Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Reqeust for new parameters

Hello. I would like to propose addition of "Citizenship" and "Ethnicity" parameters, same as in the {{Infobox Writer}} and {{Infobox Scientist}}. The problem is application of infobox to biography articles about minority politicians. See how many articles about parties of ethnic minorities we have Cat:Political parties of minorities. The inclusion of "Nationality" parameter is insufficient as it can't be applied for minority politicians. For example infobox in Béla Bugár article would be misleading with "Nationality" parameter. Bugár is a Hungarian politician from Slovakia, former leader of the Party of the Hungarian Coalition. Many similar examples could be found easily. I see no controversy in this proposal, both parameters are included in infoboxes mentioned above and it is no problem. Cheers. - Darwinek (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• You can use | blank1 = and | data1 = to archive this. --Philip Stevens (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, blank fields are great, but why not have special parameters like other infoboxes. It's only two lines of code. - Darwinek (talk) 22:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Surely these extra parameters would only be useful for a tiny minority of people. For 99 percent of officeholders (and more I suspect), these fields would merely add clutter. — Lincolnite (talk) 11:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we sample and verify that? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the usage percentage (a small number seems likely), nationality/ethnicity seems too much like special-pleading for the infobox. For particular office-holders, ethnicity may be significant, but for a great number of others (even where information is known), it's really not of any special importance. If the matter is important for that individual, by all means put it in the lead, but don't treat it as generic structural information about the office (or its holder). LotLE×talk 21:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with LotLE, and I also don't understand the need for the 'Citizenship' parameter, unless there are countries which don't require their officeholders to be citizens of the country. Flatterworld (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

There are countries that do not require citizenship for (some) offices. In fact, in the USA, some local offices are open to residents who are not citizens. While it might be an interesting fact about a particular politician that s/he was elected to office in one country while having citizenship in another, that is not sufficiently general to merit infobox structure. Mention the interesting fact in the lead, that's plenty. LotLE×talk 18:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I also seem to remember reading somewhere that all local government offices within the EU are open to all EU citizens (provided they meet residency requirements, of course) and are not limited to citizens of the country in question. — Lincolnite (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I will use blank parameters. Still "nationality" parameter cannot be used for politicians of ethnic minority parties. - Darwinek (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Prefix/suffix

{{editprotected}} Could someone change the code back so that the prefix and suffix do not appear and above and below the persons name before they used to be all on the same line.--Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 18:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks :) --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 02:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Party at top?

Could it be changed so the person's political party is at the top, right below (or next to) their name?  — AMK1211^talk! 14:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Why? It seems like it's in a good position currently - where it is near the top of the biographical information, but not dominating the template. Remember that even if most of the people this infobox is on are politicians, the article is a biography of them, not just of their political career(s). Accordingly having "John McCain (R)" at the top of the infobox would be inappropriate, as it would imply that the article was solely about his politics. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Request: appointer2

I'd like to request appointer2, appointer3, etc be created in line with many of the other fields. Bush shep (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This field should already work. If, for some reason, it isn't use | 1blankname2 = and | 1namedata2 =. --Philip Stevens (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Article name or full legal name in infobox?

Is there a hard and fast rule for this? I haven't been able to find clear guidance on it. In many cases it doesn't make a difference, but there are a number of instances where putting the legal name is just confusing to readers. Full legal names are always in the first sentence of the lede, so is it necessary to also put them in the infobox? Take, for instance, the Nancy Pelosi article where the infobox clumsily reads "Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi." Wouldn't the article title be more appropriate (and easier for readers)? Thanks --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Normally the article name and the Infobox use the commonly used name of the person. I don't believe there's a policy or guideline about this, but it's sort of like Wikipedia Common Law. --SMP0328. (talk) 01:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both of you, as that's what I've usually found to be the case. The full legal name (along with the commonly used name) should indeed begin each article, such as John Henry 'Jack' Pierce III. The article name and infobox are then 'Jack Pierce'. I suspect what sometimes causes a variance with this unwritten policy is when there's another person with the same name. Most people add '(Nevada politician)' (or whatever's appropriate) to the end of names of state politicians, and '(U.S. politician)' (or whatever nationality) to the end of names of national politicians. However, think to make the name unique by adding a middle initial (or something) instead. This is appropriate if the politician normally uses it (e.g., Danny K. Davis but isn't terribly useful otherwise. Then another editor sees that, and thinks that's the correct precedent to follow. Of course, we still have Redirects and Disambiguation pages to help out. Flatterworld (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Although I will not press the issue, I do wish to point to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes), which says:

The top text line should be bold and contain the full (official) name of the item. This does not need to match the article's Wikipedia title.

