Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Template is broken

Despite Wikipedia guidelines to the contrary—which, for what it's worth, are based on sound reasoning due to actual technical issues that cause bad things to happen when not followed—this template hardcodes a 225 pixel fallback width, which forces some images to display improperly. This should be remedied by using the suggested thumb attributeparameter. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 02:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you give an example? The frames the display for thumbs would look odd in infoboxes, so I'm not sure that is the solution. -Rrius (talk) 03:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a first attempted response would be to change the hard coding to 180px, which is in line with WP:Manual of Style (infoboxes). We still need an example of a incorrectly displaying infobox to test whether that solves the problem. -Rrius (talk) 04:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Having seen the article that drove you here, I see there is nothing wrong with the template. The appropriate thing to do is exactly what you did: specify a smaller width. If someone adds a small image to an infobox without specifying a width, someone will come along and fix it eventually. -Rrius (talk) 08:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

How are distorted images preferable? Moreover, if the solution involves allowing images to be poorly displayed before manually specifying a width, why have the hardcoded width at all? -- C. A. Russell (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Handedness

{{editprotected}} Any objection to adding a field of handedness to distinguish left handed office holders such as Barack Obama? Dems on the move (talk) 06:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

 Not done. Please establish consensus for your changes and provide the exact change you want before using {{editprotected}}. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 06:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no more reason to add "handedness" than there is to add "favorite food." It's personal trivia, completely irrelevant to a political template. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. I just thought that since Barack Obama is left handed, and in the article on left handedness it says that only 7% of the population is left handed, it would be interesting to see if this percentage is also true for the 43 people who have been presidents of the United States. --Dems on the move (talk) 19:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I honestly can't believe there is even a serious discussion needed on this issue. It's totally irrelevant information that has no more place in the template than does hair color. Any notable facts about left-handed president should go in the article on left handedness not in articles on presidents. [And I distinctly remember having read somewhere that a disproportionate number of presidents were left-handed.] — Lincolnite (talk) 02:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Handedness of Presidents of the United States (Special:Search is your friend). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 16:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

If you really want to do this you can use | blank1 = and | data1=, but I guarantee it will be removed from any page you put it on. --Philip Stevens (talk) 06:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree - there isn't going to be widespread need for this parameter - and frankly, I can't think of any articles that it would be appropriate on. It's possible there is an exception to the rule, in which case you can use the code and data parameters Philip pointed out. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Multiple offices

I tried to fix this template in the article Alan Craig as it appeared on the WikiProject Check Wikipedia "Template parameter with problem" report.

It (this version) currently uses:

| candidate = Mayor of London
| office2 = Councillor for the London Borough of Newham
| office3 = Leader of The Christian Peoples Alliance

I tried changing this to:

| candidate           = Mayor of London
| office = Councillor for the London Borough of Newham
| office1 = Leader of The Christian Peoples Alliance

or to:

| candidate           = Mayor of London
| office1 = Councillor for the London Borough of Newham
| office2 = Leader of The Christian Peoples Alliance

or to:

| candidate           = Mayor of London
| office = Councillor for the London Borough of Newham
| office2 = Leader of The Christian Peoples Alliance

but neither solution displays the two offices (I did this test without using "order" or any other of the repeated parameters). The last solution seems to be one implied by Template:Infobox_Officeholder#General_office. How should the fields be used ? -- User:Docu, updated 07:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Some Wikipedians decided that 'candidate' should only be usable in the template for those who have never held office before, so they blocked any previous office parameters for them. Apparently they wanted to give the incumbent an edge. That decision messed up lots of races in the US 2008 elections, too. Flatterworld (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Some combinations displayed a second office. In this case, it's just broken and should eventually be fixed. -- User:Docu

One Day?

Heya. So, I'm working on an article for an officeholder who was only in office for less than a day. Now, not knowing the speicific time when he was sworn in, is there some way for me to simply put one date, instead of Day1-Day2? What I've tried has only led me to this guy being the incumbent in the infobox (he isn't; he served in the 70s.) Can I just have the infobox say In Office: Dec 31, 197whenever? Thanks! BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 07:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Can't you put the same date in both fields? Flatterworld (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

See Rebecca Felton for an example. She was senator for just 24 hours, but went in on the 21st and out on the 22nd. To make it just one day, use the "term" field rather than "term_start" and "term_end." That will let you just enter December 31, 19XX. However, make sure this person's successor wasn't sworn in that same day. Felton was in for one day, but her successor wasn't sworn in until the next day, so her term actually was November 21-22. If your person's successor took office the next day, his term would also be Dec 31-Jan 1 (or whatever appropriate dates). In either case, "term" is the field you want.DCmacnut<> 17:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Alt text

