Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Where is Religion in infobox officeholder?

I wanted to add "Christianity" to Yakubu Dogara article. Which is a very important element in the article, even politically because religion plays a vital role in the zoning of political office-holders. This case is even more important because he's a christian in the predominantly muslim Northern Nigeria. So I discovered it changes were not being effected when I previewed, so I Googled "Religion in infobox officeholder" and I was redirected here, then discovered it was deleted. I don't know the type of discussion that led to this but my understanding is that it is not the best. Religion is very key to Nigerian officeholders, it determines who can contest elections. Darreg (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

See this discussion for background. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

If there is ever a classic example of westernization of Wikipedia articles. This is it. You people will just create RFC without the knowledge of more than half of Wikipedians and take decisions that will be binded to all. Disheartening! Religion of a Nigerian (and maybe African) officeholder is even more important than political party or ethnicity. By law, we can never have a Christian/Christian or Muslim/Muslim president and vice. The same applies to most elective positions in Nigeria. Denomination is not necessary, but religion should not be removed. Nigerian political elites do not switch religions. Just because American electorates don't care about the religious faith of their leader, doesn't mean the whole world should follow their system. Darreg (talk) 07:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Please how can I create a custom parameter? Darreg (talk) 07:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

If you look at the listing here, see the "blank" parameters? You should be able to add |blank1=religion and |data1=Christian (or whatever). Nikkimaria (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Sorry for my "rantings". For record sake, it wasn't directed to you or any specific Wikipedian. It was just my way of showing a strong displeasure at the "community" decision to delete the parameter. Darreg (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Restore religion parameter

Now, with the recent political crisis in Lebanon, a country whose very political system/civil wars etc, is based on the religion of the politician, this parameter has never been as relevant/missed. The removal was done as a result of very thin and light discussion here, which did not take into account the situation of countries such as Lebanon/Syria/Iraq/Pakistan/Indian (or even in Germany, where the religious affiliation of the German emperor in WWI was really not a detail at all)...From what I could find on Wikipedia as a discussion, it appears that this decision has been made during the polarization of American election. In particular, the religious categorization of Bernie Sanders being apparently a sensitive/embarrassing topic for his supporters/opponents.
Really in the context of (e.g.) Lebanese politics the religion field is perhaps the number one spot one looks when they don't already know a lot about that politician. Where Lebanese politics is an extreme example, I imagine that the situation is similar in many different countries where the religion of a politician isn't at all an anecdotal detail. Even in American/Western contexts, religion of a politician is far from trivial; Catholic/Lutheran/Mormon etc. Even more so in historical contexts. --Tachfin (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Anything WP:DUE and reliably sourced could be in the lead of the article (provided it is a summary of a later section). Johnuniq (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

That speaks more to problems with Lebanese (Syrian/Iraqi/Pakistani/Indian...) electorates than to a problem with Wikipedia. The vast majority of the time religion appeared in infoboxes, it was in any case unreferenced, and usually didn't figure at all in the rest of the biography. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Add to Category:People and person infobox templates?

Should this (and some other types of infoboxes be added to "Category:People and person infobox templates"?

Ira

Ira Leviton (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

it already is in Category:People and person infobox templates, so are you asking to remove it? Frietjes (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Awkward titles for ambassadors

When this template is used for ambassadors, it results in the phrasing "[Country1] Ambassador to [Country2]", which probably looked great for the test case, "United States ambassador to France", but which looks awkward for just about any other country, e.g. "Colombia Ambassador to Peru", or which forces awkward template syntax, e.g. "ambassador_from = Russian" in Arthur Cassini or "ambassador_from6 = Australian" in Richard Casey, Baron Casey.

It also results in abnormal usage when "United States" is in the "to" parameter, as in Carlos Alfredo Urrutia Valenzuela: "Colombia Ambassador to United States".

People are working around this by putting the ambassador link in |office=, as in Juan Carlos Pinzón. This means we can't track or categorize ambassador usages.

The only generic solution I can come up with is "Ambassador of [Country1] to [Country2]", which would work for almost all countries except for the United States, which is preceded by "the" (the United Kingdom is probably this way too). Maybe we should test for countries that take a "the" prefix. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Formally ambassadors to the UK are Ambassadors to the Court of St James's, with the exception of the 47 "ambassadors" who are High commissioners instead. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

A possible solution exists in {{CountryPrefixThe}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Done, in this edi[1]. See e.g. the output on Gustavo Balcázar Monzón.

However, the phrasing "[Country1] Ambassador to [Country2]" is still clumsy.

In that word order it should be "[Nationality1] Ambassador to [Country2]".

I suggest changing it to phrasing "Ambassador of [Country1] to [Country2]", wrapping [Country1] in {{CountryPrefixThe}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, [Country2] should also be wrapped in {{CountryPrefixThe}}, I think, so that we would get "Ambassador of (the) |ambassador_from= to (the) |country=", inserting "the" only for countries that require it. We should also change the "minister" part of the code to match, so that it says "Minister of (the) |minister_from= to (the) |country=". – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Multiple terms in office

Is there any way to show multiple terms in office without having "Incumbent" or "Taking office" show? In particular, I'd like to change Ian Boucard to show that he'll be a deputy again starting on 5 February 2018. Thanks, Mélencron (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@Mélencron: See this edit. You'll have to add other information if it's needed (i.e. predecessor). Just add |predecessor= after the first |term_end=. Hope that helps. Corky 03:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 11 February 2018

It has been suggested multiple time (see above section "Should we add |chiefminister for India and Pakistan?" for example) by multiple editors in the past that we need a new parameter "chief minister". People have suggested us to use |1blankname= but this is not really workable before sometimes one need to add names of several chief ministers in a infobox. Therefore I propose that this slot be added to the template please. Saqib (talk) 14:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Please see the very first section on the test cases page. It shows that by using |1blankname=Chief Minister and |1namedata= with the {{plainlist}} template, multiple names can be added to the "Chief Minister" title. The code used is:

|1blankname         = Chief Minister
|1namedata          = {{plainlist|
* [[1st name goes here]]
* [[2nd name goes here]]
* [[3rd name goes here]]}}

Is this what you want to accomplish?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  17:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Saqib?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  10:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Removing Religion from info-boxs.

This is completely frustrating an irritating that this information has been removed from the info-boxes.

I think showing someone's religious beliefs is vital to explaining them and understanding them as a person, if it's a proven fact with a strong citation.

