![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
There is a discussion at Talk:Ivo Josipović#Beliefs about what to enter under "Religion" for people that are not religious. E.g. for agnostics, the current practice is apparently to put "Agnostic" or "Agnosticism", which seems to imply that agnosticism is a religion. The template instructions say nothing on this, and maybe they should. GregorB ( talk) 22:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Is it possible that this is a solution in search of a problem? I knew a major American Atheist, who did not object to having anyone say her "religion" was atheism. Collect ( talk) 11:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
The
Featured Article Review for
Samuel Adams pointed out a problem in its use of this infobox: it creates ugly-looking ranges such as "1789 – 1793", in which spaces surround the en dash. There's a simple fix, namely, to give the invoker the choice as to which separator to use. The default behavior would remain unchanged, but this would be overridden with a new (Improved suggestion below.)
Eubulides (
talk)
20:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
|termsep=
parameter to specify the separator between the start and end of the term. In Samuel Adams's case, this would be "|termsep=–
". I suggest
this sandbox patch to {{
Infobox officeholder}}, and
this sandbox patch to {{
Infobox officeholder/Office}}.
{{
ndash}}
, which ensures where breaking and nonbreaking spaces go. Do not use a space before or aft. Remplacecer la comme veut vous aves rit un dash.
Si Trew (
talk)
20:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Come to think of it, perhaps
this much-simpler patch to {{
Infobox officeholder/Office}} is all that's needed. An editor who prefers spaced endashes can simply put spaces in the respective arguments. (Improved suggestion below.)
Eubulides (
talk)
00:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
|termsep=
. I've implemented this improved suggestion with
this sandbox patch to {{
Infobox officeholder}}, and
this sandbox patch to {{
Infobox officeholder/Office}}. You can see the result in the Samuel Adams test case I just added to
Template:Infobox officeholder/testcases: the current template messes up most of the endashes, and the proposed template handles them all correctly.
Eubulides (
talk)
04:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC){{ editprotected}} No further comment, so I've added an {{ editprotected}} request. To summarize, please install this sandbox patch to {{ Infobox officeholder}}, and this sandbox patch to {{ Infobox officeholder/Office}}. Thanks. Eubulides ( talk) 04:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
|termsep=
so that editors who dislike the style rule I've programmed automatically can override that style and use the style they prefer.
Eubulides (
talk)
08:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
OK, then let's add just the automatic detection part, since that's the part that has consensus. Can you please install
this sandbox patch to {{
Infobox officeholder/Office}}? Thanks.
Eubulides (
talk)
18:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
For individuals with multiple offices, should the offices be ordered in ascending or descending order? I would think that descending order--with the most recent office at the top--would be preferable. Does that seem reasonable?-- Blargh29 ( talk) 00:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I tried looking for something related to this in the archives and was not able to find it.
I am finding dificult to use the order and office parameters for certain individuals. For example, Colombia's Horacio Serpa was the 1st Minister of the Interior, the problem is that the Ministry of the Interior has been renamed Ministry of the Interior and Justice, and there is no article for the defunct "Colombian Minister of Interior", any information pertaining to this ministry would be contained in the current "Colombian Ministry if the Interior and Justice", and I don't want to say that Horacio Serpa was the 1st Minister of Interior and Justice because he was not and is misleading because the ministry then had no Justice related business. I want to have:
|order = 1st
|office = [ [ Ministry of the Interior and Justice|Minister of the Interior ] ]
but this will only give me "1st [[ Minister of the Interior]]" (with brackets showing), and if I put:
|order =1st
|office = Ministry of the Interior and Justice|Minister of the Interior
It will only show as "1st Ministry of the Interior and Justice" totally ignoring the second part making it seem like he was the first office and not the first officeholder.
