Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

code tweaks

{{editprotected}} Requesting sync with the sandbox; minor code tweaks for future maintenance, no upheaval to current deployments. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

elected vs positions when elected

there still seems to be no distinction between dates and periods elected and time periods of positions/portfolios taken/appointed to once elected. i think some sub class of 'office' is what im looking for http://dbpedia.org/page/Brian_Cowen

Lostexpectation (talk) 00:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? -Rrius (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

everyone seems to be using in office for positions once elected rather then portfolio. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Cowen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_officeholder#Personal_data portfolio its in personal data ) which them makes impossible to distinguish when they were elected from when they changed position/portfolio while elected. Lostexpectation (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The template is intended to work on articles in various countries, so the fields do not always align precisely with how offices are treated in each country. Could you please explain what information you are wanting to present in the infobox? Once we know what you are trying to show we may be able to advise a solution or adapt the template to compensate. Road Wizard (talk) 02:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

i don't know how I can make it clearer, _most_ politicians are elected, and most politicians then get a portfolio(or shadow portfolio), but most infobox's list the date they get elected(assumed office) in the same way (office#, term_start#)as the date of which they are appointed to a cabinet position of minister for justice for example( ie a portfolio), see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dermot_Ahern, which means which i then cannot extract the dates they are elected as opposed to the dates when they change portfolio, during their continuing elected period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dermot_Ahern

| office5 = Teachta Dála
| constituency5 = Louth
| term_start5 = 17 February 1987

Dermot Ahern was first elected to parliament 17 February 1987 as Teachta Dála in the Dail (and re-elected on 24 May 2007 for a presumed 5 yr period)

| office = Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
| term_start = 7 May 2008
| term_end =

Around the 7 May 2008 there was cabinet reshuffle and as he was a elected Teachta Dála and a member of the governing party he was eligible to be appointed as cabinet member for the portfolio of minister for justice

getting elected and being appointed to a position only by virtue of being elected are two very different things. one is the subclass of the other

there are 166 'office'rs of the irish parliament there's only 1 minister for justice. they are not equivalent.

they are two very different things. the person is holding(occupying) the office and then in personal data they have a portfolio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_officeholder#Personal_data

I presume that this is what portfolio is for, i don't see it used often and im not going to go around changing things if there isn't consensus to do so. but i do see it as glaring error, how many editors am i going to have to convince?

im trying to extract the information for use in spreadsheets, freebase etc, via dbpedia, so trying do something quicker then editing the info one by one, wikipedia seems to be quite clunky and behind the tech if you can't bulk edit things.

Lostexpectation (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Why does the footnotes bar appear when there are no footnotes?

Like so:

John Smith

The bottom, footnotes bar should not appear when there are no footnotes. Even the code seems to back me up on this:

{{#if:{{{footnotes|}}}|
{{!}}colspan="2" style="border-top:1px solid; font-size:90%;"{{!}} {{{footnotes}}}
{{!}}-
}}

So why does it still appear? Gary King (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not the footnotes bar, that's from someplace higher up. I modified your example to show that it's above the "date of birth" field. I will have a look. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay thank you for pointing that out. I'm referring to the bottom bar in the infobox at National Convention. Gary King (talk) 03:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Why are you using this infobox for something other than an officeholder? May I suggest {{Infobox Legislature Historic}} perhaps? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Because I wasn't the one who added the infobox. But that still doesn't solve the unnecessary line. Gary King (talk) 03:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, sure. I will see if I can track down the problem. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Redundant line break

Can we remove the extra line break at the start of the template? It seems unnecessary, and puts a break in every article that uses it. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I have checked a few articles and I can't see any unusual spaces. Can you provide a couple of examples where it is happening? Is the break appearing above the template, or inside the template? It could be something on the articles you are looking at, or it may be a browser specific issue. Road Wizard (talk) 01:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus for move. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Template:Infobox officeholder → Template:Infobox politician — This template essentially deals with politicians of one form or another, and so I think the suggested name would be more appropriate for this infobox. Hera1187 (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support Neutral In that it would also apply to politicians who are no longer holding an office. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC) However, as it has been pointed out below, there are nonpolitical officeholders. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Judges are not usually politicians (at least in the UK). Road Wizard (talk) 01:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Road Wizard. The template would apply to officeholders and (by inference) potential and former officeholders. This covers all current uses of the template. Changing it to "politician" would be less appropriate, as it would exclude an important use of the template in judges. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 05:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose There are many nonpolitical offices. More to the point, there are many politicians who hold no office, and even some who have never held an office. -- Zsero (talk) 14:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose For most of the world many of the offices are non-political (e.g. Judges in most of the Commonwealth, etc)-SpacemanSpiff 23:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