Showing someone's Religious beliefs allows a basic understanding to their personal beliefs into morality, philosophy, and views on a lot, without making an entire section explaining what they believed. This allows viewers to simply find a key part of someone without searching an entire page just to get a basic idea. Even for living Bibliographies of people that do not follow the teachings of their specific "Church" it still gives a basic idea. A side not of "loose follower" or not included in certain articles is reasonable, but completely not allowing is bad decision. Especially for Historical figures of which were greatly involved or believed in their specific faith.

I think it's hiding a very important part of a figure... (I think it should be included in some info-boxes.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin.P.L (talk • contribs) 06:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Withdrawn nominees?

I didn't see anything particularly relevant to this in the archives: if a person has notability primarily for being a withdrawn nominee, should that be captured in an infobox? It seems like this could be covered by using "infobox politician" with the "nominee" parameter, but I'm wondering if it should. (The article in question is Robert M. Weaver.)--NapoliRoma (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Should we add |chiefminister for India and Pakistan?

I was editing a page about Pakistani politics recently and tried to add the |chiefminister tag. Unfortunately, it came to my attention that this did not exist. Surely if Ireland has its |taiosech tag, Scotland and Wales, have their labels for first Minister, then surely two of the most populous countries in the world can have tags for their devolved assemblies? Masterpha (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@Masterpha: This is something I and others suggested before as well but no one seems to be interested discussing it. See Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder/Archive_21#Parameter_for_Chief_Minister and Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder/Archive_21#Chief_minister_slot. Instead, @Phlar: suggested to use |1blankname= but this is not really workable before sometimes one need to add names of several chief ministers in a infobox. I would say we should go ahead and add it. If anyone has any concerns, they may express it here before I add the parameter in next couple of days. --Saqib (talk) 11:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support Capankajsmilyo (talk) 06:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Religion= restoration and guideline for usage

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus to restore religion as a standard field, but the template includes configurable fields that can be used to add religion in particular instances where it is relevant. --RL0919 (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

---

Preamble: The majoritarian idea of governance often has the provision that certain majoritarian actions might be infringing on minority groups, which is to say the actions are persecutory, and therefore statutes have to be put in place to either limit majoritarian rampages, or else protect minority interests specifically.

The RFC to remove the religion= tag from the main infobox might have come about without fair treatment of the minority opinion, and so I propose two things, that the religion= tag be restored and a guideline for its usage be written. In addition, I make the suggestion that Arbcom review the RFC in order to form guidelines to protect minority interests from majoritarian sweeps, such that as in this case, other solutions were not sought or taken.

On the matter of the RFC and its claimed validity, the validity naturally rests entirely on the idea of it being majoritarian, and a "snow close" issue. But then atheist majoritarianism would have the problem that it would wipe away religion as a topical element from articles project wide, and that has to be prevented, by statute and guideline.

The internet seems to have a strong showing of atheists and science-culturists, but if science culture is taking the form of an irrational cult religion, and atheism is not really a personal view but an increasingly more organized anti-religion movement, then these things need to be countered with some common sense that rejects POV movements and does honorable treatment of the human condition and the role religion has played in it. -Inowen (talk) 06:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Was that intended to start an RfC? What was the collapse template for? I removed some templates because an RfC cannot be held without a clear proposal. The above includes "religion= tag be restored and a guideline for its usage be written". What suggestions are there for a guideline? There is no point holding a motherhood RfC about whether it would be nice if someone wrote a guideline. Arbcom will not review an RfC. Johnuniq (talk) 08:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• The previous RFC did say that we can manually add a “Religion=“ parameter - WHEN APPROPRIATE ... so it does make sense to give some guidance that tells editors WHEN it would be appropriate to add it (and when it would NOT be appropriate). Suggest that Inowen draft some proposed language for us to consider. Blueboar (talk) 12:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
• @Blueboar, et al.: Where is that passage, and how is that a part of the ruling if the ruling, by community, is not condensed and transformed into a guideline. The RFC was to remove the tag from the master template. As I understand how infoboxes work, the tag will not work unless its in the original template, unless theres some way of adding it in a variable-use field, but then all of these tags are sort of variable use, and wont show up unless there is input, so I dont see your point. The point of this RFC is to reinstate the tag, but then even if its not reinstated, there still needs to be some guideline, for the record about this policy that the community has tried to conjure, and for the usage of the variable option that youve brought up. -Inowen (talk) 08:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @Inowen: If you want to add religion, you can currently use |blank1=religion and |data1=Christian (or whatever) to do so. It doesn't require restoring the |religion= parameter. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per the prevailing consensus responses (including my own) in the RFC that removed the religion parameter from most infoboxes. The proposal here is awkwardly written at best. "Majoritarian rampages" appears to careen between a synonym for our consensus governance process and a suggestion of some atheist conspiracy to persecute religion. "Wipe away religion as a topical element from articles project wide" is simply false. The religion parameter was removed from most infoboxes, and an important part of that consensus was that religion should be covered in article prose wherever it is relevant to the biography. I am particularly unswayed by the suggestion that "science culture is taking the form of an irrational cult religion". Alsee (talk) 09:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - the RFC here is not clearly stated, but yes I prefer to have the religion tag restored. The argument that it could be added only adds to that -- I'd rather a consistent simple use rather than ad hoc differences and umpteen local squabbles or local consensus. Markbassett (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
• Neutral. It is useful if the parameter is there, but you can add local parameters for the infoboxes, and adding a |religon= parameter could cause new problems. Nigos (talk · contribs) 06:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Military service" - parameterize title?

In the

| header59 ={{#if:...blah...|Military serivce}}

, I suggest we include a parameter, |military_service_title=. If not set, the default behaviour will remain.

