Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Infobox officeholder. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

{{editprotected}} I believe the prefixes and suffixes honorifix parameters should have small text and be centered by default, since there are many articles which use those two in that way. e.g. in Igor Judge, Gordon Brown, the honorifix are centered. --The Taerkasten (talk) 12:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

 Not done. Changing the default would, at best, do nothing for those articles and wreak havoc with articles that relied on the old default setting. Tim Song (talk) 05:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

{{editprotected}} The hCard microformat in this template is buggy; please change [redacted] (in other words, the first instance of class="fn" to class="n"). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done - and I left out the <codes> this time ;-)  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Thank you. Sorry about the stray <code>! You also removed some non-breaking spaces; I think they need to be restored, please; see the title on Shabana Mahmood. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Problem fixed. Thank you.. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Whilst looking at Michael Gove's infobox, I saw there was no space between his name and his honorific suffix. I edited this by adding a non-breaking space, but how come this isn't done automatically? Others, such as David Cameron, William Hague or Zac Goldsmith have theirs on the next line, but even this has been done manually. Should this be done for all MPs? What is the ideal layout? And another question: Should their "majorities" be updated if they have been re-elected for a further term? Jared Preston (talk) 14:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The proposed edit in the section above this one should restore the space between the name and suffix. Line breaks would still need to be implemented manually though. Road Wizard (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

There are now several ugly-looking MP articles with no space between the name and the honorific suffix. Why can't this be fixed as proposed? --Simple Bob (talk) 09:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The fix was implemented a few minutes ago. It may take a while for all articles to be updated as the servers work through the backlog. Road Wizard (talk) 09:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Fix confirmed working. --Simple Bob (talk) 10:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Add the title of General Secretary the same way the offices of Prime Minister and Chancellor are included. It would be helpful for articles related to communism, such as the Soviet Union. TIAYN (talk) 09:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

What code changes do you want to make? An admin is unlikely to be able to fulfil the request without further details. Road Wizard (talk) 09:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

As seen here:

|term_start =

|term_end =

|alongside =

|vicepresident =

|viceprimeminister =

|deputy =

|lieutenant =

|monarch =

|president =

|primeminister =

|taoiseach =

|chancellor =

|governor =

|governor-general =

|governor_general =

I want one of you to list the title of General Secretary here, is that detailed enough? --TIAYN (talk) 09:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok. So you want to convert {{Infobox General Secretary}} into a redirect to here and add supporting code to Template:Infobox officeholder and Template:Infobox officeholder/Office in a similar way to Presidents, Prime Ministers and other key politicians.

Unfortunately the details you supplied are the parameters for the template, not the code that needs to be inserted. Hopefully an editor more familiar with the template will pop along and be able to draft out the required code for an admin to insert. Road Wizard (talk) 09:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thats pretty much my idea... I'll wait, but isn't the code simply | generalsecretary2 = ? --TIAYN (talk) 09:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, but that wasn't the reply you gave when I asked for the code the first time. Road Wizard (talk) 10:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

True, true indeed. --TIAYN (talk) 12:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done for now: could you put your proposed code into Template:Infobox officeholder/sandbox and then test it thoroughly and reactivate the request. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• We already have Secretary-General. Will that work instead? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox_Secretary-General Flatterworld (talk) 12:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

What is the "relations" field supposed to hold? Can someone add in some descriptive text. Why is there a "children" parameter and no "parents"? Is the relation field what used to be called "relatives"? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly as you describe it - usually, only the spouse(s) and child(ren) are listed. However, occassionally, as with the Kennedy family, other relations are worth noting in the infobox. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I just add whoever has an article, it can be a parent, a sibling or a cousin. It reminds me of my physical for my first job, the physician asked if I was having "relations". Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Why do we not have a "parents" field? Why is that less important than their spouse or children? The parent field in the Infobox:People template. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Because spouses and children are routinely mentioned in the infobox, while parents are only mentioned if they are particularly noteworthy (usually, for my practice, "has an article" or "could have an article if someone would sit down and write it already") - the same standard used for cousins, etc. Hence, specific parameters for the relatives referred to often while the less-often mentioned relatives get thrown together into the catch-all "relations" parameter. I suppose we could add "parents" and "cousins" and "step-sisters-in-law" parameters, but I really don't see the need. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Back to the original poster's point on descriptive text. The examples page is VERY lacking. I mean, half the information in the infoboxes are blank. This is a total waste of my time as well as everyone else's. The point of an example is to show you an example. When only half is there, it is not a true example. That's like me giving you half of an algebraic equation and expecting you to figure out the rest on your own without clues. Since I was here trying to find this out, obviously I'm not up to the job on editing this. Any takers? MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 16:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it is important to let these two "religions" be shown instead of being hidden, because we put these only if the person have declared it. Some notable people have never mentioned about their belief, so we should leave the religion column blank for these people. But for people like Nick Clegg who called himself an agnostic, or Fidel Castro who said he doesn't believe in God, we should show out the word "agnostic" or "atheist". --Elijahhee (talk) 03:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Please add additional hCard microformat classes, thus [redacted]. All modelled on code in {{Infobox person}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I believe I achieved what you were ultimately looking for, but put it in {{Infobox officeholder/Personal data}} instead. Let me know if I broke something, or if this isn't what you were after. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. That's fine. The |restingplace= code can be seen working on Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma. Could you also make the template accept the more usual |resting_place= (with underscore), please? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, this should now work. I did the same for the coordinates and fixed some of the logic in the alternative field names for birth and death information to prevent this from being specified more than once. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks - though I do think we should eventually standardise on one form across all infoboxes. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Add the title of General Secretary the same way the offices of Prime Minister and Chancellor are included. It would be helpful for articles related to communism, such as the Soviet Union. Note that the Secretary-General is not the same as General Secretary.