So my question/complaint/request is, is it possible to fix the template to either disregard the brackets [[]] when brakets have been used, or at least properly enclose the link accounting for the information after the "|"? Sure I could disregard the order parameter and put
|office=1st [ [Ministry of the Interior and Justice|Minister of the Interior] ]
but then what is the use of having the order parameter at all?
mijotoba (
talk)
00:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Template:Infobox officeholder death date: Use of this field will also make the background color silver since I am requesting it to be edited. -- Editor 410 ( talk) 19:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)}}
There is no satisfactory place to record Stephen Chu's Nobel Prize. When I try "awards" it bring up "military service". NBeale ( talk) 06:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't know how to add this myself, but I think it would be useful to include an optional "net worth" field. Since most politicians in the United States are wealthy businessmen or lawyers, it would be useful to have a field to mention their personal fortunes (kind of like the networth field in {{ Infobox Celebrity}}. -- Jrtayloriv ( talk) 06:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Initial context: Someone raised concerns over the length of the infobox at Otto von Bismarck, and I thought/replied that most of this information should probably be given in the footer Succession Boxes (which it already is). -- If the information is also in prose, it is getting repeated 3 times. One repetition seems fine (per most infobox content), but twice seems unnecessary/problematic.
Background: I searched the talkpage archives of this template and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization, and only found 3 key mentions of the overlap ( here and here and here). There are probably more discussions elsewhere (try this search to find them?).
One possible solution would be to remove the "preceded/followed" information from the infobox, and instead include a link to the succession boxes.
Examples for discussion purposes: Winston Churchill and Otto von Bismarck. I'll notify the Succession box project (I arbitrarily decided to post this thread here, out of the 2 possible locations). Thanks. -- Quiddity ( talk) 21:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I object to the proposition that the successor and predecessor parameters be removed. There are many instances of this template on pages that do not include succession boxes. For many of those, including stubs and starts, adding yet more templates would be questionable. Also, I use this feature of the infobox quite a lot when I am dealing with holders of some specific office. The infobox presents several pieces of useful information about the article up top in a compact and clear manner. To the extent there is overlap, I see the succession boxes as the superfluous part. Obviously, Quiddity sees things in the opposite way. I think the fact that editors such as him find value in one instance of the information while others of us find it elsewhere means that each, despite the overlap, serves a role. - Rrius ( talk) 02:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
There is a discussion at Talk:Ivo Josipović#Beliefs about what to enter under "Religion" for people that are not religious. E.g. for agnostics, the current practice is apparently to put "Agnostic" or "Agnosticism", which seems to imply that agnosticism is a religion. The template instructions say nothing on this, and maybe they should. GregorB ( talk) 22:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Is it possible that this is a solution in search of a problem? I knew a major American Atheist, who did not object to having anyone say her "religion" was atheism. Collect ( talk) 11:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
The
Featured Article Review for
Samuel Adams pointed out a problem in its use of this infobox: it creates ugly-looking ranges such as "1789 – 1793", in which spaces surround the en dash. There's a simple fix, namely, to give the invoker the choice as to which separator to use. The default behavior would remain unchanged, but this would be overridden with a new (Improved suggestion below.)
Eubulides (
talk)
20:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
|termsep=
parameter to specify the separator between the start and end of the term. In Samuel Adams's case, this would be "|termsep=–
". I suggest
this sandbox patch to {{
Infobox officeholder}}, and
this sandbox patch to {{
Infobox officeholder/Office}}.
{{
ndash}}
, which ensures where breaking and nonbreaking spaces go. Do not use a space before or aft. Remplacecer la comme veut vous aves rit un dash.
Si Trew (
talk)
20:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Come to think of it, perhaps
this much-simpler patch to {{
Infobox officeholder/Office}} is all that's needed. An editor who prefers spaced endashes can simply put spaces in the respective arguments. (Improved suggestion below.)
Eubulides (
talk)
00:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
|termsep=
. I've implemented this improved suggestion with
this sandbox patch to {{
Infobox officeholder}}, and
this sandbox patch to {{
Infobox officeholder/Office}}. You can see the result in the Samuel Adams test case I just added to
Template:Infobox officeholder/testcases: the current template messes up most of the endashes, and the proposed template handles them all correctly.