I think that this should be done, because of the usage in places e.g. Osama Bin Laden. As was pointed out at Special:Permalink/839677706#User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning, the title "military service" may cause issues when dealing with terrorists. Of course, this will cause issues about just who should have it changed, but I think a local consensus is a more appropriate avenue. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 00:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose see WP:TERRORIST. --John (talk) 09:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Changes to text size

@Muboshgu:. You've made this change unilaterally, with no prior discussion, and it looks utterly dreadful. The section of the MOS you cited (MOS:FONTSIZE) explains, "in no case should the resulting font size drop below 85% of the page font size". You have now increased the size of prefix/suffix text to 125%. The text was regular sized; now it is oversized. Can I ask you to reconsider the change? --Hazhk (talk) 02:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Pursuant to the MOS, perhaps the size could be set at 85%? --Hazhk (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The changes made are absolutely awful. The prefix and suffix were already normal text size, they were just small in comparison to the name section, which is larger than normal and bolded. DrJenkins365 (talk) 04:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Just take one look at an article like David Johnston to see what kind of a disaster this has caused. DrJenkins365 (talk) 04:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted the change. It looked terrible, and is an misunderstanding of the MOS:FONTSIZE guideline—the honorific fields were already larger (12.3 pt) than 85% (11.9 pt) of the page text size (14 pt) because the name and honorific fields were enlarged 130% to 16 pt. --Canley (talk) 05:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting that awful change! -- Blairall (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Request

WP:CWNB has recently identified an issue with this box, where the riding#= fields (a Canadian term for an electoral district) are behaving as office= (starting a new section in the infobox, etc.) — but that's not correct, they should in fact be behaving as constituency= (i.e. listing the name of the constituency/riding as a detail under a section already defined by office= rather than starting a new one), because "constituency" is the more universal term for what "riding" actually means. Can anybody who knows more about template coding than I do correct this? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Embedding with {{Infobox criminal}}

It would be nice if this template could be embedding with {{Infobox criminal}} because often some politicians notable because of its criminal status such as corruption. Similarly, we have "Military service" in this template. Hddty. (talk) 11:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

"Religion" parameter

I read the above discussion on the proposed restoration of the "religion" parameter, featuring User:Inowen, User:Johnuniq, User:Blueboar, User:Nikkimaria, User:Alsee, User:Markbassett and User:Nigos, and I read about the RfC. I also think that the "religion" parameter should be restored.
Showing the religion of a politician is no less important than other personal information like his height, alma mater, parents, relatives, marriage, etc. In Wikipedia there are several articles on the religious affiliation of politicians (just think of Religious affiliations of Presidents of the United States, Religious affiliation in the United States Senate, List of Prime Ministers of Canada by religious affiliation, Religious affiliations of Prime Ministers of the Netherlands, etc.), let alone categories. Moreover, especially on United States officeolders' affiliations, there are several scholar studies. Religion can be a defining character for a politician, much more than his alma mater!
I really do not understand the problem with the "religion" parameter, which would be quite interesting and useful, indeed. Thus, I would like to open (or, better, re-open) a broad discussion on the issue. Please give me your suggestions on how doing it and, possibly, support. --Checco (talk) 08:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Religion was removed from most infoboxes for a number of reasons, including but not limited to: BLP issues and attractive nuisance of unsourced/poorly-sourced religions claims being filled in, excessive battling over contents of the field, and the fact that someone's religious beliefs are often badly misrepresented within the confines of an infobox value. Religion can be covered much more clearly and comprehensively in article text, where relevant to the biography.

Looking over the archived discussion on this page, I see a claim that Nigerian election law imposes religious labeling and constraints on certain officeholders.[2] My google searching has been unable to confirm such a law exists in Nigeria, but my search may have merely failed to find it. If/when we have a such a case, I would support a parameter to hold legally registered officeholder religion. This would solve the sourcing issue (the value would have to directly or indirectly site the legally registered value), as well as solving the definitional issue (either the officeholder is providing a value they accept as self-defining, or the applicable law is providing a defining label). If such a parameter is added, it should not be "Religion". It should be something like "Politically-registered-religion", but I invite suggestions for a shorter parameter name that would be comparably clear on the purpose. Alsee (talk) 00:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

New term label parameter does not show

Hello.

Could someone please explain why the term_label5 parameter ("Life peerage") does not show in article Roger Bootle-Wilbraham, 7th Baron Skelmersdale? The corresponding parameter shows in article Peter Carington, 6th Baron Carrington. If I add a term_end5 parameter (indicating Lord Skelmersdale's death), the term_label5 parameter shows.

I know it's a life peerage, but it is so even if the holder is still living.

Problem temporarily circumvented by placing two parameters' content in one.

HandsomeFella (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Why is height a field?

Why is Height a default field? It's not a metric normally tracked with politicians, unlike say wrestlers and jockeys. If a feature as central as religion was deemed problematic, I struggle to see how height is okay. What's next, blood type? Eye color? --Animalparty! (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Removal of small text formatting

People with template-editor rights are edit warring over a template that is transcluded over 135,000 times and making changes without testing them. Please stop both practices.

First, with any template that is transcluded more than a few thousand times, I strongly encourage testing in the template's sandbox before deploying changes to the main template. We are all capable of errors and misunderstandings, so it's best to commit them on the testcases page rather than on live pages. I am guilty of ignoring this advice at times, but I always remember it when I mess something up.

Second, it may be useful to read this RFC, in which it was confirmed that font sizes below 85% of the page default should not be rendered on en.WP. Invocations of {{small}}, <small>...</small>, and similar constructions are being removed from infoboxes as a result of this RFC.

Please discuss any proposed changes to this template's rendering of font sizes here. Thanks in advance. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Please note that, because the {{Infobox}} |above= parameter automatically applies the font to a size evidently larger than 100%, font-size:77% is actually equivalent to 85% in other circumstances. I am prepared to offer screenshots to confirm this is the case. Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 15:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Still edit warring? As a template editor, you should know better. Just put your proposed edit in the sandbox and explain yourself using data (not screen shots) from the testcases page. It's not that hard.

According to Chrome's Inspector on my computer, the text in the table of contents is 13.3, and the text in |source= is 11.088. This is 83%, technically in violation of MOS's 85% restriction. Please fix. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry. I think I just fixed the issue Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I think I have fixed it with this edit. The source text now shows at 88%. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Jonesey95, there's another issue with small text: the "prior_term" parameter. See Pat Garofalo for an example of how the prior term info is clearly smaller than 85% of normal font. I don't see how to change that parameter, though. Do you know? Or Neveselbert? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I think I have fixed this one as well, but Chrome, where I have been testing, appears to have an ancient bug where it won't clear its cache, so I am unable to verify the fix for sure. Let me know. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Jonesey95, I just checked in Firefox and it's still the same size as before. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

As you can tell, I was not confident in my fix. I think I've got it now. – Jonesey95 (talk) 08:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Wrong display of member status "Member-elect" in Andi Story

Hello, user @Orcalover: reported a problem in Andi Story today at the Teahouse: Using the parameters "preceded" / "succeeding" the display still showed "Member-elect" instead of "Member" even though the politician is already in office. Changing the parameter usage to "predecessor" / "successor" with this edit I fixed the problem, but it would be great if someone knowledgeable about this template could compare both article versions and check the underlying issue. The former parameter set causing the problem is listed in TemplateData and should probably result in exactly the same display, if the different parameter sets were meant as valid alternatives (?). GermanJoe (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Measure of Ideology

I think it would be helpful if the infobox included some measure of ideology such as the DW-NOMINATE (scaling method) score for US politicians. I foresee three main problems though

1. Different scores would be needed for each nation's officeholders.
2. The score would need to be updated for each officeholder.
3. Some scores might be proprietary.

