Template talk:Active politician

Wording

Is there a reason the template can't simply say "this article is about an active politician" rather than explaining that maybe they're running for office or maybe they're in office or maybe they're in some sort of scandal? Simple is usually best -- Ockham's Template Razor, if you will. JDoorjam Talk 01:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Bot run

This is not very useful as all info has been intergrated into Template:WPBiography. Can't we get a bot in here to replace {{activepolitician}} with {{WPBiography|living=yes|activepol=yes}} Hbdragon88 04:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly mostly deprecated, and quite possibly entirely useless as you say. I've just updated the wording. I'll add some code to my plugin and do a bot run some time (manually checking the transclusions list first of course). If it turns out that every page using the template could actually use {{WPBiography}} we can get this deleted. --kingboyk 21:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. The first two template instances I checked had parameters. The first was small=yes (which doesn't work), the second was some info about why he was tagged (used by the template but probably not really necessary). It's likely then I won't be able to remove many of them unless we have consensus that the parameter isn't needed. --kingboyk 16:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

How about dead politicians

Is there a tag for a dead politician whose legacy is still active. There are many articles where people are contributing POV. How can that be tagged ? --Mqmpk 15:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not what this is for. If they're dead they don't have any extra special tag. --kingboyk 18:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Alt text

We may wish to add alt text to this, for example adding |alt=Ballot box icon to [[File:Ballot box current.svg|40px|alt=Ballot box icon]]. --23:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

What's the point of active talk pages only?

It's hidden from most viewers on Talk, is ignored by casual editors, and fails to inform the general reader that a page may contain poor information. I think it should be used on normal pages :) ! KenThomas (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It's more there for editors who are looking into the article enough that they go to the talk page - for example, editors who have questions about something in the article or who would like to challenge items or suggest new items. It also creates a categorization scheme Category:Active politicians. As for why it's not on the article itself, we generally reserve those notices for where there is an actual problem, not merely a potential problem - otherwise all of our articles would end up with notices of some sort on them! --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Got you thanks. I just used the deprecated active pol tag on AMLO page because I thought there was an *actual* problem. Can you suggest a more appropriate tag? KenThomas (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Would {{POV}} and/or {{Disputed}} fit the bill? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Can somebody tell Ken to not do this? Why AMLO is more visible than other politicians like Obama or Sarkozy? Should I notify him to AN or ANI? Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I think this is enough to take it to AN/ANI. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Currently the text is "This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism."

I propose changing/clarifying this to "This page is about an active politician who is running or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism."

This is motivated by the discussion here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zac_Goldsmith#he_is_not_an_active_politician_now One editor was so overjoyed that Goldsmith lost his election on Thursday (thus probably ending his career) that he wanted to have the activepol=yes immediately changed. But the increased traffic and visibility obviously does not stop immediately. Talk:Hillary_Clinton still has her as activepol=yes - because the reasons to have the tag there didn't magically stop when she called Trump to concede.

P.S. Is the "and campaigning for re-election" necessary? Term-limited politicians or politicians who have announced they will not recontest the next election are just as visible and controversial.NPalgan2 (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the proposed change for the reasons set out above. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Done Izno (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

For anyone interested, I have had recent comment at User talk:Izno#active politician. --Izno (talk) 12:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Standardisation of colouring

Hi there. I'm not sure if there is an existing consensus either way, but I think it would be beneficial to restore the talk box back to its original colour, rather than overriding the standard colour with the ghostly cream it currently uses. I assume it's this way for emphasis, but I believe that |type=content has enough emphasis (especially considering that more important boxes like {{American politics AE}} don't break the standards). ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 01:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)