to be given to the need to create a standalone article on the person. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasted Time R (talk • contribs) 00:45, 8 July 2008
Of course I'm serious. Are you serious is suggesting ALL political offices are created equal, from dogcatcher to President? That 'notoble' is a synonym for 'world-famous'? I'll repeat the criteria for Politician: Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
Follow the Money and Project Vote Smart are, indeed, reliable sources and devoting a page to a candidate is 'significant coverage'. Why do you insist on spinning the criteria to lit your personal definitions of notable, significant and reliable? Flatterworld (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC-5)
Flatterworld, you seem to believe that Wikipedia should be a rival Project Vote Smart, with biographical information on every candidate for state legislative office. Although you may disagree, I don't think you'll find much support for that proposition from other editors. Or from Wikipedia policies, for that matter. To quote your own words, "your personal definitions of notable, significant and reliable" seem to be getting the better of you. Oh, and I'm done with this discussion — we clearly don't agree on the meaning of WP:POLITICIAN and, as it happens, it's not terribly germane to the subject of this page. — Lincolnite (talk) 03:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC-5)
No Lincolnite, I am NOT confused on what Wikipedia is. I simply interpret the definition of 'notable' in a different way than you do, but if you don't think that's worth discussing that's your choice (although your bragging about deleting them as a matter of course remains rather problematical). We still need to have Infoxbox fields describing candidates for office. Flatterworld (talk) 08:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC-5)

Appropriate boxes

(outdent) As someone had suggested that a candidate or nominee would be notable while running for office but not afterwards, I would note WP:NTEMP which states that notability is not temporary - once notable, always notable. As for candidates and nominees, certainly many people who are known only as candidates/nominees are notable - if the only thing Ralph Nader was known for was being a candidate and nominee he would still get an article on Wikipedia. Conversely, many candidates/nominees are not notable - I don't see an argument that (many) state legislative candidates/nominees are notable simply by running - even local papers often don't give them more than a passing mention. References by Project Vote Smart and Follow the Money are certainly third party coverage that counts towards the needed "significant coverage", but I certainly don't think they make someone notable in and of themselves, as a look at AfDs will tell you.

More on point, I support keeping the nominee fields in the template. People like Chuck Baldwin would indisputably qualify for such a field, as the Constitution Party's nominee for president. I would restrict this to nominees of ballot-qualified political parties, however. This doesn't comment on the notability of nominees, which would still fall to the same notability criteria as ever, but rather comments on the fact that important information about a person - and often noting that a person was a nominee is significant to describing the person's accomplishments - which is the purpose of having infoboxes in the first place. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 16:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC-5)