Is there some way this information could be added so that readers could have a more objective measure of a representative's partisan leaning. Also, is there a Wikipedia policy which prohibits this idea from being implemented?

Bhbuehler (talk) 02:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think that's cramming too much data in. And what if scores change over time? This graph and this graph illustrate how much variability the score can have within a person or party, and to be meaningful for comparison we'd need to look at the same people in the same year, ideally assessed by the same researcher. Not to say this information isn't relevant: it may well warrant discussion in the body of the article, but infoboxes are not baseball cards to be loaded with statistics. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Incumbent

What is driving the "Incumbent" link on judges? This seems inappropriate in most cases. See the Kavanaugh infobox, or many of the examples on the judge examples page. ResultingConstant (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 3 February 2019

Would it be possible to edit the following labels to match {{infobox military person}}?

| label62 = {{#if:{{{branch_label|}}}|{{{branch_label|}}}|Branch/service}}

| label63 = {{#if:{{{serviceyears_label|}}}|{{{serviceyears_label|}}}|Years of service}}

| label64 = {{#if:{{{rank_label|}}}|{{{rank_label|}}}|Rank}}

| label65 = {{#if:{{{unit_label|}}}|{{{unit_label|}}}|Unit}}

| label67 = {{#if:{{{battles_label|}}}|{{{battles_label|}}}|Battles/wars}}

Jay D. Easy (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Missing Param

|servicenumber= for military officeholders is not available. Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 04:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Forgotten parameter check

@Jonesey95: thanks for adding the new label parameters to the parameter check template. It appears you've forgotten to add branch_label, however, and now the template incorrectly displays an error message when it's used. Jay D. Easy (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done No rest for the wicked.... – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Officeholder or more specific template?

Is it better to use the general "officeholder" template or the more specific ones such as "state representative"? Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Ordinal numbering

Hello everyone,

after a lengthy and not so successfull discussion with Mewulwe on his talk page and here I believe that the policy regarding the |order= parameter should be changed. To be more precise, official governmental documents should also count as a source in my opinion even if there isn't an established use in the country in question. The fundamental meaning of an encyclopedia is that it serves as a source of valid information and not conventional information. Mewulwe argues that such information is subjective and that it's prone to uncertainties in the future (e.g. non-consecutive terms). I don't believe that such information is subjective if a source to the official government webpage with the disputed ordinal numberings is provided. Even if a case with a non-consecutive term should happen I believe that this question will trigger a nationwide interest on this topic which would yield an answer fast. After reading the discussion which altered this policy to its current form I noticed that the discussion failed to take the basic meaning of an encyclopedia into consideration. Regards CroGamer 1 (talk) 09:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The government webpage doesn't even explicitly number all prime ministers, only the last few (the others must be inferred). It primarily numbers the governments; that numbering is clear enough and could be used on that basis. Since there is currently no evidence of a nationwide interest in numbering the prime ministers, there probably won't be one in the case of a non-consecutive prime minister either and the government webpage might in that case not assign a number at all, in which case there would be no basis for an infobox numbering either, and then you'd have to remove the earlier numbers too. So don't start until the numbering becomes a well-established practice going beyond a single government webpage. Mewulwe (talk) 10:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

We are not discussing our particular case now Mewulwe. I just wanted to post an example. We will continue to discuss our case once this is cleared. CroGamer 1 (talk) 11:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@CroGamer 1: I advise you to make a request for comments. MrClog (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the input @MrClog:. I'm still fairly new to Wikipedia so it will take a little while until I get familiarised. I pinged {{rfc|policy|pol}} at the top of the first comment. CroGamer 1 (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The current from doesn't match the policy on RfCs. I'll therefore set up a new RfC and delete this one. MrClog (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 April 2019

Could someone please add the parameters:

• |speaker= for a Speaker or any other type of legislative presiding officer; could be used on Lindsay Hoyle, Steny Hoyer and Kevin McCarthy for example.
• |chair= for the chair of a party or any other organization. (Is already listed on the template's documentation page but doesn't work)
• |secretary= for the heads of the United States federal executive departments; could be used on articles of Deputy Secretaries, Under Secretaries and the heads of a department's sub-organizations.
• |affiliation= for an MP's affiliation with a parliamentary group – although |parliamentarygroup= already exists, this one is way more succinct.

Regards Colonestarrice (talk) 12:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. This seems like a set of additions that should be discussed, with examples provided for the documentation, and with test cases on the testcases page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

It looks like |speaker= is already supported. See Frederick H. Gillett. To see other uses, you can peruse the Template Data monthly report. |secretary= is already in use at, for example, Tony Blinken, a deputy secretary, where it appears to denote the secretary under whom the person served (if the parameter worked). |affiliation= would probably be used to note someone's party affiliation. Given that there are more than 23,000 pages in Category:Pages using infobox officeholder with unknown parameters, I am wary of adding parameters without a discussion, since the existing template usage is so muddled. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Suggested addition: Media Releases

At the moment, Template:Infobox officeholder has only one field for Website. I'm thinking that for many politicians, there could usefully be a second field for the specific page under their website where they put their Media Releases/Press Releases. Alternatively, we could add Website2. Thoughts? Ben Aveling 14:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I think this would in most cases be more spam than beneficial. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Twitter in Infobox

I do not think we need the Twitter parameter from wikidata in the infobox mainly because it’s just more clutter, but also per WP:ELNO. We don’t usually list social media (at least for American politicians) unless they don’t have an official website (with the exception of Trump). If we do list them, they belong in the External links section, not the infobox. Corky 08:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the harm, considering the prevalence of the medium among officeholders nowadays, often equalling if not surpassing usage of personal webpages. Otherwise, Trump appears to be the overwhelming exception. Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 09:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

The problem with listing it is that once they’re out of office, the Twitter handle is useless and provides no useful information to our readers. It’s just one more thing we have to worry about getting updated. Trumps case however was decided by a consensus as seen on his talk page archives. Corky 10:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

