Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 January 10

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< January 9 January 11 >

January 10 edit

Template:Sibelius symphonies edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 12:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated since {{Jean Sibelius}} exists and includes the exact same links. Currently, each symphony transcludes both navboxes, which is unnecessary. intforce (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Infobox member of the Knesset edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Infobox officeholder. About half of the opposition to this proposal were amenable to a merge under specific conditions, which puts the general consensus leaning in that direction. I would strongly recommend this be heavily sandboxed and tested to ensure the concerns of those somewhat-opposed are met. That being said, please keep in mind that perfect is the enemy of good, and compromises will need to be made on both sides of the issue. Primefac (talk) 13:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox member of the Knesset with Template:Infobox officeholder.
To my understanding, Knesset infobox is the only Infobox template for members of an individual parliament, while everywhere else Officeholder is used. Even Hebrew Wikipedia doesn't have such Infobox and uses Officeholder instead. Knesset infobox is very short and it makes articles about Israeli politicians uniquely less informative. It creates inconsistency when some Israeli politicians have Knesset infobox while other have Officeholder, with Knesset as a module inside. When used as a module (as in Benjamin Netanyahu), it appears at the end of the Infobox without separation inside "Military service" section, creating a messy layout "Politics -> Personal details -> Military and Politics again".

Various contributors tried to change to Officeholder in different articles, but were reverted by the Knesset template creator Number 57 (talk · contribs), for example:

I didn't found an instance of any other editor changing infobox Officeholder to Knesset. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose as it stands. The reason this template was created (13 years ago) is that {{Infobox officeholder}} is incapable of displaying information in a concise manner. Israeli politics features frequent changes of parties and ministerial positions, which cannot be displayed effectively in Infobox officeholder. Also, it contains far fewer additional parameters, which discourages the addition of information that is not particularly important – on Gideon Sa'ar, compare the officeholder version (so long you can't see his party or Knesset term information on the first screen) and the member of the Knesset one.
    I would be open to a merger if Infobox officeholder could be amended to display the information in a more compact format, similar to Infobox memebr of the Knesset. Some time ago I began experimenting with how this could be done at {{Infobox MP compact}}.
    There was a previous TfD in 2013. Number 57 12:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    PS, worth noting that with the exception of the Sa'ar article, which was yesterday, those diffs are from 2010, 2013 and 2015. Number 57 13:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Number 57, I don't think it is that long. At the end of the day it doesn't negate other information and our job is to give all of the sourced information. There isn't another website that will provide readers with a summarized table. Idan (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not a requirement to include all that information in the infobox. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE states an infobox should "summarize key facts... The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose". I do not believe the names of Sa'ar's wives, number of children, his overseas awards, national service duties or almamater are key facts. Number 57 14:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Number 57, I agree, but the army achievements should be. Idan (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly disagree – this was his national service, not a proper military career like Ami Ayalon. Number 57 16:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia community believes that spouses, number of children, alma mater, national service etc are key facts for Infobox, along with government positions. It's standard for politicians to have Infobox that you call long: UK (Brandon Lewis, Michael Gove), Germany (Olaf Scholz, Horst Seehofer), Canada (Dominic LeBlanc, Chrystia Freeland), Greece (Nikos Dendias, Michalis Chrisochoidis), Japan (Tarō Asō, Katsunobu Katō). If you disagree you should address this at Template talk:Infobox officeholder, and not pushing separate Infobox for one country only. And evidence of you adding this Infobox is not only "from 2010, 2013 and 2015" as you said, but from 2020, 2019, 2019, too. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The infoboxes in most of those articles proves my point – these are not helpful summaries of the key facts, they are excessively long lists that a reader cannot view on a single page; the one on Olaf Scholz is particularly ridiculous and the ones on Michalis Chrisochoidis and Katsunobu Katō are several times longer than the article itself! And I am not pushing a separate infobox for one country – I am defending one that has been around for well over a decade. Number 57 16:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been around for well over a decade because you created it and keeping on inserting it in one country only, against numerous other contributors. And examples from other countries I provided are the longest infoboxes I could find to show that even those are fine with everyone. Most are shorter, for example, Gideon Sa'ar version you reverted, and most others. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been around for over a decade because it was kept at the last TfD discussion. Number 57 17:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The previous TfD was closed as "no consensus", not "keep". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    All three responses were in favour of keeping it. No idea why the close was as such. Number 57 16:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It now seems the nominator is resorting to WP:CANVASSing. The last TfD had three participants, yet only the editor in favour of deleting it has been notified of this discussion.[1] Similarly, editors that have removed the infobox in question are being asked to comment.[2][3][4][5] I assume any !votes stemming from this will be discarded? Number 57 17:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just notified the rest of participants from TfD. You could've just done it yourself. And as for "editors that have removed the infobox in question are being asked to comment" – all other editors who changed infobox besides you were removing the infobox in question, as I already said. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 02:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. None of the supposed obstacles are insurmountable, and most of the objections seem to be cases of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom and Andy Mebbett. I think several of the reverts looks better with Infobox officeholder and I don't see that its harder to view the information in a concise matter. In my opinion the current infoboxes contains too little information. Tholme (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose – first of all, per Number 57. The officeholder infobox holds a ridiculous amount of unnecessary information, like who preceded the officeholder in every single office held, which is against the definition of what an infobox should be on Wikipedia. To say that no one complained about the other bad stuff so there is no problem with it, is both a logical fallacy, and a classic case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The question should not be what everyone is defaulting to (after all, it's very hard to propose and implement changes to major templates), but which template is better for the task at hand? A random example that proves the point, already given above, is Nikos Dendias, which is a longer-than-average article compared to Israeli MKs, yet even there the infobox is longer than the article. This should never be the case, as such a long infobox does not make it easier—but rather harder—to consume information. Compare this to Miri Regev, where the infobox contains more-than-average information, but easily fits on a computer screen.
Second of all, there is a problem with this type of proposal in principle: it's saying let's merge first, for the sake of consistency, and ask questions later. Since there was a previous TfD that was closed with no consensus on the same issues, it would be nice if the nom addressed them in the nomination. I don't feel that true consensus can be achieved, even if most !vote a certain way, if the genuine problems raised by opposers aren't addressed.
Finally, the technical issue raised in the nomination shouldn't be insurmountable. If there is a formatting issue I can have a hack, or one of many Wikipedians who have an even better understanding of templating issues. —Ynhockey (Talk) 22:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ynhockey: The longest part in Officeholder infoboxes now are government positions, which may be shorter with use of parameters from Knesset template if it's merged. Then, Israeli lawmakers will not be the only ones on English Wikipedia whose infoboxes are missing biographical information like relatives etc. And it will bring consistency among Israeli politicians, as well. Currently, every Prime Minister of Israel is having Officeholder, because everyone understand that Knesset infobox is insufficient for a serious biography. Meanwhile, most MKs are having Knesset infobox. Is there a rule? What if Yair Lapid or Gideon Sa'ar becomes a PM in two months? Are we going to change to Officeholder, even though there will be more information to manage? And why Benny Gantz is having Officeholder, while Miri Regev is not? This should be synchronized. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Triggerhippie4: I'm not sure I understand why it's important that the infobox has a 'relatives' field, or anything not currently covered by the MK infobox. I agree with you that there should ideally be consistency, and I would support using the MK template in all but very special cases. Unfortunately I can't personally monitor, much less fight over, every single use of the template, such as in the examples you provided. —Ynhockey (Talk) 21:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Infobox member of the Knesset is customized for MKs. If Infobox officeholder has items that could be relevant to Infobox member of the Knesset, they can be added -- just improve it, don't merge it into a generic infobox not designed for this one's specific purpose and loose usefulness in the process. ------Chefallen (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In theory this should be merged. It’s a subset of the template and officeholder should cater for all its needs. In practice, I happen to think that template is quite bloated and suboptimal, and this one quite well designed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - per Andy and my replies above. Idan (talk) 06:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. As I understand, 'oppose' voters are against upper part of Infobox officeholder where government positions are. I think the solution is not to just delete Knesset template, but to merge parameters from it to Officeholder. The latter already contains parameters specific for United States and Ukraine. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said, I am open to a merge if the officeholder infobox can be upgraded to allow it to do something like the example I created at {{Infobox MP compact}}. As it stands, one problem with any merger is that it would have to be done manually as although minister1 and ministeryears1 can be replaced by office1 and term1, the Officeholder infobox has no equivalent to the party1 and partyyears1 parameters.
