Template talk:Infobox officeholder
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Infobox officeholder template. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26Auto-archiving period: 90 days ![]() |
![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Template:Infobox officeholder is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases. |
Issue with spouse param
[edit]The spouse parameter is causing issues on articles eg. Rishi Sunak, Donald Trump 93.37.105.221 (talk) 11:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- That seems to have been fixed. It was caused by changes at Template:If both. Toadspike [Talk] 12:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Template rendering messed up
[edit]The rendering is completely messed up on the wiki of many politicians. It is displaying an "ambassador to" field below all tables.
Eg: Narendra Modi, Rishi Sunak
am not able to add screenshots Skratata69 (talk) 11:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- yes, somebody fucked up Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes RWILD✉ 11:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yep! The last edits to the template were by User:Jdlrobson on 5 April 2024. I don't know if this is the cause or if something else has happened. It looks very unprofessional at the moment. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 12:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- I came here to report the same problem. I noticed it on the page Pete Buttigieg. Gottagotospace (talk) 12:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- I just posted on the Talk page of the user who last edited the template. Hopefully they can help! Gottagotospace (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
This has now been fixed. Not sure how or why. Toadspike [Talk] 12:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- It's still showing up incorrectly on some pages. Maybe it needs time to "refresh" everywhere? Gottagotospace (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, likely cache issues.
- Just noting that I've made this a subsection of the one above - the issue was with an embedded template, which has now been fixed. Primefac (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Edit request on 18 June 2024
[edit]![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Clean ndivs; implement my edit today in this template's sandbox page. Santiago Claudio (talk) 06:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Santiago Claudio: I have no idea what "ndivs" means. What is the purpose of your edit? SilverLocust 💬 07:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Align with edit by administrator Izno to Template:Infobox person last April with a summary of "clean ndivs." Santiago Claudio (talk) 08:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Izno: Could you clarify what "clean ndivs" means (and/or comment on this requested edit here)? SilverLocust 💬 09:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- No idea where the n came from, but basically the gist is that all the blocks in that template didn't need to be in the br-separated entries, they could just use divs normally. Izno (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Izno: Could you clarify what "clean ndivs" means (and/or comment on this requested edit here)? SilverLocust 💬 09:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Align with edit by administrator Izno to Template:Infobox person last April with a summary of "clean ndivs." Santiago Claudio (talk) 08:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Not done: I already made this change here a while ago. Izno (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Caliph
[edit]Can you add a caliph=
parameter ? A lot articles about Islamic governors/generals use monarch=
which is wrong. I know its possible to add it with xblanknamey
but thats too much hassle AlexBobCharles (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Edit request on 24 July 2024
[edit]![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
To any administrator, apply these, my previous edits to this infobox's sandbox:
− |
| abovestyle = --><div | + |
| abovestyle = {{{abovestyle|}}}
| above = {{#if:{{{honorific prefix|{{{honorific_prefix|{{{honorific-prefix|}}}}}}}}}|<div class="honorific-prefix" style="font-weight: normal; font-size: 77%;">{{{honorific prefix|{{{honorific_prefix|{{{honorific-prefix}}}}}}}}}</div>}}<!--
--><div class="fn">{{#if:{{{name|}}}|{{{name}}}|{{PAGENAMEBASE}}}}</div><!-- -->{{#if:{{{honorific suffix|{{{honorific_suffix|{{{honorific-suffix|}}}}}}}}}|<div class="honorific-suffix" style="font-weight: normal; font-size: 77%;">{{{honorific suffix|{{{honorific_suffix|{{{honorific-suffix}}}}}}}}}</div> |
Santiago Claudio (talk) 02:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Above at #Edit request on 18 June 2024, I asked for an explanation of the purpose of this edit. The explanation given (
Align with edit by administrator Izno to Template:Infobox person last April with a summary of "clean ndivs."
) did not make it any clearer. SilverLocust 💬 10:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Not done pending an explanation * Pppery * it has begun... 20:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- This request is for alignment with
|abovestyle=
and|above=
in {{Infobox person}}. Santiago Claudio (talk) 02:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)- Which test case contains a test of
|abovestyle=
and other new parameters? Why have useful HTML comment tags been removed? Why has the color been removed from headerstyle? Why has|class=skin-invert
been removed? This proposed change does not look valid to me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)- Harry Truman. On the contrary, comment tags were added and there's still header background color; no new parameters.
|class=skin-invert
was already omitted when the sandbox was created. Santiago Claudio (talk) 01:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)- The Harry Truman test case does not contain
|abovestyle=
or|post-nominals=
. Here's a diff link comparing the current live template with the sandbox. You should be able to see that there are more differences there than the one you are requesting. Please sync the sandbox with the live template before making proposed edits. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- The Harry Truman test case does not contain
- Harry Truman. On the contrary, comment tags were added and there's still header background color; no new parameters.
- Which test case contains a test of
- This request is for alignment with
Age and Deceased status
[edit]It seems important to have the age and status of whether a given politician is deceased in a fairly obvious place in the infobox for officeholders. The current state is that there can optionally be a personal information section which contains this below the entire list of political positions, so that instead of being listed clerly, most politician's infoboxes omit the entire "Personal data" section - this seems much worse than having the living status / age highlighted at the top. Davidmanheim (talk) 06:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- That's certainly a valid perspective on things, but the way to do it is to embed in an infobox that makes birth and death more prominent, such as
{{Infobox person|module=
. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanisaac (talk • contribs) 06:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC){{Infobox officeholder|embed=yes}}
}}
- I don't see the issue here. Most politician articles are of deceased persons. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Military Rank
[edit]What is the common practice when using the |rank= parameter if the officeholder held a higher rank than the one with which they separated military service?