If Twitter is so useless, what's the point in having a Wikidata property dedicated to their handle? Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 10:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

There are many datapoints on Wikidata. Not all of them belong in the infobox. Agree with Corky on this point. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, we (WP) have no control at all over what goes into WD.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Twitter parameter

I don't really see the problem with having an automatic Twitter parameter derived from X username (P2002). Many officeholders have Twitter accounts nowadays, often serving as their secondary (if not primary) personal webpage. Indeed, Donald Trump has his personal Twitter account externally linked in the website parameter for this template on his article. Here was the markup that I had boldly implemented in the past few days, since reverted due to there being no consensus:

| label59 = [[d:{{#invoke:wikibase | id }}#P2002|Twitter]]
| data59 = {{#if:{{in string|source={{{website|}}}|target=twitter.com|plain=true|nomatch=}}||{{#if:{{wikidata|property|P2002}} |[https://twitter.com/{{wikidata|property|P2002}} @{{wikidata|property|P2002}}]}}}}

This way, if said Twitter account has already been linked using the website parameter (as with Trump), such an automatic parameter won't appear in addition. Thoughts? Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 08:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

It's an external link which articles should not promote. If useful, add on case-by-case basis in the external links section. If someone wants to merge this with the previous section, that's fine by me. Johnuniq (talk) 09:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Personal webpages promote the subject, so why are they allowed for |website=? Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 09:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Official websites are considered ok as an exception for the infobox. That is not to promote the subject's website but is in the hope that it might contain useful information. Twitter is not like that and I know of no case where a feed of throw-away bites is regarded as an official website. Of course there are exceptions, and Trump is exception number 1. Johnuniq (talk) 09:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Trump is the overwhelming exception, more like. Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 09:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. Trump's use of Twitter as a replacement for normal official messaging channels is bizarre and unprecedented. It's more of a WP:IAR exception we have to make to cover all the controversies about what he says and does.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC regarding ordinal numbering

The current policy regarding ordinal numbering is that an infobox should only mention someone is the nth President, Prime-Minister, senator, etc. if this is well established practice in the country the person holds office in. Recently, CroGamer 1 has called for this policy to change. The problem lies in the fact that ordinal numbering is subjective; if someone is elected non-consecutively, how does the numbering works? What about a temporarily acting officeholder? At the same time, knowing that someone was the "11th President of X" can be useful to know. If there is a well established usage in the relevant country, we should still follow that. If this isn't the case, should we continue our policy of not mentioning it, or should we have a wiki-wide policy for all these countries in which we establish how to number? 23:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

It appears the current policy makes the most sense in regards to the infobox. Wikipedia should not be in the business of creating numbering systems where one is not in standard usage in the country it is referring to. Should one become common in usage, then it should be added to the infobox. --Tchouppy (talk) 13:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

As stated in the discussion above this one, I firmly believe that the basic purpose of an encyclopedia is that it servers as a source of valid information and not information which has established use. An encyclopedia wouldn't make sense if it contains information that everybody already knows. CroGamer 1 (talk) 18:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Should this even count as a consensus since I see editors viewing the discussion but no one is opposing it? CroGamer 1 (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

As I understood it, the debate wasn't about introducing original numbering systems but "established use" vs "well established use" and what kinds of sources we'd allow. Some editors seem to support the former approach, some the latter (and a few are fine with us ordering them ourselves). For example, this page listing successive Croatian governments was cited since it describes the relevant Prime Minister as the "eleventh".

I think "established use" could be defined as

1. any government source
2. a government source with the explicit purpose of listing officeholders in order (e.g.)
3. or just any reliable list

The best argument I could think of in favour of being more lenient is that ordinal numbering can be useful in establishing a timeline for readers looking at multiple articles at once. Ultimately I'm not sure, but in any case I think our policy at least needs the caveat that you shouldn't enforce it in a way that leaves articles on holders of the same office inconsistent (per GoodDay in 2017). If someone adds a number to the latest officeholder, for example, you should be willing to go through the officeholders in the same series and remove their numbers first before reverting. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 13:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Continue the current policy. It isn't wikipedia's job to decide numbering. Numbering should only ever be used if it is the well-established practice among reliable sources. We don't need a new policy on how to number, we've already got one. DrKay (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree DrKay that it isn't our business to make the numbers up. I'm just discussing whether should very reliable source(s) count even if there isn't evidence of established use (and I still don't see the point why they shouldn't). ReconditeRodent, you got the discussion right and I completely agree with your viewpoint. The term "established use" should be slightly updated. CroGamer 1 (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Like anything else, we know something is "valid information" when multiple, independent, WP:RSs agree on it. The existing policy makes sense. The alternative is often seen in articles on central Asian topics, which sometimes have numbered lists, sometimes using # markup, when such numbering has no meaning (e.g., alphabetical listings of people, places) and no verified usage by outside sources, not to mention being easily corrupted when editors add or remove items. Implying an order to such lists is not only WP:OR, but wrong. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that we can't add info if we have a single "unoriginal" source (e.g. a news media webpage). If the "original" source (government in this case) does provide the information that should mean something. The original source should have the final word in my opinion. CroGamer 1 (talk) 11:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I've just re-noticed and re-read this. There's a related thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists#Numbering of officeholders, posted by Verbcatcher (talk · contribs), to which I replied that we've had something like this before, see Talk:Paul Ryan#RFC: Ordinal numbers. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I think that the final word in these kind of disputes should have the institution in question if it offers the info. CroGamer 1 (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Do we have a consensus then? If nobody expresses disregard on my suggestion within the next 72 hours I will modify the instructions for this template after the set time limit expires. Regards, CroGamer 1 (talk) 21:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

It seems that there is a consensus to continue the current practice rather than modify the instructions. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see that editors are still opposing my proposal. I have elaborated my view and no one continued to oppose it. CroGamer 1 (talk) 09:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

More than one has said the current practice should be continued, and I don't see that you've convinced any to change their view with your elaboration. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm willing to further discuss this issue but no one is showing continued resistance. I didn't receive any feedback after my elaboration which means they changed their stance. CroGamer 1 (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

If you'd like to find out whether they actually changed their stance, ping them and ask. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@DrKay, AlanM1, ReconditeRodent, Tchouppy, and Redrose64: are you still at your former point of view on this issue after my elaboration? If not, please explain why. CroGamer 1 (talk) 12:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I am fine with the fact that if the government website provides a numbering system for their officials, it may be evidence of established use. If I were editing an article on the subject, I would assume that the government is a reliable source for this information and would think it perfectly fine to use.Tchouppy (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