I agree that for the Nancy Pelosi article, it does look somewhat weird, but I was only following what the MoS says. —Kurykh 03:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest that this discussion should be taken to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (infoboxes) or Template talk:Infobox Person. It was discussed briefly in /Archive 2 here, but if we want a change, it should probably be incorporated into the MoS. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Candidate

Please look at User:Kaydell/Morgan Bowen. Morgan Bowen is not the incumbent, however, it seems quite difficult if not impossible using this template to identify him as a candidate. Fred Talk 12:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

See Template:Infobox_Officeholder/example#Nominee/Candidate. You need to delete "state=" and "district=" and replace with "candidate=" and "incumbent=". I've edited your sandbox with the appropriate code.DCmacnut<> 01:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Prior Terms

Per this discussion I've added the "prior_term" parameter to accompany "state_senate" and "state_house". It was designed use on Iowa legislators' pages, to limit the disproportionately long infoboxes that resulted due to redistricting. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Net Worth? Really?

This field should be excised from the infobox. Aside from the fact that its inclusion appears politically motivated (i.e., to cast certain candidates as more out-of-touch with the populace than others) and that it is used selectively, it's also about as trivial as listing the officeholder's height, weight, hair color, and eye color in the infobox. Sure, net worth should be included somewhere in the text of the article, but giving it prominence in the infobox is nothing less than incendiary.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 10:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's not a useful addition. — Lincolnite (talk) 13:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. Frankly, I can't think of a situation where a net worth field would be particularly valuable. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 14:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The creeping inclusion of net worth in a number of infoboxes provides no useful information (especially as it is usually based on disclosure ranges, ie. "$5-20 million"). I also agree that in many cases, it has seemed to be motivated by something other than a simple desire to list as much information as possible. --Loonymonkey (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm neutral on whether net worth should stay or should go. Many editors have argued that religion or alma mater have no place in the infobox for many of the same reasons (i.e. irrelevant, could be mentioned in the article). The same could be said for any other personal information. If you start deleting one field, where do you draw the line? The fields are all optional in any case.DCmacnut<> 16:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

When would this field be particularly relevant or useful? Alma mater is fairly standard "encyclopedic trivia" about the person, and religion often has a great influence on the actions of politicians and/or the reactions to the politicians. In contrast, I don't see any encyclopedic value to keeping net worth field in the infobox. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Drop net worth. Also drop Children as a privacy issue (in the article is okay, but the infobox draws more attention and allows 'easy pickings'). The other field I see no purpose for is Footnotes as those are already in the article. Flatterworld (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Seeing no objections, I've removed the net worth field from the template. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 17:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

permanent protection for other templates?

Maybe template senator, template Senator, etc. should all be permanently protected as well. e.g. the recent edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_Senator&diff=prev&oldid=236916229 which put a POV image on every senator's page on wikipedia. --Rajah (talk) 20:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I've protected Template:Infobox CanadianMP, Template:Infobox Judge, Template:Infobox Mayor, Template:Infobox MP, Template:Infobox State Representative, Template:Infobox State Senator, and Template:Infobox US Cabinet official. I note that Template:Infobox Congressman and Template:Infobox Indian politician were already semi-protected and Template:Infobox Governor, Template:Infobox Politician, Template:Infobox President, Template:Infobox Prime Minister, and Template:Infobox Senator were already protected. The remainder weren't used often enough for me to justify protecting them, though I did add all of them to my watchlist. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Honorific Prefix

People using this template seem to be commonly altering the formatting of the honorific prefix. See, for example, David Cameron. The addition of the extra 'small' and 'br' tags seems reasonably common, and avoids formatting looking like John Barnes, 1st Baron Gorell where word-wrap kicks in in the middle of the name (certainly in my browser). I've no idea of the history of the template, but is there any way this sort of thing can be standardised within the template, rather than having template users adding extra markup? Mrh30 (talk) 14:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there a single standard "alteration" to the template? Or are a variety of styles used? Without looking through the archives I don't know if this has been discussed before, but perhaps the best solution would be to decide on a standard style (or styles) and have it/them incorporated into the template. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for an add'l parameter

{{editprotected}} In addition to monarch I like to have a parameter, head_of_state. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 20:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you give an example of a situation in which this would be useful and neither the monarch nor the president field would apply?Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Say in the case of the Netherlands and the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, it's more appropriate to talk of the Prime Minister reporting to the Head of State than reporting to "the Monarch." -- Iterator12n ^Talk 02:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not clear on why that is - isn't the head of the Dutch state a monarch? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The Dutch constitution (article 37) provides for situations where the royal powers are exercised by a regent, a person who is not "the monarch." The royal powers that can be exercised by the regent include the appointment and the dismissal of the prime minister. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 03:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC) (Apart from my formal argumentation: In everyday Dutch, it's not unusual to refer to Beatrix as het staatshoofd, the head of state. I don't think I have ever seen a reference to Beatrix as de monarch.)