{{editprotected}} (Request is updated below.) As per WP:ALT and WP:ACCESSIBILITY, please add support for alt text by inserting |alt= in the image syntax in the obvious places. I've done this in the sandbox, checked it out with the test case, and added documentation. You can just copy the sandbox (minus the sandbox notice) to the main version. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Is smallalt necessary? All three images use the same caption - should they all use the same alt? --- RockMFR 23:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The skeleton template in Template:Infobox officeholder/doc #General office lists both "image" and "smallimage", which led me to think that both images could be present. Are "image" and "small image" mutually exclusive? If so, it'd be fine to remove the smallalt parameter and replace it with the alt parameter. Eubulides (talk) 23:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the template for now, as I'm trying to clear this backlog the adminstrators aren't paying attention to! :). When a consensus has been reached as to whether or not the administrator needs to make the edit, throw the template back up :) — Deon555^talk_{I'm BACK!} 12:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the examples, and it looks like RockMFR is right: "smallalt" isn't needed, and "alt" can be shared between "image" and "smallimage". I also discovered that "signature" needs alt text, which I dubbed "signature_alt". So I prepared a different change in the sandbox to support this. Please install:

• this edit into Template:Infobox officeholder, and
• this edit into Template:Infobox Officeholder/Personal data.

I suggest that these be installed. I have tested them with the testcases, and have updated the documentation to talk about alt text. Eubulides (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

No further comment, so let's install the revised change mentioned in my previous comment. Eubulides (talk) 07:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done Let me know if there are any problems. Plastikspork (talk) 04:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Collapsing headers?

Hello, I am a new editor but I was looking at the article on George Washington and noticed some of the images were placed against general guidelines in the Manual of Style. The main reason for this was a very long information box (this one.) Very long infoboxes, in my opinion, detract from over-all presentation because they squish text and make attractively aligning images a difficulty. My suggestion is to add collapsible headers. While Part of this could simply be dealt with by reducing unnecessary fields, if we were to collapse certain paremeters (such as military service) that would help reduce the clutter. Also, has anyone thought of more streamlined ways to combine the office fields? They take up a large amount of vertical space as well. I'd rather have succession boxes at the bottom of the page than have who he replaced and was replaced by crammed up top. Just my two cents, -Martin Raybourne (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Alt text - signatures

As I understand it, the signature field should also have WP:ALT-text, and the infobox doesn't currently support it. Would it be possible/desirable to have generic alt text, used for all signatures? My thinking is the alt text would be present if there was a signature, but it would be consistent across all signatures.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

A null alt value alt="" should suffice. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Spouse

{{editprotect}} I'd like to change the Spouse field so that it would show up as Spouse(s), consistent with Template:Infobox person. Dems on the move (talk) 19:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done Plastikspork (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

List MPs

{{editprotect}} Can there be a paramenter for list MPs, like constituency MPs? I propose this model:

Parameters:

|list_party = Party name in full without brackets
|parliament = parliament name (just like constituency MP)
|term_start = just like constituency MP
|term_end   = just like constituency MP

which would show:

Member of [[{{{parliament}}} Parliament]] for [[{{{list_party}}}|{{[[Template:{{{list_party}}}/meta/shortname|{{{list_party}}}/meta/shortname]]}}]] party list

(then term start and end)

(See {{Election box candidate with party link}} for information on what the shortname stuff is)

Example:

{{Infobox MP
|name        = Joe Bloggs
....
|list_party  = New Zealand Labour Party
|parliament  = New Zealand
|term_start  = this date
|term_end    = that date
.....

which would show:

Joe Bloggs
Member of the New Zealand Parliament for Labour party list
In office this date – that date

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Adabow (talk • contribs)

Why not just do what you did to spawn the infobox above? -Rrius (talk) 05:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not use constituency_MP as you have shown? --Philip Stevens (talk) 06:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Because I think it is better to have a uniformed style.Adabow (talk) 05:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems more complicated to change the code to add a new parameter than it would be to add a note on the documentation saying something like, "Type 'X list' (where 'X' is the name of the party) for MMP jurisdictions such as New Zealand and Germany." -Rrius (talk) 07:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Unless you want it to display differently (e.g., "Member of the New Zealand Parliament on the Labour Party list" instead of "for"). -Rrius (talk) 07:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

 Not done Waiting for response to alternative methods, feel free to re-enable when consensus has been reached. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Error in template:Infobox officeholder/Personal data

{{editprotected}} There is a duplicated <includeonly> tag in that subpage. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 01:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. — RockMFR 03:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Nationality + Ethnicity/Citizenship

The infobox presently only has a "nationality" parameter, but should also include "ethnicity" and "citizenship" parameters, just like {{Infobox person}} now does. Gabbe (talk) 10:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done per several days with lack of objections. Gabbe (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Width of infobox

Guys, is there any way of forcing the width of this infobox? I ask because in the MilHist project I'm used to dealing with the Military Person Infobox which is wide enough to accomodate most items on a single line but when I come to add the military career section for soldiers-turned-politicians using this infobox everything's more narrow, forcing abbreviations for unit names and so on to avoid lots of multi-line entries. If we're stuck with the width then I'll use abbreviations but thought I'd ask before doing that... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the real answer to your question, but you could force an image to any given width. If you don't have an image, perhaps you could make one that is only a pixel tall and transparent. -Rrius (talk) 02:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You can use {{nowrap begin}} and {{nowrap end}} to force the text onto one line (use templates before and after text you one to keep on one line before and after the text respectively.