Eubulides (
talk)
04:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC){{ editprotected}} No further comment, so I've added an {{ editprotected}} request. To summarize, please install this sandbox patch to {{ Infobox officeholder}}, and this sandbox patch to {{ Infobox officeholder/Office}}. Thanks. Eubulides ( talk) 04:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
|termsep=
so that editors who dislike the style rule I've programmed automatically can override that style and use the style they prefer.
Eubulides (
talk)
08:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
OK, then let's add just the automatic detection part, since that's the part that has consensus. Can you please install
this sandbox patch to {{
Infobox officeholder/Office}}? Thanks.
Eubulides (
talk)
18:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
For individuals with multiple offices, should the offices be ordered in ascending or descending order? I would think that descending order--with the most recent office at the top--would be preferable. Does that seem reasonable?-- Blargh29 ( talk) 00:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I tried looking for something related to this in the archives and was not able to find it.
I am finding dificult to use the order and office parameters for certain individuals. For example, Colombia's Horacio Serpa was the 1st Minister of the Interior, the problem is that the Ministry of the Interior has been renamed Ministry of the Interior and Justice, and there is no article for the defunct "Colombian Minister of Interior", any information pertaining to this ministry would be contained in the current "Colombian Ministry if the Interior and Justice", and I don't want to say that Horacio Serpa was the 1st Minister of Interior and Justice because he was not and is misleading because the ministry then had no Justice related business. I want to have:
|order = 1st
|office = [ [ Ministry of the Interior and Justice|Minister of the Interior ] ]
but this will only give me "1st [[ Minister of the Interior]]" (with brackets showing), and if I put:
|order =1st
|office = Ministry of the Interior and Justice|Minister of the Interior
It will only show as "1st Ministry of the Interior and Justice" totally ignoring the second part making it seem like he was the first office and not the first officeholder.
So my question/complaint/request is, is it possible to fix the template to either disregard the brackets [[]] when brakets have been used, or at least properly enclose the link accounting for the information after the "|"? Sure I could disregard the order parameter and put
|office=1st [ [Ministry of the Interior and Justice|Minister of the Interior] ]
but then what is the use of having the order parameter at all?
mijotoba (
talk)
00:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Template:Infobox officeholder death date: Use of this field will also make the background color silver since I am requesting it to be edited. -- Editor 410 ( talk) 19:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)}}
There is no satisfactory place to record Stephen Chu's Nobel Prize. When I try "awards" it bring up "military service". NBeale ( talk) 06:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't know how to add this myself, but I think it would be useful to include an optional "net worth" field. Since most politicians in the United States are wealthy businessmen or lawyers, it would be useful to have a field to mention their personal fortunes (kind of like the networth field in {{ Infobox Celebrity}}. -- Jrtayloriv ( talk) 06:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Initial context: Someone raised concerns over the length of the infobox at Otto von Bismarck, and I thought/replied that most of this information should probably be given in the footer Succession Boxes (which it already is). -- If the information is also in prose, it is getting repeated 3 times. One repetition seems fine (per most infobox content), but twice seems unnecessary/problematic.
Background: I searched the talkpage archives of this template and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization, and only found 3 key mentions of the overlap ( here and here and here). There are probably more discussions elsewhere (try this search to find them?).
One possible solution would be to remove the "preceded/followed" information from the infobox, and instead include a link to the succession boxes.
Examples for discussion purposes: Winston Churchill and Otto von Bismarck. I'll notify the Succession box project (I arbitrarily decided to post this thread here, out of the 2 possible locations). Thanks. -- Quiddity ( talk) 21:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I object to the proposition that the successor and predecessor parameters be removed. There are many instances of this template on pages that do not include succession boxes. For many of those, including stubs and starts, adding yet more templates would be questionable. Also, I use this feature of the infobox quite a lot when I am dealing with holders of some specific office. The infobox presents several pieces of useful information about the article up top in a compact and clear manner. To the extent there is overlap, I see the succession boxes as the superfluous part. Obviously, Quiddity sees things in the opposite way. I think the fact that editors such as him find value in one instance of the information while others of us find it elsewhere means that each, despite the overlap, serves a role. - Rrius ( talk) 02:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)