It would have been nice to see the office of General Secretary being included in the infobox, as seen on the infobox left to the writing, there is no General Secretary.

I don't know how to fix it or do it. And adding those blanks only works at one row, and all of them. --TIAYN (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No need, it can be done with existing code. I have altered your example template to show how. Philip Stevens (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't work... works only for the first row... Wouldn't it be easier just to add General Secretary in the infobox? --TIAYN (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this resolved then? If not, just re-enable the tag with your request. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Just add an appropriate number on the end of 1blankname and 1namedata. I have shown how to do this in your example template. --Philip Stevens (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Could I please ask you to discuss this and determine exactly what, if anything, needs to be changed before using {{editprotected}} so that the responding admin can just make the change if need be. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, though was suppose 2OneBlank... but its the other way around :D --TIAYN (talk) 05:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It would be great if the party field would automatically attach icons to identify the political party (donkey for DEM, elephant for GOP. Could somebody do that? 15:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Molteanu (talk • contribs)

Theoretically it is possible, but I am not sure what the implications would be for keeping the template code working for non-US articles. If we implement automated symbols for parties in all countries the template code would get awfully big with only a minor cosmetic benefit. Road Wizard (talk) 21:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Adding political party logos beside the name of the party would serve no encyclopedic purpose and would be purely decorative. It would be in violation of WP:ICONDECORATION. MitchellDuce (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, I must agree with the above. I don't see any real benefit from adding the icon. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 10:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree. It would make Wikipedia way more useful as a quick reference. Use case: you read an article online, you hear about Senator John Rockefeller and you ask yourself what's his political party. You google, you click on Wikipedia and, with the icon, it take you 1 to 3 seconds to find out. Marian (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

{{Infobox Eritrea Cabinet official}}

-do we really need that? What makes their cabinet members so different they need their own infobox? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.8.96 (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It's only a redirect to this template. What's the harm? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} I propose adding height as a field under personal data. Since heightism is often viewed as a factor in elections, and since this is data that is available for many world leaders, why not add it? I have two articles in mind that it could be very useful under...Kim Jong Il and Nicolas Sarkosy. Thoughts? Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 03:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I would rather leave it out and just mention it in those articles where someone's height is extraordinary. Butros (talk) 04:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Infoboxes have all too often become far too full of NN details. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I would contest your assertion that height is non-notable. Due to the pervasiveness of heightism in politics (and many other places as well), height has proven to be somewhat of a factor in elections, and people want to know the height of a particular individual, even if their height isn't out of the ordinary. What's the harm in adding it? Purplebackpack89 06:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Please don't use {{editprotected}} for changes which do not have a consensus. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Thought you could use that on anything. Thought could be used a lot Purplebackpack89 14:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} I've noticed that when the |office= (including |office2=, |office3= and so on) parameter is used without specifying a value for |order=, it is possible to specify a link, like this: "[[Ministry of Defence (Singapore)|Minister for Defence]]". However, if a value for |order= is specified, manual linking is disabled. Instead, a link to an article with a name matching the value given to |order= is automatically created, whether or not the article exists and whether or not that is the appropriate article. Is it possible to disable this so that manual linking is the norm, whether or not |order= is given a value? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone?? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 21:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you point to an example of where this is happening? If it isn't on an article could you set up a sandbox? Road Wizard (talk) 21:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