A bit of a strange closing statement there, "no consensus for move" - it seems to be a clear consensus against this particular move as the nominator is the only one to support it. However, as long as the discussion remains intact, future editors should be able to judge the proposal for themselves. Road Wizard (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, "no consensus for move" as in "no support for move, thus page not moved". I'll clarify this in future closures. My apologies, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

{{editprotected}} I request adding a parameter for pronunciation, that would contain the IPA pronunciation of the names of people. In the discussion that took place at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (pronunciation)#Do we need to tell people how to say George W. Bush? (following the one at Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 58#IPA pronunciation), it was decided that placing the IPA at the infobox was a good way to both keep it in the article and avoid having it clutter the lead (and it's first sentence) with strange fonts that few people understand. Templates like {{Infobox planet}} already include it. MBelgrano (talk) 15:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Infobox templates shouldn't contain unique information. The use of the lede for pronunciation is well-established at this point, and shoulnd't be changed lightly based on one article discussion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to have a discussion here before implementation as this will affect tens of thousands of articles. I estimated it was on over 22,000 pages in December 2008 and the number has probably gone up considerably since then. Also, do you have details of the code you want to be inserted and have you tested it through a sandbox? If not, the protected edit request is premature as the admin handling the request won't know what change you want to make. Road Wizard (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Disabling for now because there isn't a clear path to implementation, let alone a real indication of consensus. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Alma mater

Can we switch the field name "|alma_mater = " to "|education = ". It is odd to have a latin phrase in the English Wikipedia for a field name. It requires a blue link to explain to people what it is and that blue link looks odd in the infobox. The definition it leads to isn't clear as to whether it is supposed to only include undergraduate college or a person's entire education from prep school to any advanced degree. Alma mater is singular, so I get the impression that it is meant to hold a single value. If the field was education, I would know to add in any blue linked institution. As it stands I am not sure what the single entity of nourishing mother should be. Anyone else have an opinion? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not really a "latin phrase" in that it's a well-accepted piece of jargon in modern English, albeit rather an American one. But more importantly, changing the field name would break existing instances. If this is to be changed, then both parameter names have to be accepted and it's the label that will be changed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I commented on this on the infobox person as well, but for a different reason. Alma Mater is too ambiguous. Is an alma mater allowed if you get a degree from a university, or if you just attend it and drop out? What if you only take one class there? What if you get an honorary degree? It isn't universal throughout wikipedia. A better idea, IMHO, is to have Education and then it can be specified there such as "Education: Northeastern University (honorary degree), New York University (Associates degree)" TheWeakWilled (T * G) 22:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Width of signatures

Would it be possible to add a parameter to change the width of the signature? 128 pixels works well for most signatures but not so much for vertical ones like this one. Laurent (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Members of the House of Lords

Would it be possible for someone to add in fields for members of the House of Lords ie what type of Peerage the have and their territorial designation ?--Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 13:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you want for those of us who aren't really familiar with the House of Lords? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 17:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you also clarify for those of us who are familiar why you think this is necessary. I don't see the point. -Rrius (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The House of Lords is the upper house of the UK Parliament its members are the equivalent of MPs in the House of Commons, have a look at the Helene Hayman, Baroness Hayman article there are no fields for Members of the House of Lords at the moment and being members of the Peerage are the only thing that makes them unique.--Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 19:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

But they aren't the equivalent of MPs, and their life membership and membership in consequence of the peerage do make them unique. The only similar body I can think of, the Senate of Canada, has a specific number of seats and is appointed from a specific province or territory. The overwhelming majority of members of the Lords are life peers. They have no constituency, no term of office, and no successors. The mere fact of being life peers means they they are members for the rest of their lives, so there is no need to add something to the infobox. Their infobox would say,

The Rt Hon. The Lord X

Member of the House of Lords

Assumed office

30 June 2008

For almost all of them, that would be the sum total of their infobox. There is, admittedly, more information to convey about at least some hereditaries, i.e., those joining or rejoining through lists or by-election, but the information could easily be handled in the lead. What exactly, then, is the draw for having an entry? I'm not adamantly opposed to this, but It needs to be explained. Saying they are not unique is not enough because they manifestly are unique. -Rrius (talk) 08:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