A regent acts in the monarch's name and place. Thus even during a regency the PM officially reports to the king or queen, as represented by the regent. And one wouldn't expect Beatrix to be called de monarch, any more than Elizabeth is called that; she's de Koningin, just as Elizabeth is "the Queen". But she's still a monarch, which is the generic term for kings, queens, emperors, shahs, emirs, rajahs, etc. -- Zsero (talk) 04:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Several misconceptions in the Dutch case.... Article 37 foresees a couple of cases (among more) where there is no monarch in whose name and place the regent can act. Second, there are constitutional differences between the Dutch case and the British case, you cannot treat them the same. For example, in the case of Elisabeth it's "Her Majesty's Government." On the other hand, Beatrix is, according to the Dutch constitution, part of the Dutch government (article 42.1), even if she is inviolable (article 42.2). Anyway, I'll use the solution proposed below by Philip Stevens. Thanks. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 18:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Disabling editprotected request while discussion continues. Feel free to re-enable the request if / when it's appropriate. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Why not use | 1blankname2 = and | 1namedata2 =? --Philip Stevens (talk) 09:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

birthname

Is there any point in having this in the infobox? I say this because it appears that a common consensus appears to have developed to forgo this field under all but the most exceptional of circumstances.

I don't know whether this 'consensus' is between a few people who have some sort of grudge against the field, but there appears to be no way of getting this field onto any article of note. Even Hillary Rodham Clinton should prove impossible, she was born Hillary Diane Rodham but I believe that if one tried to put that into her infobox one would find it swiftly removed.

So my point is to ask what is the purpose in this field? It appears not to be wanted by the community, even though I myself find it a quite sensible addition.--EchetusXe (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I work on a lot of British politics articles and I have not encountered this problem. Is it just with American biographies that you have seen this behaviour, or is it a wider issue? Road Wizard (talk) 00:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Just the American ones, I put the birthname onto the Obama article about 6 hours now and its sticking so perhaps it is just an odd individual who is against it. Lets just see if anyone comes into this discussion and states their opposition to the field. I'm adding it to American articles to nip this thing in the bud, try to make this field accepted or either flush out the objector.--EchetusXe (talk) 01:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't really see the point of this. Would assume that this field is only necessary for someone whose name has is significantly different from birth to what they're known as. I only reverted the Bill Clinton and Joe Biden pages, as those are the only ones I have on watch that you touched. Don't have the time or the inclination to follow to the rest, but it might be nice if you approached this a little less antagonistically. ("flush out the objector" ?) Tarc (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that this parameter should only be used when a name is changed drastically (e.g. Malcolm X) or when a woman's maiden name makes a notable connection to a prominent individual/family (e.g. the Kennedy family). --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Why change the Bill Clinton page? The opening line reads "William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III, August 19, 1946)", surely that would indicate a significant change in the name? I don't see why the field should only be used when someone changes their surname to a letter or changes their surname to someone completely different.—EchetusXe (talk) 12:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Chief Minister

Template:Infobox Officeholder should also include the option "Chief Minister". Indian states are ruled by Chief Ministers and it is more relevant to mention the Chief Minister in the case of a Member of Legislative Assembly or a State Cabinet Minister than the Prime Minister. Thanks-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 19:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Also Australian territories have Chief Ministers rather than Premiers. -- Zsero (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I feel it is more relevant to mention Chief Ministers in the case of members of State Assemblies than Prime Ministers. Additions are not going to harm only deductions do-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 10:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Representative-elect

I think there's a discussion to be had about whether Template:Infobox Representative-elect is needed – it's only useful for about 9 weeks in every 104 and, although we're currently in the midst of those 9 weeks, it's only currently transcluded in two articles. Leaving that discussion aside for a moment, it's clear the wording needs to be changed. It currently reads "Representative-elect from [State]'s [xth] district". Given that it only seems to be in use for members of the United States House of Representatives, it should read "U.S. Representative-elect..." to distinguish its subjects from members-elect of state legislatures (over 40 of which style members of their lower house "representatives"). — Lincolnite (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Can someone with the power to do so please put this through? Many thanks. — Lincolnite (talk) 10:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Please change the words "Representative-elect" to "U.S. Representative-elect". Given the lack of dissent, I think it's safe to assume that there's no opposition. — Lincolnite (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