At this point, all I request is that if an editor is going to remove a numbering from the current office holder's infobox (and intro)? then they should likewise do so for the infoboxes (and intros) of 'all' that office holder's predecessors. Consistency isn't a bad thing. GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

The info should still be displayed somewhere but not in the infobox by my judgement. CroGamer 1 (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I would remove ordinal numbering altogether. It is hardly a relevant information.
There are just a few exceptions, such as United States presidents. --Checco (talk) 11:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I kinda like it. It gives you an idea who succeed who. I personally browse Wikipedia sometimes by ordinal numbers. CroGamer 1 (talk) 11:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

CroGamer 1, I can't completely follow the above discussion, but the one thing that is clear is that multiple editors prefer the current language. The current documentation says The parameter |order= is used in conjunction with |office= to state that the officeholder is the nth holder of the office, for example "42nd President of the United States". This should only be used when there is a well established use of such numbering in reliable sources. What is your proposed new language? It is typical for an RFC like this one to propose new language, but if it is somewhere above, I am missing it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: to summaries the above discussion in a single post, I'm suggesting that the rules regarding the parameter |order= be slightly updated. An encyclopedia is a source of valid information and not information which has established use. The current policy suggests the opposite, i.e., Wikipedia is a source of information with established use. To clarify, if there isn't evidence of established use but the institution in question (e.g., government) offers this information that should count here on Wikipedia. To give an example, in my country nobody refers to any political office holder as the Xth holder of that office (e.g., Xth Prime Minister of Croatia) but the official government website does offer a list of former office holders with their respective ordinal numbers. The institutions in question should have the final word in these scenarios if there isn't considerable resistance in my opinion. Editors initially refused my proposal but once I explained my point to the fullest they didn't respond back. I pinged them today and I'm currently waiting for their response. CroGamer 1 (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a source of information with established use. Or should be according to policy. DrKay (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

DrKay, correct. That policy would be correct if I should for example write when the person goes to bed. This is the American version of Wikipedia and it should contain the ordinal numbers of persons if there is a list provided. Americans extensively use this system so this isn't a "small" detail. CroGamer 1 (talk) 10:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@CroGamer 1: This is not "the American version of Wikipedia" - there is no such thing. This is the English Wikipedia, and that is English as in English-language. It is international in scope. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Redrose64, okay, I confess that this sounded a bit stupid. But still, by removing this info it would cause inconsistencies with other articles as GoodDay suggested. CroGamer 1 (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

CroGamer 1 appears to be claiming that official government websites are not reliable sources, so we should somehow amend the documentation. The problem with this argument is that government web sites generally fit WP's definition of RS, per WP:RS: Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. So again: What is your proposed new language, CroGamer 1? Based on your summary above, I do not see that a change to the documentation is needed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I did NOT say that government websites aren't reliable sources. I stated just the opposite. CroGamer 1 (talk) 10:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

CroGamer 1, what is your proposed new language? – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean under new language? How would I write the rule? If so: "The parameter |order= is used in conjunction with |office= to state that the officeholder is the nth holder of the office, for example "42nd President of the United States". This should only be used when there is a well established use of such numbering in reliable sources OR IF THE INFORMATION IS PROVIDED BY THE ENTITY IN QUESTION..." CroGamer 1 (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose change – The current policy is correct. As Checco notes, it is entirely relevant in instances like the U.S. presidency, where the numbers are well known and used, and thereby "correct". "41" and "43" are well-used, even occasionally "officially", as shorthand to disambiguate President George H. W. Bush from George W. Bush. Textbooks, newspapers, etc. all use the numbering prominently, e.g., "Abraham Lincoln ..., who served as the 16th president of the United States". It is not subjective when it is assigned and used consistently, as in the U.S. – it is a property of the office and, thereby, its officeholder. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

AlanM1, excuse me if this will sound rude but did you even read my reply to your first post on this topic? From my point of view I don't see that you even read my answer. CroGamer 1 (talk) 10:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@CroGamer 1: I did. The diff I see is that you want to trust a (perhaps single) government source as evidence of numbering, while I would prefer multiple secondary sources as evidence of widespread, consistent use. I have seen gratuitous numbering of officeholders in a government source that was not supported by any sort of external use. It's been a while, so I can't recall where, but probably in a topic related to India, maybe Nepal, or even further east. Numbering of lists seems to be a cultural/generally-accepted style (perhaps taught in school?) in some of those places. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Continue with the current guideline [it's not a policy]. It's not broken, so there is nothing to fix. This numbering is of no use whatsoever except in contexts where it is regularly and officially employed, with zero room for doubt or debate. In any other context, the subjectivity of the determination is both a WP:OR problem and a dispute magnet.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, there isn't any WP:OR. All information must be obtained from the institution in question if there isn't any established use. That is what I'm trying to implement in the guidelines of this template. I wasn't even suggesting something you thought I were. CroGamer 1 (talk) 10:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about you or your preferences in particular. I'm seeing 'I think "established use" could be defined as ... 3. or just any reliable list', which would not be an official source, but any from a reputable publisher; for jurisdictions that don't officially use such numbering, RS are apt to conflict with each other on the matter for any place with a complicated political history. While that's not your wording (though see below – it seems to match your own idea, despite what you say to me here), it is an idea in play, and I'm opposed to changing the current wording given the state of the current discussion. It might be feasible to reformulate this as a multiple-choice RfC.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Retain current. We must not invent ordinal numbers, this goes against WP:V; nor may we derive ordinal numbers, this goes against WP:SYNTH. If you need to track from first to second to third to etc., you can either use a succession box (often found among the bottom matter after the refs and ELs, see for example Paul Ryan#External links) or read through a "List of ..." article. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Redrose64, I'm fully against the idea that we make information up. I'm suggesting if there isn't any evidence of established use but the entity in question does provide the requested info that should count here on Wikipedia. CroGamer 1 (talk) 10:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