I think you're missing the point. It would be fine and good to have a template for nominees, maybe we could call it Template:Infobox Candidate :-), but we shouldn't add that field to "office-holder". Being a candidate is not being an office-holder. Likewise, we shouldn't add nominee/candidate fields to infoboxes for actors, painters, musicians, etc. because some of them will run for offices. Obviously, I realize there is a closer relationship between candidate/office-holder than between actor/office-holder; but both pairs represent differences of meanings with conceptually different issues. For example, office-holders have "served with" fields that don't make sense for candidates (although obviously some offices are on joint bodies and others sole executive). On the other hand, candidates "run against" other people, which doesn't make sense for office-holders (they may have "run against" back when they were candidates, but in office they merely "serve"). LotLE×talk 16:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC-5)
Surely it would cause more problems to try to have two Infoboxes in effect for the same person at the same time (someone running for re-election, or perhaps a State Senator running for U.S. Representative or President or something). It's certainly possible to redirect all Officeholder templates to Politician, but I don't see that as being necessary. Flatterworld (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC-5)
Simply create a Template:Infobox Nominee and redirect it to Template:Infobox Officeholder, as has been done with other related templates such as Template:Infobox State Senator. As with the other infoboxes, we could have the slightly different view - and different recommended fields - while allowing compatability, for example with Barack Obama (Assuming he gets the Democratic nomination), this would allow him to have his Illinois State Senate position, his Senator position, and his Democratic Nominee for President position to be in the same infobox. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC-5)
The 'Congressional Candidate' infobox was part of the Officeholder template (still is) before its fields were trashed on July 5th which caused all of its translocutions to be trashed as well. Which is why we're having this discussion now. It doesn't matter which infobox name one puts at the top of the template, as it's only the fields' suffix (2, 3, 4) that controls the 'stack effect'. Flatterworld (talk) 11:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC-5)
It is commonplace for a single biography to contain multiple infoboxes, and doing so would present information far more clearly. Treating a candidacy as if it is an office creates an extremely confusing aggregation of unrelated information (as in my above examples). My other example of a musician who runs for political office is a good guide here. During the election, they would retain the musician box, containing information like what other band members they played with, and what current and previous albums are. Adjacent to that would be the separate infobox for the candidacy; after the election was over, the infobox could either be changed to the once for office-holder, retained to indicate a losing candidacy, or dropped altogether (which one of the last two depend on the type of office, outside noteriety of the person, and so on... I don't think there would be a simple rule).
While office-holders, on average, may be candidates more often than are musicians, the principle is no different. A person may have served in various offices that should be represented in an office-holder template. Quite apart from that, they may either be currently running for a notable office, or have previously unsuccessfully run for an office. The overal relevance of the past or current candidacy also depends on various factors, but keeping that separate type of information in a separate infobox conveys information to readers far more accurately and clearly. LotLE×talk 23:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC-5)
I especially objected to certain fields that were being used for candidates and nominees. The predecessor and successor fields were bogus (it's not an office, and each candidacy is completely different from the one that someone else in the same party happened to run n years before or n years later) and the month-day-year date of election field was too specific and made it look too much like a starting point for a term in office. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC-5)
Than simply don't use the irrelevant fields for the nominee portion of the template - when you find an error, fix it and establish on the to-be created example in the documentation page that "predecessor" and "successor" fields shouldn't be used with nominees; that concensus can surely be established here. I certainly don't have the problem with excluding those fields from a nominee section...except possibly for major candidates for President or Governor (and possibly similar offices in other nations) due to the heavily publicized nature of the candidaces and the fact that the preceding election's nominee often does impact the following nominee's campaign and chances of success. (e.g. John McCain is going to be affected by George W.'s being his predecessor as the Republican nominee, especially on the war in Iraq and it's likely Barack Obama will have to be extra careful not to appear to flip-flop after his predecessor John Kerry's oft-mentioned flip-flops). --Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC-5)
It's on presidential nominations that I especially object to predecessor/successor, and your examples bear out why: McCain is affected by GWB being the incumbent president, not the last GOP nominee, and McCain and Obama are being equally hit by flip-flop charges. When a campaign tactic proves effective, both parties try to copy it for future elections, not just the party that used it before. Running for office is not an office, and does not share the same properties. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC-5)
I don't think I've ever seen predecessor and successor fields used in congressional candidate articles. Was that use limited to presidential candidates? I do like the election date though. It says 'election date' so I don't see where any confusion with term start date would come from, but it also allows easy spotting (and use of bots) to flag articles once an election is over so they can be updated. I also like the idea of not allowing the numeric suffixes for the candidate-only fields so they're always first on the list (meaning they're a current 'activity' of the person). Past candidacies can be covered within the article, but I don't think they have to be in the infobox. Flatterworld (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC-5)
Right, then. I'll retract my above suggestion about presidents - Let's not use the predecessor and successor fields at all for the nominee sections. I also like the "election date" and would agree that past candidacies - unless they were the primary event for which the person is known, which I susupect is rare - shouldn't be in the infobox. However, I do think that the nominee section should be within Infobox Officeholder, as I mentioned above, since the vast majority of already-notable candidates with the "office" of nominee are already going to have the infobox on their pages; adding another one to these pages would merely be confusing and would border on redundant. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Do we have consensus then? Flatterworld (talk) 15:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I continue to oppose the addition of candidate/nominee boxes to the Office holder infobox (yes, I know they were briefly there in the past before being removed). LotLE×talk 19:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I believe we have consensus to change the template back to allow for nominee boxes in this infobox - even considering LotLE's continued opposition. I will refrain from making the change myself, however, as I've been involved in the discussion. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears to me that I oppose the addition, and Wasted Time R has at least expressed reservations. Philosopher and Flatterworld clearly support it, and Lincolnite can more-or-less be read as supporting it. I'm not sure 2.5:1.5 is exactly a ratio I'd call "consensus" (yeah, of course WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY and we don't count votes, etc... but still). LotLE×talk 01:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I do indeed support it so that makes it 3:1.5. Not really sure that clarifies things! — Lincolnite (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

imo there wasn't an actual consensus to remove the fields in the first place. The discussion was rather confused, with the focus on the presidential candidates (such as WastedTimeR's reservations) and whether past candidacies. I'm only interested in consensus for the use of the Congressional Candidate infobox for current candidates. Flatterworld (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I sort of lost track of this discussion, and can't tell what the current proposal is, in general or for congressional candidates. Could you restate what infobox will be used, with what fields, and for what length of time, etc. I'll look at it when I get back tonight. Thx. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