Adabow (talk) 07:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Appointed U.S. Senators

{{editprotected}} Appointed United States Senators present a unique problem. Generally, their terms start on the day they are appointed. However, using |jr/sr and setting |term_start equal to the date of appointment before the terms starts is misleading and uninformative. On the other hand, using |office=[[United States Senate|United States Senator]]-designate from [[Texas]] with |successor and |term_start equal to the appointment date is also deceptive because it is incorrect about when the term begins and helps create controversy as to what term_start should be after the senator takes the oath. As a result, I propose the three new parameters. They would display the office as "United States Senator-designate / from State", and the term as "Appointed / date / Takes oath of office / date" where "/" is a line break. I'm not married to the wording "Takes oath of office". If other think "To be sworn in" or something else is better, I'm fine with that.

In the Office section of Template:Infobox Officeholder/Office, just after |jr/sr we should add a new |jr/sr_designate:

 {{#if:{{{jr/sr_designate{{{1}}}|}}}|
{{!}}colspan="2" style="text-align:center; font-size:110%;"{{!}}<hr/><div style="background:lavender; font-weight:bold;">[[United States Senate|United States Senator]]-designate<br />from {{{state{{{1}}}}}}</div>
{{!}}-
}}

To the Term section of the same subpage we should add new |appointed and |oath_date parameters after |succeeding:

 {{#if:{{{appointed{{{1}}}|}}}|
{{!}}colspan="2" style="border-bottom:none; text-align:center;"{{!}}'''Appointed'''<br />{{{appointed{{{1}}}|}}}
{{#if:{{{oath_date{{{1}}}|}}}|
{{!}}colspan="2" style="border-bottom:none; text-align:center;"{{!}}'''Takes oath of office'''<br />{{{oath_date{{{1}}}|}}}
{{!}}-
}}

I think I have the code right, but I'm sure anyone implementing this would have the expertise to correct any errors I've made. -Rrius (talk) 22:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I've disabled your request for the moment because it could probably use some scrutiny and discussion. Feel free to replace when you have a consensus on this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree with the premise. It's excessive and unnecessary. A blank-designate is not an office, it's just the anticipation (no matter how likely) of being an office in the future. An oath date has little-to-no legal standing or factual relevance. Once someone starts the new job, then put it in the infobox; until then, leave it alone.—Markles 12:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but that is just not correct. Once a person receives a certificate of appointment and that appointment becomes effective, the person's term as a United States Senator has began and the person has an absolute right to present that certificate to the Senate, which will judge whether the person is qualified and was duly appointed. It cannot be revoked by the governor, and the governor cannot appoint anyone else. Similarly, a Senator-elect or Representative-elect presents his or her certificate of election to the Senate, which will judge whether the person is qualified and was duly elected. We already have "U.S. Representative-elect" and "United States Senator-elect" in the infobox, so I don't see the grounds for objection here. Further more, the practice has been to use the "office" parameter to insert "United States Senator-designate from [State]" into the infobox. -Rrius (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree with Rrius. We're not talking about a governor announcing he'll appoint someone in the future (i.e. announcing before the vacancy occurs). This is the actual appointment. Once the governor appoints, that person is a senator as of that date. However, due to Senate rules, they must present their credentials and be sworn. Vacancies are infrequent, but happen often enough that it would be good to have a field. I don't know if we need a separate "took the oath of office" box, but it would potentially help ease confusion many folks have about appointed senators. The oath doesn't make them a senator, the appointment does. However, when they take the oath can and will affect seniority, particularly in the case of Roland Burris. DCmacnut<> 02:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Request