As a case in point, Tim Walz held the rank of Command Sergeant Major (provisional), but retired as Master Sergeant, a lower rank. Should this parameter be highest rank, or last rank held? — TadgStirkland401 (TadgTalk) 03:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is already being discussed extensively at Talk:Tim Walz, so a new discussion about that person should not be started here. I think you'll have better results if you post a query at Template talk:Infobox military person asking people to visit that article's discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, @Jonesey95, but I was hoping a different discussion here could help others when editing other articles. The /doc page is not at all clear on expected use of this attribute. Another editor could easily decide Chief Bottle Washer is an acceptable value, although common sense might rule otherwise. I’m just expecting a more public discussion here might help establish a best common practice. I still feel my question (with that aim) belongs here. The Tim Walz article is but one example. — TadgStirkland401 (TadgTalk) 18:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Edit request 10 August 2024
[edit]![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Description of suggested change: Nobold in parameter "native name". Diff:
− | subheader = {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{embed}}}}}|yes||{{#if: | + | subheader = {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{embed}}}}}|yes||{{#if:{{nobold|{{{native_name|}}}}}|{{#if:{{{native_name_lang|}}}|<div class="nickname" lang="{{{native_name_lang}}}">}}{{nobold|{{{native_name}}}}}{{#if:{{{native_name_lang|}}}|</div>}}}}}} |
MykolaHK (talk) 18:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. I don't think the proposed code will work correctly, but it should be easy to find out in the sandbox. Do you have consensus for this formatting change? – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Education vs Alma mater
[edit]What's the difference between those two fields? Should academic degrees go into the education field? Or is the education field for schools / universities that a subject enrolled in but not graduate from so that they are part of the subject's education but are not an alma mater for them? Or is the education field for non-academic education, i.e. elementary school, middle school, high school (and vocational school?)? Nakonana (talk) 12:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I apply the instructions from {{infobox person}}.The
|education=
field is forEducation, e.g., degree, institution and graduation year, if relevant. If very little information is available or relevant, the
The|alma_mater=
parameter may be more appropriate.|alma_mater=
parameter is a more concise alternative to (not addition to)
— Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)|education=
, and will often consist of the linked name of the last-attended institution of higher education (not secondary schools). It is usually not relevant to include either parameter for non-graduates, but article talk page consensus may conclude otherwise, as perhaps at Bill Gates.- That helps, thanks :) Nakonana (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Clashing spouse parameter instructions
[edit]Following discussion with @Wozal: here and here, I want to seek consensus on removing the comment "Spouse(s), if notable" here: Template:Infobox officeholder § TemplateData (click show). This note shows up on visual editor for some editors. The template page itself does not have this note if you ctrl+f for "spouse" (it is currently only hidden under TemplateData), so, in my opinion, these instructions clash. Also, I've found the vast majority of pages follow the guidance that a spouse's name is included in the infobox, even if the spouse(s) are not notable enough to have a page in the encyclopedia; e.g., Stephen A. Douglas, Elizabeth Warren, J. B. Pritzker, Tina Kotek, Steve Womack, etc., etc. Also, if one spouse was notable and a second spouse was not, would we say "2, including Martha". I think the expectation that only notable spouses should be added is odd guidance, if you want a quick and full view of a subject's life, which is the goal of infobox, as far as I understand. --Engineerchange (talk) 14:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- If details of the non-notable spouse are known, such as if they died, divorced or the dates of the marriage, {{marriage}} can be used. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Neveselbert: Yup, I'm aware of the marriage template. My comment is on the TemplateData instruction insisting only notable spouses should be included in the infobox when the parameter is widely used for all spouses (notable and non-notable) of the subject. The absence of any instruction under Template:Infobox officeholder#Usage for the spouse parameter conflicts with the TemplateData instruction. --Engineerchange (talk) 04:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- If the guidance in the TemplateData programming code conflicts with the actual template documentation as established either by practice or consensus, the TemplateData guidance should be fixed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Just a dumb question but, when is a spouse “not notable”? — TadgStirkland401 (TadgTalk) 18:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- If they lack an article of their own. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Precedent across WP doesn’t seem to support that. I’ve seen many articles to the contrary. — TadgStirkland401 (TadgTalk) 18:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- If they lack an article of their own. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Neveselbert: Yup, I'm aware of the marriage template. My comment is on the TemplateData instruction insisting only notable spouses should be included in the infobox when the parameter is widely used for all spouses (notable and non-notable) of the subject. The absence of any instruction under Template:Infobox officeholder#Usage for the spouse parameter conflicts with the TemplateData instruction. --Engineerchange (talk) 04:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment The description was added in 2019 by Daviddwd.[1]—Bagumba (talk) 04:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Reading the comments above, I think, so far, @Jonesey95: is also in concurrence with the removal of the comment from TemplateData for the spouse parameter on this template. --Engineerchange (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Auxiliaries are not "Military Service"
[edit]Thanks to this template, Dan Cox is listed as having military service because of having been in the Civil Air Patrol, even though CAP isn't one of the uniformed services and those who join it aren't subject to military discipline. Is there a way this template could be make to accommodate this difference, or would it be necessary to just remove it from the info box in the article itself and just refer to that membership in the article text? Thanks! --Steve Foerster (talk) 14:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- @SteveFoerster, great catch! In my opinion, it should be removed from the infobox within that article on Dan Cox followed by an announcement on Talk:Dan Cox clarifying why it was removed. I can’t believe the infobox /doc needs clarification. But if you think that would help, it might be a good idea. — TadgStirkland401 (TadgTalk) 17:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)