Separately, why on earth are you advertising this TfD on talk pages of articles that don't even use the template? It just seems a bit desperate, particularly as you've basically done nothing else on Wikipedia for the last few days. Number 57 17:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And now you're spamming talk pages of articles that already have a notification on them... Number 57 17:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All the pages I left notice on have direct connection to this topic area. I did it to draw broader attention to the discussion. What's the problem with that? "And now you're spamming talk pages of articles that already have a notification on them" – that notification appears on infoboxes in biographies, not on editors' watchlists. And I wouldn't like to be told what pages I should or should not contribute to, so keep your WP:Personal attacks to yourself. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Data from party1 and partyyears1 can be displayed in a more compact way with Officeholder, as in Ehud Barak. Can a bot help with this, potentially? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
party1 and partyyears1 in the MK infobox are not the same thing as party in the Officeholder infobox. In the latter it refers to general party membership (which would extend beyond their term in parliament, as it does in Barak's case), whereas the MK one is specifically for faction represented during their time in the Knesset (which also includes alliances their parties are members of). The closest thing the Officeholder infobox has is the parliamentarygroup parameter. To switch to using Infobox officeholder, an example change of code would be (for Sofa Landver)
Current code New code 
|party1 = [[Israeli Labor Party|Labor Party]]
|partyyears1 = 1996–1999
|party2 = [[One Israel]]
|partyyears2 = 1999–2001
|party3 = [[Israeli Labor Party|Labor Party]]
|partyyears3 = 2001–2003
|party4 = [[Israeli Labor Party|Labor Party]]
|partyyears4 = 2006
|party5 = [[Yisrael Beiteinu]]
|partyyears5 = 2006–
 
|office1 = Member of the [[Knesset]]
|parliamentarygroup1 = [[Israeli Labor Party|Labor Party]] (1996–1999)<br>[[One Israel]] (1999–2001)<br>[[Israeli Labor Party|Labor Party]] (2001–2003)<br>[[Israeli Labor Party|Labor Party]] (2006)<br>[[Yisrael Beiteinu]] (2006–)
I am not sure a bot would be capable of doing this, particularly if person in question had also held ministerial office, which means the office number would be different. Also, it doesn't really work with the term parameter when MKs have had gaps in their spell in the Knesset. If you want to display the term, you would need to do this, which having tested it, looks awful.
Current code New code 
|party1 = [[Israeli Labor Party|Labor Party]]
|partyyears1 = 1996–1999
|party2 = [[One Israel]]
|partyyears2 = 1999–2001
|party3 = [[Israeli Labor Party|Labor Party]]
|partyyears3 = 2001–2003
|party4 = [[Israeli Labor Party|Labor Party]]
|partyyears4 = 2006
|party5 = [[Yisrael Beiteinu]]
|partyyears5 = 2006–
 
|office1 = Member of the [[Knesset]]
|term1 = 1996–2003
|parliamentarygroup2 = [[Israeli Labor Party|Labor Party]] (1996–1999)<br>[[One Israel]] (1999–2001)<br>[[Israeli Labor Party|Labor Party]] (2001–2003)
|term2 = 2006–
|parliamentarygroup1 = [[Israeli Labor Party|Labor Party]] (2006)<br>[[Yisrael Beiteinu]] (2006–)
I've created an example of what it would look like at User:Number 57/MKs. I'd be amazed if anyone seriously thought the officeholder versions were an improvement. Number 57 18:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's proposing what you did there. I meant to move info from "Faction represented in Knesset" to "Political party" and "Other political affiliations", as it is in Ehud Barak now. Why not? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because they're different parameters showing different things, so you can't move one to the other. party in the MK infobox is equivalent to parliamentarygroup in the officeholder infobox. Number 57 19:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then maybe new sets of parameters could be created for both "Faction represented in Knesset" and "Ministerial roles" in Officeholder. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have created 'suboffice' and 'subterm' parameters in the sandbox version of infobox officeholder, which allows for the display of information in a compact fashion. See an example on the right here. If this can be adopted to the main Officeholder infobox, I would be fine with a merge. However, I think it would still need to be done manually as the parameter numbering would not match up. Number 57 14:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to create separate sets of parameters for factions and ministerial roles? And then, instead of using "office1" and "office3", create headers for them which will appear if these parameters are filled? The way it's done in personal details. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why that would be necessary (unless you're just looking at making it easier to merge the templates?). The office parameter is used for all forms of office, so I'm not sure it's a wise idea to hardcode a specific type of office into it, plus it would fix the order of them in the infobox, whereas the current solution enables them to be added in at any appropriate point in the offices held section (if you wanted to add a relatively minor office, it would come above any new section hardcoded). The subterm/suboffice parameter also enables usage for a variety of roles which might not be specific to this particular discussion, so I don't think it's a good idea to hardcode a particular section heading.