{{editprotected}} Please remove the protection template from here. I have placed it on the documentation page, where it should have been. Please also add a documentation page to {{Infobox Officeholder/Office}}, redirecting here, and remove the protection template there too. Use {{Documentation|Template:Infobox officeholder/doc}} for this. Debresser (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is that necessary, or even a good idea? People navigating to {{Infobox Officeholder/Office}} are either viewing or editing the source code. -Rrius (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes? Either I don't understand you, or you don't understand me. What is the problem here? Debresser (talk) 18:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Why would /Office need a documentation page, and why should the protection templates be transcluded from the documentation? -Rrius (talk) 00:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Why would any intricate template need documentation? Note that I proposed the documentation should be the same as of {{Infobox officeholder}}, by using {{Documentation|Template:Infobox officeholder/doc}}. To have the protection templates in the documentation pages (safely in <includeonly>...</includeonly> tags), would have the advantage that when people work on these templates in their user subpages and copy them there, said subpages won't receive an error message for being incorrectly labeled with a protection tag. Debresser (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The /Office page has a link to the main template, which in turn has the documentation. If any documentation is needed at /Office at all, it is documentation on how /Office is organized. I find it hard to believe that anyone goes to /Office trying to figure out how to add the infobox to an article. If you think someone would, would you explain why you do? -Rrius (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The typical setup is to have pp-template on the template itself. Nearly all protected templates are set up like this. — RockMFR 21:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I work on maintenance templates daily, and we have most protection tags on the documentation. Debresser (talk) 00:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Please get consensus before requesting edits.  Skomorokh, barbarian  03:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

secret service codename

Any opinions on adding a field for the secret service codename for US presidents (or any other countries that have similar practices)? They are well documented in reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtphokie (talk • contribs)

I think that they'd be an unnecessary inclusion, there is plenty of space for that in the text.--[[User: Duffy2032|Duffy2032]] (talk) 06:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Religion: Atheism

Something that surely has been discussed before, but isn't it false to add "Religion: Atheism" to the template? Atheism does not fit the definition of religion in any way, but rather the lack of it. Except when it is used to indicate a religion with no gods but something else spiritual. Therefore, many cases of atheist would be either better with irreligious.

Better choice for the template would be either

• Religion: none (Atheist)
• Religion: Irreligious

The current way of speaking "His religion is Atheism" is quite unsatisfactory and new guideline should be added to this template or WP:BIO. --Pudeo⺮ 16:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Jogurney (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

As a follow on from this, I've just removed some information from the Chloe Smith article (see here) as it didn't look right. Irreligion and atheism are not religions, but religious stances. Surely it would make more sense to either change the title in the infobox to religious stance or add another header tor religious stance. I notice with {{Infobox Scientist}} religion appears as religious stance rather than religion. ANy thoughts? TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I reverted you there. The initial contribution makes sense, and Cloe Smith was in conformity with it. If you want it to read "Irreligious", that's fine, but simply having a blank is not the right way to do it. -Rrius (talk) 20:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I agree that something should go there. Just seems a bit of a strange one. I suppose we could link Irreligion, although it's not a very long article. Thanks for responding anyway. TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought it looked a bit odd, too, so I changed it to "none (atheist)". -Rrius (talk) 02:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I think none (atheist) is probably the best way to deal with this. I will use it whenever I encounter this issue again in future. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I would change the title to "Religious beliefs". Then "Atheist" would work. --Tango (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Co-leader

{{editprotected}} Can there be a |co-leader parameter, similar to the |alongside one, but instead of saying "Serving with (name)" it says "Co-leading with (name)"? See Rod Donald an example of why alongside doesn't fit too well.

Adabow (talk) 07:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

This would make more sense for Green parties and the like than "alongside". -Rrius (talk) 01:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

 Not done. Please give a complete and specific description of the changes needed; you can use a sandbox to do so if you like.  Skomorokh, barbarian  07:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I should have thought his explanation was quite clear. Add a new parameter that is identical to "alongside" except that it is called "co-leader" and that the display text would be "Co-leading with" instead of "Serving with". -Rrius (talk) 07:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Sorry I can't make a sandbox one–I'm not too good with coding–but all I would like is a co-leader parameter. The alongside parameter returns "Serving with....", and I would like a co-leader parameter returning "Co-leading with....". How much more specific can I be? Adabow (talk) 08:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that it's not a trivial change. If you search for alongside in the template, you get dozens of places where it appears. The actual text appears in a subtemplate Template:Infobox_officeholder/Office. I could have a look, but I don't have time at the moment. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is the code for {{Infobox officeholder}} and here is the code for {{Infobox officeholder/Office}}. --Philip Stevens (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

OK, can an administrator copy and paste this in then, please?

Adabow (talk) 06:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Philip Stevens, thanks for the code. Can you just confirm that you have tested it and that the current functionality is not affected? Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I have and it does work. --Philip Stevens (talk) 05:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for finally doing something about my request! :) Adabow (talk) 09:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is it not working at Rod Donald? Adabow (talk) 09:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It hasn't been implemented yet. --Philip Stevens (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Well, can someone implement it, please?

 Done —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you TheDJ, but wouldn't "Co-leading with.." make more sense than "Co-leader with"?Adabow (talk) 07:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done. This change is also consistent with the way we refer to U.S. Senators "serving with" other Senators. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)