{{editprotected}}

Proposal. Restore the candidate-type fields but only allow them to be usable at the top of the infobox - iow, for current candidates. (After the election, they would be converted to a different officeholder infobox, or the general 'Politician' or whatever. Information about their previous candidacy would be incorporated into the article itself.) What that translates into is restoring the fields removed earlier (candidate, nominee, opponent, incumbent, runningmate, party_election, election_date), but only for the non-suffixed fields. Disclaimer: the template includes suffixes of '0' and '1', and I don't know how or when these are ever used, so they may or may not be restored - whatever achieves the concept in the first sentence. Flatterworld (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Support. Flatterworld (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support as long as the candidate/nominee has not held a previous office. --Hera1187 (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per Hera. --Philip Stevens (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose because of conceptual unclarity and likelihood for misuse. If there were some way to enforce the recommendation of Hera1187 that the fields not be used for persons currently currently holding or having held office, I would move to weak support, but I have not seen a suggestion that such is possible. If the same box jumbles together what someone is now running for, what they previous ran for, and all the offices they held, it becomes more confusing than clarifying. LotLE×talk 18:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I don't quite understand the template syntax to verify it, but if his code will do what he says, I can support Philip Stevens' version of the template addition. Sounds like a perfect solution to my concerns (and I believe to Wasted Time R's; but he can opine for himself). LotLE×talk 19:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Here is an example of what would happen if someone added a nominee section to John McCain's page. The Senator and Representative fields are blocked. --Philip Stevens (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
      Perfect! I'm sure if anyone innocently inserts nominee information in the box of a sitting Senator or the like, the disappearance of the office information will be plenty to tip off editors that something's wrong. Let's also document what's going on on the template page, so editors not versed in template syntax can understand what's happening. But as I say, the technology answers all my objections (well, 90%, it still seems slightly conceptually inelegant to combine the concepts... but I'm happy to support to reach clear consensus). LotLE×talk 20:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support as Hera suggested and Philip demonstrated. How do we expedite this now? Schoolboy123 (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    • So in other words, you expect me to go back to every single incumbent to remove the nominee box and add all the information about runningmate, election-date and opponent in the lead paragraph? That's your idea of an improvement? Or do you plan on deleting it after I add it, on the basis elections aren't 'notable' enough? You twisted my proposal around completely, just so you could get back to pretending elections don't happen. I don't get it. For a group supposedly interested in politics, you all seem remarkably afraid of what democracy is actually based on: elections. You're sure this is how you want Wikipedia's readers to see you and the Wikipedia project? Flatterworld (talk) 06:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
      I'm lost again. Who's arguing about what? I thought the idea was, the "candidate" additional info goes on the top, while the election is ongoing. After, it either gets changed to "officeholder" (if they win) or goes away (if they lose). All of these articles' text need editing anyway, right? The first sentence of Bob Conley, for example, says "Robert M. 'Bob' Conley is the Democratic nominee in 2008 for U.S. Senator from South Carolina." That has to change come November, one way or the other. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
      • The difference is that the others wish to avoid any mention of an upcoming election for incumbents, particularly who the opponents are. By pretending no challengers exist, the effect is to 'orphan' the Congressional Candidate articles - which they never wanted in the first place. Of course it makes Wikipedia look ridiculous, particularly in the presidential articles, but it doesn't appear that's their top concern. (I'll assume good faith in Wikipedians except in the cases of love, war and politics in which it appears anything goes. Too much anecdotal evidence. I will draw no conclusions about the fascination Brits Hera, Schoolboy and Stevens have with US candidates, but I do wonder why Americans aren't participating in this discussion about their own elections.) Flatterworld (talk) 11:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Everyone in Britain is fascinated by the US election. I'm just wondering what you're complaining about. After all, your request is going to be implemented. --Hera1187 (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Although there is some debate as to how the section should be used, there is consensus that the parameters should be put in place as discussed. To that end, could an administrator please update the template using the code found here: User:Philip Stevens/Template:Infobox Officeholder. Thank you. --Hera1187 (talk) 11:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cheers! --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 16:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder/Archive_7&oldid=1049029986"