You and ReconditeRodent appear to both be arguing for a weaker standard than many of us would accept. "Any evidence" isn't good enough; it's the same thing as ReconditeRodent's "or just any reliable list", addressed just above.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I never used the term "any evidence". I was suggesting that official information should count. Under official I meant that governments should have the final word and not "established use". But if you guys still insist on keeping the current guidelines I will back down after this post. CroGamer 1 (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@CroGamer 1: Is there a specific example that you know of where established use conflicts with a government source? Guidelines don't have to fit absolutely every case perfectly – there will always be exceptions that require discussion. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes AlanM1. In my country to be exact. I confess that it isn't common in my country to "number" a person but the official government webpage (link in Croatian) does indeed provide a list with numbers. I stumbled upon this after having a dispute with an editor on the wiki page of PM Tihomir Orešković. My source clearly mentions that he was the 11th PM of Croatia while the second editor insists that there isn't proof of established use and called upon this guideline which I'm now trying to change. Note that not all persons are numbered but the PM in question was. I was thinking that it would be neat to add this in the guidelines even if my particular case with the PM fails. CroGamer 1 (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@LukeA1: I found only two relevant non-circular references with this search. It does not seem to be in common use (in English anyway), despite the numbering on the government source. I would not put it in the article. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@AlanM1: I already backed down on my proposal since I can't establish a consensus. What you are stating is what I tried to change (replace the words established use to legitimate information). Regards, Luke LukeA1 (talk) 23:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Religion parameter

Split from the previous discussion for clarity.

And... one key information would be religion! I really do not understand how, for instance, alma mater can be considered more relevant than religion. I know this is not the matter of this specific discussion, but it is an issue that is always in my mind. --Checco (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't have much experience in the religion "department" so I can't comment. Obviously, there exists a reason to why it was removed. CroGamer 1 (talk) 09:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

See this April 2016 RFC. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

It was a bad decision and bad decisions can be reverted.

As I said, religion is quite an important information, arguably more than alma mater or signature. --Checco (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

If you think it was a bad decision that should be reverted, start a new discussion over at VPP to get consensus to do so. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Good F'ing luck with that! The consensus to remove both the |religion= and |ethnicity= parameters from almost all biographical infoboxes was a strong one, and the results in the interim (especially the very sharp reduction in circular and cyclical editorial flamewars over too-simple religious and ethnic labeling) prove conclusively that it was a wise choice. Checco is correct that religion is sometimes important to a subject's notability (ethnicity much less often – it's generally just an American socio-political obsession, because US culture is mired in racialist beliefs). The importance is why the community removed these parameters from infoboxes. Such matters need to be dealt with – completely and accurately, and with nuance – in the article body, not with over-assumptive and subjectively misinterpreted keywords in an infobox. See archives for Talk:Bernie Sanders for examples of the kinds of pointless, ranty disputes that led to this WP:Common sense decision by the community.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't hang that on the U.S.! WikiPedia edits by and to subjects, especially BLPs, from other countries, demonstrate equal or higher focus on ethnicity and religion. Checco, for example, seems to think so. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 15:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Year only for "in office" results in spaced en-dash contrary to MOS

Could someone advise on how to avoid the incorrect spaced en-dash this template implements at Jens Beutel because it only has years for the start and end of his time in office? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: In Jens Beutel, the start date was being wrapped by a template (|start_date={{Start date|1997}}), which is possibly unnecessary for a year-only value, and breaks the code in {{Infobox officeholder/office}} that detects whether to use a spaced endash or not (it sees the extra non-numeric stuff as requiring a spaced endash).

I removed the {{Start date}} call from Jens Beutel, which fixed the appearance.

Somewhat contrary to my edit summary there: the code works correctly when a non-year-only date value is given (wrapped by {{Start date}} or not). If the extra CSS classes and hidden values are necessary, I think they should be in the innermost template ({{Infobox officeholder/office}}). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Children?

What's the correct way to list children? I looked at about a dozen examples of this in existing articles, and found an amazing range of variation. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Suggest that, as with {{infobox person}}, provide a number if children are not notable and names with links if they are; if there are more than one, use {{hlist}} or similar. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:52, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

What Nikki said, but with {{Unbulleted list}} (a.k.a. {{Ubl}}) so each name is on its own line, which looks better and seldom requires too much more space than {{Hlist}}. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Assuming office

I am not sure if I am addressing the question at the right place but I have a question: is the part of the template assuming office just for US Congressmen and Senators? I am asking because the new members of the European Parliament were elected in May (and are already certified) but will assume their office on 2 July. Thanks for your help! Cassandro (talk) 09:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Infobox AM- piping

Piping didn't work for assembly parameter, as in "assembly = [[National Assembly (Nepal)|National]]" didn't work. So, I created a redirect Nepali National Assembly and put in "Nepali National" instead. Did I miss something? Any other suggestions? The infobox is for Komal Oli. Thanks! Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 21:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool: Please indicate, using either a diff or a permalink, just where you tried this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Rose, thanks for answering. Here, created one just now: diff. There's something about how this parameter is designed that I hadn't encountered before. It seems to take article titles minus the "assembly" part and display it as a wikilink, which seems to mean the assembly both has to have a page and has to end in "assembly", making it impossible to use with the page for Nepal's national assembly whose page is titled National Assembly (Nepal). I created a redirect Nepali National Assembly just to use this infobox in my article. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 17:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

BTW, by not working, I meant the result is unacceptable. I'd left it that way when I originally created the article but someone else removed it altogether, so obviously that's not acceptable to readers. Hence, my original query. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 17:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it uses the |assembly= parameter to generate a link which means that you cannot use markup in that parameter. A redirect is the best thing to do. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Removal of unpaid positions from officeholder inbox