If it is just about making it easier to merge them, I don't think it's an appropriate reason – it's going to have to be done manually. I reckon you could do it in a semi-automated fashio with AWB (autoreplacing the infobox title and "party1/minister1" with "suboffice1" and "partyyears1/ministeryears1" with "subterm1" etc, then adding the office1 = lines manually and fixing the numbering for anyone with a combination of Knesset service and ministerial roles. I'd be happy to help sort this out if a merger with the new parameters is agreed. Number 57 19:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Ministerial roles" and "Faction represented in the Knesset" are not offices, but headings. The parameter "office" in Officeholder infobox is used for posts like "President of ...", "Minister of ..." etc. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can add anything into the office parameter and it appears as a section heading (the code in the template is the same for any heading created using 'office1' and the hardcoded 'Personal details' heading – they are both coded as data headers). As you can see in the example on the right, the 'Ministerial positions' and 'Faction represented in the Knesset' headings appears identical to the 'Personal details' heading – there is no need to hardcode it. Number 57 20:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not right and messed up. It's just utilizing existing parameters for different purpose to make them appear in a new way. "Faction" appears second but must be coded as "office3". "suboffice4" and "subterm4" have no "office4" which they're "subs" of. It will be unreasonably difficult for contributors to edit. I will try a little later to make new headings in sandbox if I'll be able to. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't messed up, as I've demonstrated it works to the satisfaction of at least one other editor. Hardcoding a specific heading is a really bad idea as it makes it completely inflexible both in terms of where it appears in the inbox, and also doesn't allow it to be used for potential alternatives. I don't believe this is massively difficult for editors to code correctly. Number 57 21:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"it works to the satisfaction of at least one other editor" – I'm talking about a solution that would look the same as what that editor agreed with, using different coding.
Current MK infobox is inflexible. Could you provide an example where infobox needs a heading other that Ministries and Factions? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For people who become Prime Minister or President, that would be office1 in the usual officeholder format and then have their other ministerial roles in the more compact fashion below. Similarly, you might have a role that's considered more minor than a ministerial post (like being Ambassador to Denmark or something) and you'd want to list that below their ministerial posts. Plus there are other positions like Speaker of the Knesset, Leader of the Opposition, leader of a specific party, etc, which is less clear whether it should be ranked above or below ministerial positions in importance and can be decided on a case by case basis.