But they are the equivalent to MP's the only difference being they do not face election, they are members of a chamber of parliament and AFAIK all other parliamentarians have info-boxes including as you mention Senators of Canada, and I said they are unique, hence why their peerage info should be included in the infobox as this it what entitles when to members of the lords. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 20:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

We are looking at this from different perspectives. You seem to think that peers "deserve" a politician infobox because they are members of a legislature. I believe it does not seem appropriate because essentially none of the information regarding an office that is usually contained in the infobox applies here. The section for MPs says, "Member of Parliament / for [Constituency] / [date] – [date] / Preceded by X / Succeeded by Y". Current MPs also have their majority at the last election listed. Members of the Lords would already have their peerage or episcopal information at the top of the infobox as it is part of their names. As a result, all that would be included in a Lords item of the infobox would be "Member of the House of Lords / [date] – [date]". That hardly seems worth doing here. -Rrius (talk) 02:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes of Canadian politicians

IMHO, Political Party Leader should be excluded from those infoboxes. The infoboxes should have only House of Commons, Senate & Provincial Assembly offices. Of course the Monarch & GG should be in the Prime Ministers infobox & the Lieutenant Governor in the Premiers infobox. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• I completely disagree. If someone is the leader of a federal party, that is totally relevant. Also, military service is relevant and is listed on the parliamentarian biographies section of the House of Commons website. Union leadership may be debatable though, but my solution is if it is on the official HoC biography website, it can and should be included here. If someone was a former premier, like Douglas and Standfield, the more general politician infobox should be used.--Abebenjoe (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

We need consitancy in those infoboxes & not all of them had 'party leader'. GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you all talking about party leaders having that office listed among others in their infoboxes or about MPs having their leaders listed? -Rrius (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

For example: At Robert Stanfield's infobox, IMHO it's right to have Leader of the Opposition, but wrong to have Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