 Not done That text is not in the template code.  Sandstein  20:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Religion

Would it be possible if u can change the Personal data information of religion to Religious beliefs because it makes more sense to say, Sunni Muslim or Protestant Christian, rather than specifying the exact religion or church. thankyou.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.14.77 (talk) 15:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The current form "religion" can be used for "Protestant Christian" as easily as for "Southern Baptist". So if you only know the more general one, you can go ahead and use the template as it is. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 15:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

But would it really make sense to say someone's religion is: Muslim, because it is not a religion, but refers to a follower of the religion of Islam, and Protestant, a follower of the religion of Protestant Christianity. If you add Religious beliefs, it would work for both Christianity or Christian, or Islam or Muslim. (please reply on template talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.182.29 (talk • contribs)

Retrieved from User talk:Philosopher

...and I don't see the problem here. As you point out, you can choose between the noun and adjective depending on which you think is more appropriate for the parameter as it exists. Also, FYI - a Protestant is a follower of the Protestant division of Christianity, a Christian follows the Christian religion, a Baptist follows the teachings of the Baptist church, etc. so even there there isn't a problem. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} via alternate account 22:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

"First Lady-elect"

We have a situation regarding the infobox for Michelle Obama until January 20. Is there a way to suppress the "incumbent" line and change "Assumed office" to "Taking office" like the President-elect/VP-elect templates are? She's not "elect" so that won't work. Any suggestions? Thanks Tvoz/talk 20:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the fix we have now is ok - unless anyone here has any better ideas. Thanks Tvoz/talk 04:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Could we replace "Taking office January 20, 2009" with "Term begins January 20, 2009"?

"Taking office" sounds too informal. I recommend replacing this caption in the infobox with "Term begins". This sounds more "official".

Thanks. 98.217.123.201 (talk) 05:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)sean_2015

"-elect" v. "-designate"

At least for use for US Senators, there is a "succeeding" parameter that results in "-elect" being put after the title. Is it possible to either change that one or create a new one that will add "-designate" for appointed Senators? -Rrius (talk) 03:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think an appointed Senator takes office immediately, so no "-designate" is ever necessary. SMP0328. (talk) 04:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

That's not true; he or she has to take the oath. For salary and seniority purposes, it's a little more complicated than that, but for "taking office" it is not. There is such a thing as "Senator-designate", so can we please amend the template to provide for it. -Rrius (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Examples: Menendez, Barkley, Chaffee, Miller, Krueger, Brownback, Seymour. -Rrius (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It was suggested to me that I work this up in a sandbox. I am having trouble, though. I can't figure out how the "succeeding" parameter suppresses "Incumbent" and spawns "-elect". Can someone help me out? -Rrius (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

If it would be easier to show me, I have copied the template to User:Rrius/Sandbox/Sandbox 1. -Rrius (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to an article showing the current "-elect" description? I can't find the related code in the template so I will need to track it back from the other direction. Road Wizard (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It's in {{Infobox Officeholder/Office}}, but the behaviour is limited to the jr/sr parameter, so there is an easy work around, just using the "office" parameter. -Rrius (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand how it is working now. If you have jr/sr set and say they are "succeeding=" somebody (future tense) they will be listed as -elect, but if you have jr/sr set and say they have a "predecessor=" (past tense) then the -elect does not appear.

Is it only Senators that use the jr/sr parameter? If so, the fix is a simple switch of -elect to -designate in the {{Infobox Officeholder/Office}} code. If other types of office use that parameter and -elect is the correct description then we will have to try something a little more complicated. Road Wizard (talk) 23:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Alma mater

Is the alma mater field intended to be used to show the highest level of education that someone has achieved, or just what schools they attended? If it is only meant for schools, should we add an "education" parameter? I see that there is an archived talk about changing the name of the field, but that talk did not address the intended purpose of the parameter. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been listing the tertiary schools the person graduated from. (I just checked Sarah Palin and that's what has been done there as well.) Just this past week I've noticed someone, for some people, has added the degree received in parentheses following the school. I think that's helpful even if the body of the article describes the education record in detail. I wish I could remember who the people were, but I can't. Flatterworld (talk) 04:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)