The good thing about the sandbox version is that it isn't restricted to a certain use (I would almost certainly use it for non-Israeli politician bios that I write) or order. Given there is a perfectly viable flexible option that delivers the solution, why would we opt for an inflexible version? Number 57 14:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If headings are custom it would require to type it manually everytime, which would make the same thing to have slightly different title from one infobox to another, while it's better to be standardized. The two headings could be "Positions held" and "Parliamentary factions". That would encompass everything, and could be used in any politician, not only in Israelis. And it would avoid confusing numbering in the code, of course. The two new sections could be placed below current "office" roles, allowing important offices to be ahead and more detailed. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 23:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree and maintain that it's best to keep it flexible. There are no hardcoded titles in the infobox – standardisation between articles of people holding the same posts is achieved by editors keeping an eye on things. Over 1,000 of the 1,052 Knesset members/ministers have this infobox and if a merge were to go ahead, virtually all of them will be edited in the same batch of edits, ensuring consistency can be achieved. Plus the numbering issue is a standard part of using infobox officeholder (if you want to add a new more prominent office to someone's infobox, you have to renumber all the previous roles). Anyway, this discussion is wasting our time as you are not going to persuade me that your proposal is acceptable, and vice versa. I will ask other users if they think a flexible or inflexible option is preferable. Number 57 00:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As an example of why the flexible option would be preferable, editors might want to create separate sections for ministerial roles and ambassadorial posts, or state-level positions and federal-level positions, if someone has held several of both. This wouldn't be possible with a single fixed heading. Number 57 00:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion #1 and #4 are the best. Mainly, I like the condensed view of the infoboxes there. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose although I wouldn't oppose a partial merge and/or a more compact format for Infobox officeholder as discussed above. Sadly, the officeholder infobox tends to be way too long and take up too much space with predecessors, successors and relatively unimportant offices leading it to grow to a ridiculous length in some cases. (t · c) buidhe 22:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Sorry, I haven't been active recently. I have been busy for awhile, however, when I was active in editing Israeli articles awhile ago, this was an issue I ran into. Using a proper infobox, would allow for people who are notable for other reasons to have more information listed. The ideal situation would be to keep this template and standardize pinning it to a normal infobox however, often when this is implemented it is reverted except in very specific and extraordinary cases. ShimonChai (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Chefallen, Ynhockey, ProcrastinatingReader, and Buidhe: Would you be happy with a merge if Infobox officeholder can be amended to display information in the same way as the MK infobox (as displayed on the right at User:Number 57/MKs). And if a merge does happen, would you prefer this to be done via the 'flexible' option proposed by myself (adding new suboffice and subterm parameters that sit beneath an office heading) that can be used at any place in the infobox and repeated multiple times with any heading, or the 'fixed' option proposed by Triggerhippie4 (creating something similar to the the parameters in the Knesset infobox), where the information would have a limited number of fixed titles and a fixed location below any roles entered using the office parameter. Cheers. Number 57 00:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing, ShimonChai, Tholme, and Zvikorn: May I also ping editors voted for merge, if they have opinion on which way this should be done. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to a merge if Infobox officeholder can be amended to display information in the same way as the Infobox Member of Knesset, with either 'flexible' or 'fixed' parameters. --Chefallen (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If this can be done, I'd rather still have the MK infobox that just uses the officeholder infobox but keeps the existing fields. That would prevent the need for replacing them, plus allow for simpler syntax and encourage using fewer fields (a good thing); but I wouldn't be strongly against just moving to the general template. In short, Strong oppose would become Weak oppose. —Ynhockey (Talk) 17:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If your proposed changes are made then no objections from me. They seem like an improvement to officeholder anyway. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above, the unique nature of the Knesset makes it so that the current infobox is best suited for the appropriate articles of Israeli politicians. While the infobox officeholder could technically be tweaked to accommodate a merge, I think the least problematic and stressful is to keep the two separate. Inter&anthro (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above and WP:AINT. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to the closer. It appears Triggerhippie and I have reached agreement on how the appropriate parameters could be integrated into Infobox officeholder.[6] I'm happy to process this should the close be in favour of merging in this way (which I think there is probably a rough consensus for). Cheers, Number 57 15:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also comment to the closer, as this discussion is fading. Some 'oppose' votes were against replacing Knesset with Officeholder infobox as is. But they weren't against, or were in favour of, tweaking Officeholder parameters to use it instead of Knesset. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The smart people at {{Infobox officeholder}} will perform the required magic as they have many times before. Everything will be fine. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 23:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • Oppose I agree with a lot of the points mentioned previously. israeli MKs would be a mess with infobox officeholder, they serve nonconsecutive terms quite often, they serve under a ton of parties, and take upon themselves a large number of political offices. itd not work with officeholder, and would be hard to transition into. you could probably (idk much about editing infoboxes), edit the graphical style of the infobox to look more like officeholder as a compromise? idk Total (talk) 08:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Totalstgamer: We're now talking about making Officeholder to function as the Knesset template adding one parameter there. It will look like the Knesset infobox plus personal details. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 09:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Triggerhippie4: Sounds like a good idea to me Total (talk) 08:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • MergeSince some industrious editors are working on making Infobox officeholder able to accommodate the unique features of Knesset members, it only makes sense to merge. Reduces template maintenance and further uniformity of infoboxes. Ergo Sum 23:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, with the understanding that the better and smaller Knesset styling is merged into Infobox officeholder. Techie3 (talk) 09:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_January_10&oldid=1005593706"