For one thing, the infobox was wrong: Stanfield won a by-election on November 9, 1967. The special issue with Stanfield is that he was elected leader before joining the House of Commons, so he was briefly Leader of the Progressive Conservatives, but not Leader of the Opposition. The question is, do we really care about those two months for the purposes of the infobox? For most other party leaders, it wouldn't make sense to note the party leadership and being PM or LO. It would make sense, though, if they were leader of a party that was 2nd largest and 3rd largest during his or her tenure. -Rrius (talk) 01:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I just find that having 'party leader' in the Canadian infoboxes is similiar to having 'party presidential nominee' in the American infoboxes (which thankfully, they aint). GoodDay (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with that. John McCain is not by any stretch the leader of the Republican Party, and only was for about seven months. The closest equivalents, in my view, would be the floor leaders (majority and minority leaders) of both houses. -Rrius (talk) 02:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly OBJECT Look Goodday, your argument is extremely weak. If an MP is the leader of their party, it is relevant, plain and simple. No machinations otherwise makes sense. David Lewis, Tommy Douglas, Robert Stanfield, hell, even Joe Clark, deserve to have the office of leader recognized in their infobox. I don't understand where you are coming from to suggest that it is an irrelevant fact. This isn't the "purity of form" that Plato sought in his philosophy. Christ, these folks won internal elections to become leader of their party, and it should be recognized. Why the petty devolution of their achievement? On top of that, the people I just mentioned were elected to the House of Commons, unlike a certain Green Party Leader that hails from the USA, but claims to be a Cape Bretoner. I don't even object to having her have a HoC listing, because, her party is a federal party that ran for office federally. Again, why be so petty, because that is all your argument is, nothing more.--Abebenjoe (talk) 05:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that was unnecessarily harsh. This is not about who deserves what. It simply doesn't make sense to list party leadership when that time is accounted for by service as PM or Leader of the Opposition. Thus, Joe Clark should have Leader of the Opposition, not Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, added to his infobox. Stanfield is a weird case because of that two-month gap, and the issue should be dealt with at that article. Tommy Douglas, Jack Layton, David Lewis, and Elizabeth May should all have party leadership noted because their leadership time does not involve being PM or LO. -Rrius (talk) 05:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• • • Hardly harsh enough! I don't buy into the argument that any of the leaders of federal parties should not be recognized as such. I see this as an affront! Plain and simple! I.e., do you think I have both a strong emotional, and logical reason for thinking that excluding leadership status is a bad thing? No matter what party you subscribe to, these folks put themselves on the line, like none of has, and I was a federal candidate b.t.w. At a minimum, it shows respect that they had the courage to lead a party that ran for office in the House of Commons, which means, as far as the HoC InfoBox is concerned, it is relevant...period. I just think that GoodDay is utterly unjustified in their assumptions. The fact that the David Lewis article didn't make it to Feature Article, wasn't because there was a single complaint about the InfoBox. The editors and administrators that deal with FA certification, would find this laughable! You can't separate party leadership, with HoC representation, because, as an example, both David Lewis and T.C. Douglas were leaders of the "Third Party" in the HoC, which means they were the leaders of the party. This entire thread is absurd...period, and shows a complete lack of political experience by the person that brought it about. I'm a historian academically, and I really can't get my head around an argument that divorces the fact that people lead parties in the HoC. Harsh criticism: guilty as charged! This is amoungst the dumbest debates I've been party to on Wikipedia, and Bearcat, as an administrator, you should know better! There's three articles I've been researching this month, that I couldn't update, because I'm involved in this pedantic, useless thread. This is why Wikipedia is so infuriating, because anyone with even the most outlandish objection, has to be beaten down, at the cost of adding useful content to an article. If you haven't guessed, I'm extremely pissed-off this topic is even up for discussion.--Abebenjoe (talk) 06:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Now I'm really pissed off! The InfoBox for David Lewis was Politician, and Goodday mucked around that! Absolutely had no right what-so-ever. This debate isn't even over the right title of InfoBox. It was inappropriate for Goodday to even interfere with that Infobox, as it is the most general for a politician. There is a specific HoC InfoBox, and that isn't it. Man this is a waste of time...Administrators, you're not doing your job by even suggesting this as a category for debate. Clearly Goodday didn't know what the hell they were doing, and should have been slapped on the wrist for their unwarranted changes.--Abebenjoe (talk) 07:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• To be leader of a party is a sufficent and notable fact of information which to me belongs in an infobox. I oppose the proposed changes to infoboxs of canadian politicans which remove this information. Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Abebenjoe, if you want to 'revert' my deletions, you're free to do so (I'm not gonna edit war over the issue). When I checked out all the party leaders infoboxes, they were inconsistant & so I attempted to make them consistant with my rational view. If I have blunder? so be it, I blundered. Furthermore, that you were a candidate for the HoC, is irrelevant here. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Abebenjoe, you need to take a step back, read what has been written, and actually address the points made. I have made the distinction between people like Stephen Harper and people like Jack Layton, but you have failed utterly to address the point. Instead you have gotten "extremely pissed off" and showed a complete lack of respect for other people in the debate. Instead of implying that admins should quelch a perfectly reasonable topic of discussion and admonishing editors (Bearcat) who haven't participated in this thread, why don't you just handle this like an adult? For a start, answer my question: is there any reason why Stephen Harper's infobox should list "Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada" when that position is reflected in his service as Leader of the Opposition and as Prime Minister? -Rrius (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's a new one: Paul Martin was Liberal Leader until he resigned in March 2006, but Bob Graham was Leader of the Opposition starting in January 2006 (until December 2006). One doesn't have to be party leader, in order to be PM or Opposition Leader. Come to think of it, one doesn't have to be a member of the House of Commons to be PM, one can be a member of the Senate & PM (see John Abbott & Mackenzie Bowell). -- GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

actually i do find this last comparison to make the most sense to me. I still think the information (party leadership) is relevant but i am beginning to see your view point on thisOttawa4ever (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Being the leader of a major political party is what many people were the most notable for. The average Canadian will not know who Alex Atamanenko is (for instance), but will know who Jack Layton is (again, just an example) solely because he is party leader. This infobox, IMHO, is supposed to summarize the main offices that a person held and in many cases, party leader is the most important office they held. MitchellDuce (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Would it be a correct observation, that a majority here wants to include party leadership in the infoboxes? GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I would be in support of that (So long as its a official party of course.) Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll reverse my deletion on those infoboxes-in-question. For consistancy sake, I hope we can have 'party leader' included in all them. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Reversions have been completed, according to the majority opinon, which calls for inclusion. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Birth_date

If you don't have a birth date then how do you get the birth place to appear? The only way I could see was to add n/a, see Eva Aariak. The location should appear even if the date is not available. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 18:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I made some adjustments to the template code, so it should work now. Please revert my edits if I made a mistake. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow that was quick. Thanks. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 21:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)