I noticed that Member1494 (talk · contribs) has been wholesale removing positions from the officeholder infobox on the pages of UK parliamentarians on the basis that they are 'not paid positions' and therefore shouldn't be in the infobox. I don't really have a strong view on this, I'm only here because I noticed the flurry of changes when doing recent changes patrolling, but the logic of such a change isn't clear to me and I wanted to check if there is actually consensus, given that this is being changed on literally dozens of pages today. Not sure of the best forum to discuss this so bringing it here first, I've also raised it with the user directly on their talk page. Hugsyrup (talk) 12:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Given that these positions are often far less well documented on average I believe we should seek a standardised format for the infoboxes. Quite often they become too large and I believe, along with others, that they detract from the quality of the page. Positions such as PPS and Assistant Whips often do not have clear successors/predecessors and within parliament attract no further status, unlike the most junior official minister (Parliamentary Secretary/Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State) or most junior paid whip (Lord Commissioner to HM Treasury). In light of this I would suggest we seek to standardise the format of UK politics pages, especially given that a new government will be taking office next week. I would suggest that infoboxes be restricted to actual ministerial appointments (dates PM, predecessor, successor) and lesser positions (PPS, Assistant Whips) or membership of select committees should be discussed in the parliamentary career sections of the respective pages. This will help ensure that they are neater, clearer and easier to manage and standardise going forward. I have spoken with other members who feel that infoboxes have become egregiously large and include irrelevant information, such as linking Lord Commissioners to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when the two roles are unrelated. I am happy to discuss further others' opinions on standardisation, however I believe that this will be the most efficient way to properly manage and maintain the pages to prevent clear, concise and well ordered information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Member1494 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and for explaining your reasoning. I see your point, and I agree that the infoboxes can get overly long. My concern with this reasoning is that it means we don't show the full extent of an individual's career in the infobox and it's generally acknowledged that these quasi-government positions, even if not paid, are a step on the ladder to full Ministerial office. However, if there is clear consensus for restricting the infoboxes to full ministerial appointments then I'd have no issue with that. I do think it would be worth establishing a clear consensus though as before long someone is bound to either revert one of your changes, or simply re-insert one of the positions you have removed, and it'll help to have a discussion that you can point to. I'm now wondering if this was the right place to start this discussion, though, as I'm not sure we'll get many eyes on it. I will post a link at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics_of_the_United_Kingdom (by the way, it helps to keep a conversation easy to read if you indent your response using one or more : symbols) Hugsyrup (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Of course, I am more than happy to seek consensus on the matter - I believe that in keeping to the spirit and the letter of the intended purpose of infoboxes (as set out in MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE) that we should stick to key information with the rest being featured in the main article - I am not precious about what we deem to be pertinent roles and would appreciate any input. Do you have any personal views on what we should include in them? As I set out my initial belief would be that we should use tenure dates, PM, predecessor and successor.Member1494 (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Hugsyrup for starting this discussion and notifying the WikiProject (although I don't see how one hugs syrup - is this not messy?). I agree with Member1494 that many of these infoboxes are ridiculously long. This is in violation of MOS:INFOBOX. A long, tabular presentation of positions may be of value, but that's not what an infobox is meant to be. An infobox is a short summary. Bondegezou (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

We should not just cut the information from the infobox but should make sure that the removed information appears in the body of the text. If not then it should be added to the body so that we do not loose the information. Keith D (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that the issue is that the infobox has started to be used for something beyond its original purpose. Arguably, it should really only show the current office that is held (although I'm not seriously proposing we reduce it to quite that extent) but it has become the entire CV of these politicians. What might be good is if there was a consistent format for a sort of 'parliamentary/government career summary' similar to the infobox but which could be placed deeper within the article, leaving the main infobox less cluttered. I'm afraid I don't know enough about how to create something like that on Wikipedia. Oh, and Bondegezou - on Wikipedia you don't hug syrup, syrup hugs you. Hugsyrup (talk) 08:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Keith D, the infobox is meant to be a summary of what's in the article, as per MOS:INFOBOX. Everything in the infobox should already be in the article. If it isn't, then it shouldn't be in the infobox!

Hugsyrup, one could just use a standard table for a 'parliamentary/government career summary'. (Other people will come along and make it prettier.) Bondegezou (talk) 09:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on shadow ministerial positions? I prefer the way Australian politician pages are where shadow cabinet positions do not feature in the infoboxes, other than the Leader of the Opposition. But then again, I'm a minimalist. Member1494 (talk) 12:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

In the infobox, I'd agree with minimalism. For a career summary table in the article, you could include everything. Bondegezou (talk) 15:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Bondegezou and believe we should use this approach going forward. Especially given we'll have a new government next week and there will be a lot of updating to do. Member1494 (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Committee chair parameter

I think there should be consideration for the use (or re-use) of the chair parameter, particularly for the Committee Chairs in legislatures (e.g. U.S. Congress) as a parameter under their legislative office, rather than currently as a special, separate office. I think it would reduce visual clutter and make editing more efficient if infoboxes simply listed "Chair of" and the Committee name (e.g. "Administration" or "Commerce" &c.) with the years the office was held in parentheses. In particular, this would dramatically reduce clutter from chairs who led a committee non-consecutively (a relatively common occurrence with this type of office). This does remove both the exact dates and successor/predecessor information from the infobox for this particular office, but this strikes me as generally extraneous data (since chairmanships are not transferred through a typical manner of succession) that will still be preserved in the succession boxes at the bottom of each page.

I would also recommend in the long-term this practice be considered for non-Leader roles in Leadership (e.g. Whips, Deputy Speakers, &c. excluding Speaker of the House and probably Majority/Minority Leaders), but perhaps after a trial run with the Chairmanship parameter as described above.-A-M-B-1996- (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Party label

I noticed that in all 16 instances of the |party= parameter, the label itself is not accompanied by a succession number, i.e. party1 to party16, whereas this is the case for all other officeholder parameters. I assume this is unintentional? To illustrate:

| viceprimeminister = {{{viceprimeminister3|}}}
| party = {{{party|}}}
| prior_term = {{{prior_term3|}}}
...
| viceprimeminister = {{{viceprimeminister4|}}}
| party = {{{party|}}}
| prior_term = {{{prior_term4|}}}
...
| viceprimeminister = {{{viceprimeminister5|}}}
| party = {{{party|}}}
| prior_term = {{{prior_term5|}}}

Jay D. Easy (t • c) 16:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

This seems to date back twelve years to this edit by CBM (talk · contribs) which introduced the blocks for Second office, Third office etc. and associated these with the |party= parameter. People may now be relying on the resultant behaviour; hence,  Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Contested display of names

Please take a look at the two versions of the infobox display around this edit. I would agree that splitting the two names with a suffix looks weird. Opinions? Staszek Lem (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@Staszek Lem: It's an inexperienced new user (only their eleventh edit). I reverted it, because we shouldn't overload a parameter by cramming in more values than it is intended to hold - the |native_name= parameter was intentionally provided for this specific purpose. Moreover, since it is not in English, the {{lang}} template should be used with the appropriate code - particularly since it is written using Greek script and not Latin script.

The positioning of the suffix letters may be discussed, however. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I was not clear enough. I was actually talking about the positioning of the suffix. Now that I slept over it, the native name must be followed by the native suffix, which we don't have.

Also, I am wondering whether it may be folded into the line with the name "John Doe, MP" or supplied with legend:

John Doe

honorific: MP

Otherwise for a non-native English speaker its purpose puzzling: if I click at [MP]], it leads to Hellenic Parliament, which does not makes me wise about what "MP" is supposed to mean here.

Staszek Lem (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)