See "Goh Keng Swee". There is no problem creating a link to "Ministry of Education (Singapore)" because no ordinal number (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) has been stated, but for the "Minister for Defence" and "Minister for Finance" sections, an attempt to specify "[[Minister for Defence (Singapore)|Minister for Defence]]" creates an error. The only way to make the |office= parameter work is not to wikilink it, with the effect that the term links to a generic article (e.g., "Minister for Defence") and not the correct, specific article. Similarly, "Deputy Prime Minister of Singapore" is actually a redirect to "Prime Minister of Singapore", but specifying "[[Prime Minister of Singapore#List of deputy prime ministers|Deputy Prime Minister of Singapore]]" doesn't work. I've added a test template to "Template:Infobox officeholder/testcases" to illustrate the problem. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's the solution: rather than typing "[[Ministry of Defence (Singapore)|Minister for Defence]]", just type "Ministry of Defence (Singapore){{!}}Minister of Defence". The template already adds the brackets, so you don't need to type those yourself. Additionally, {{!}} is recognized by the system as being a |, but one that works within the wikilink rather than as a parameter change in the template itself. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 10:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Three thoughts:

• Shouldn't |office= be amended to work in the same way whether or not |order= is also used? It is a little non-intuitive if it is possible to use a piped link when |order= is omitted but not when is specified.
• Because of the automatic linking that occurs when both |office= and |order= are used, there isn't currently a way to stop the template from creating a link, for example if an article has not been created yet.
• While discussion takes place as to whether the template should be adjusted to fix the issues above issues, can the documentation please be updated to inform users about the use of {{!}}?

— Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

So, any chance that these issues can be addressed? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

You should be able to edit the documentation yourself. As for the rest of the changes, I'd like a little more discussion as to which direction to go before actioning the request. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I look forward to some other views on this problem. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Erm, some other comments on the issues I raised are welcome ... — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I've updated the documentation subpage as suggested by HJ Mitchell, but still welcome discussion on the points I've raised above. I really think the template requires tweaking to resolve those issues. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this should actually be "Member of the Parliament of Canada", since Parliament of Canada is the official title. Something about the adjective form doesn't sit well with me, perhaps because of reading so many American titles (United States Senator, President of the United States). --Padraic 16:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick idea, I wonder what you think. A field for ministers' opposite numbers, by which I mean, say Peter Mandelson (shadow Business secretary) having a link to Vince Cable (actual Business secretary) on his infobox. Is this information useful or would it just be overloading? Jake the Editor Man _(talk) 15:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest adding it to Official Opposition Shadow Cabinet instead, as that's where his current title in the infobox redirects. otoh, I would have split that current title into 'Shadow' and the actual ministry position. Flatterworld (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Umm, how do I add non-military awards to a politician infobox? The present "awards = " also adds a header "Military service". The person (Janusz Krupski) I'm writing about was not in the military and he received a civilian award.radek (talk) 06:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

What's the difference between Profession and Occupation, and why do we have separate fields for this in the personal information section. In almost all the cases I've seen, the template is used with either one or the other, or with both of them having the same data. TheCoffee (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The Merriam–Webster Online Dictionary defines an occupation as "an activity in which one engages ...; the principal business of one's life: vocation", and a profession as "a calling requiring specialized knowledge and often long and intensive academic preparation; a principal calling, vocation or employment". Some senses of the terms are virtually identical, so although if we had to distinguish between the two I would say that the term profession is more apt for certain vocations such as being a lawyer or a physician, for practical purposes we can probably away with |profession= and just use the |occupation= parameter. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes people have both, as a professional lawyer may have a business (something other than a law office). However, both fields should never be sued with the same data (something I've never personally seen done). Flatterworld (talk) 23:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I notice that if I look at these biogrpahical infoboxes I have trouble finding the actual biographical information.

This is because this template about a person, starts with the offices this person has held. Senior statesmen for example George H. W. Bush list 8 political offices (or two full screen heights!!) and I have to scroll through his 1970's tenure of Chief of the U.S. Liaison Office to the People's Republic of China before finding any biographical information.

In my view, any biographical article is first about the person, characterised by date of birth, family and education, and secondly about his/her jobs (especially if they were many). Is there a rationaly why the jobs get prominence in these templates? Arnoutf (talk) 08:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

One reason is that most people are not famous for their birth date but rather for what they have done. Using your example, is George H. W. Bush notable for being born in Milton, Massachusetts in 1924 or for being the 41st President of the United States? Road Wizard (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Road Wizard. All you have to do is scroll to the bottom, as the sequence is the same for all. Flatterworld (talk) 23:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Could the offices of Vice Chancellor and Vice Premier be added, to complement the offices of Chancellor and Premier? --The Taerkasten (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this the same functionality as discussed in the "Edit request from Trust Is All You Need, 2 June 2010" section above? If so, the same solution may work. Road Wizard (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It could work, yes, but would it not work best if these titles and the title suggested above, were to be added as parameters, instead of having to go through that process? --The Taerkasten (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It depends on how many articles you are expecting to use the title in, whether you know the code that needs to be changed to implement it and whether there are any objections. If you think it is worth adding I would suggest you state the code you want to change here, wait 3 to 5 days for further comments and if there are no objections you can restore the {{editprotected}} template. Road Wizard (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)