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 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
I would like to a nonmilitary award to a governor. Is there some way to do this? GcSwRhIc ( talk) 15:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I created Articles containing bullshit template parameters ( configuration), which happened to focus on uses of this template ("Infobox officeholder"), even though the logic is abstracted to apply to any template (in theory). It might be nice to catch some of the listed parameter names in the code ("birth_name" instead of "birthname" looked like particularly low-hanging fruit). Just a thought. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 19:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
{{
Infobox settlement}} and {{
Infobox person}} have the parameters |native_name=
and |native_name_lang=
. This template, should have similar parameters so that such names are not shoe-horned into the |name=
, as is currently the case on
Nat Wei, and can be marked-up with the appropriate language code. So, immediately after {{{honorific-suffix}}}</span>}}
, please add:
{{#if:{{{native_name|}}}|<br /><span class="nickname" {{#if:{{{native_name_lang|}}}|lang="{{{native_name_lang}}}" xml:lang="{{{native_name_lang}}}"}}>{{{native_name}}}</span>}}
which code is taken directly from the settlement template.. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
The Michael McGinn article uses the mayor version (it used to use the general one, but I changed it). In either version, the deputy parameter ends up wikilinked with the assumption that it should point to "Deputy Mayor of Seattle". I don't see anywhere in the documentation that it says that will happen. Is there a way to prevent the wikilink, in this instance a redlink?
Also, at the moment, the deputy parameter specifies two deputies. I tried using deputy2, but it doesn't seem to work. Why?-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
|office=
to |title=
it won't use the "office" to invent wikilinks for the deputy (or any) fields. By the way, changing "infobox officeholder" to "Infobox Mayor" does nothing, since it redirects here. Thanks!
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk) 01:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
|deputy2=
if the officeholder has held a second office (i.e., |office2=
or |title2=
) and there is a deputy associated with that office. Does that make sense? In this case, you did the right thing to put both in the same field. To be entirely semantically pedantic, you can wrap any "lists" inside the {{
unbulleted list}} template, which will emit proper html list markup (e.g., this could also be done for the list of children). Otherwise, it looks fine to me. Thanks!
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk) 01:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I notice that if a value is specified for the "source" parameter, but no value is specified for the "date" parameter, then the "Source:" line is actually displayed outside the infobox (see this version of the Vijay Mallya article as an example). Was that intentional? DH85868993 ( talk) 03:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Should {{ infobox candidate}} or others be used on articles that aren't about the person, but about a particular campaign? For example, Al Gore presidential campaign, 2000. AWB apparently assumes that any article with this template is a person article, and adds persondata to it. [1] I just need to figure out if that's a misplaced template or something to update in AWB. Thanks! -- JHunterJ ( talk) 12:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Would it be possible to add the service number to the military person data after the rank? In Australia it is often the easiest way to look up and WWII service personnel. It is in the military person infobox but you cannot specify it for an officeholder. I tried using the wild card military_data params, but this puts it down the bottom, unlike the usual name/rank/service number that you find in the military box. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 23:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Could {{ Infobox peer}} be merged with this template? As best I can tell, the only parameters it would need that this one does not have are "|known" and "known_for", which could either be added here or ignored. The template is used at fewer than 200 articles, and I'd be willing to do whatever mop-up work is needed at the articles, but I writing the code changes is beyond my abilities. - Rrius ( talk) 02:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
For some reason, User:WOSlinker is removing the alma_mater parameter, and possibly others from articles. I don't recall any consensus to remove this parameter. What's up? -- Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
|alma mater=
was removed, but |alma_mater=
is still there. I suppose it has something to do with trying to keep the use of "underscores" consistent. Thanks for the note.
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk) 22:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
|education=
should also probably be changed to |alma_mater=
instead of being removed. --
Philosopher
Let us reason together. 23:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
It would have been nice to have more discussion or a "courtesy notification" though before this was executed. I logged in today to find that WOSlinker had been tinkering with 18 of the Missouri politicians I've either created/expanded and monitor. Freaked me out at first. If the Mo. Sec. of State office ever gets it in gear and sends me the permission to use the pols "official" pics here on WP, I'll be adding photos to those infoboxes. If there is to be an entire new format/template for infoboxes, I'd appreciate a notice on it. Sector001 ( talk) 18:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
|alma mater=
and didn't notice that it left |alma_mater=
in place. Whoops! --
Philosopher
Let us reason together. 00:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Does anyone else think that parents should be a field if children are listed? Currently I use the "person" template since "office holder" doesn't have a "parents" field. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 22:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Can someone move the "birth_name" parameter above birth_date and birth_place? (See Template:Infobox_person)
Infobox person | |
---|---|
Born | Name Date Place |
Infobox officeholder | |
---|---|
Personal details | |
Born | Name Date Place |
What is the preferred value for term_start when an individual is designated as "acting" for a vacant office, and then subsequently becomes the permanent office holder? Do you use the date on which she became Acting, or the date on which she took office pursuant to the appointment?
I'm leaning toward using the "Acting" date. My basis is that, if an officeholder was only acting, that would obviously be the date to use, so why not for an Acting who later becomes permanent? And besides, otherwise there would be an undocumented hole in the continuity. Thoughts?
I'm specifically thinking of Maria Pallante, who was named Acting Register of the U.S. Copyright Office effective January 1, 2011; and then was nominated for the permanent position and took office permanently yesterday, June 1, 2011. After some dithering, I've used the January 1 date. TJRC ( talk) 18:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Can anyone confirm a precedented standard of using the term "president-elect" for incoming presidents in countries outside the anglosphere? Furthermore, is the concept president-elect an official title in the anglosphere or merely common usage? Talk/ ♥фĩłдωəß♥\ Work 19:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I've gone through the codebase (and that of the sub-templates) and stripped out a lot of crufty old code and styling material. The result is a leaner and more readable codebase, and a more compact and consistent output. See the test cases page for a comparison. Suggestions welcome. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I've now (finally) synced this, after picking up the code changes made to the main template since April. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
There are a couple of parameters (ethnicity and citizenship) that aren't on the documentation. As a result other editors won't realise that they are available for use unless they come across them by accident as I did. Could these be added to the documentation. There may be other parameters that aren't on the documentation.-- obi2canibe talk contr 17:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
What has happened to the template! It seems to have been massively changed in style without any consensus. It appears amateaur in its presentation and now looks exactly like the kind of infobox's that have slowly been being removed over recent years. Because of the protected nature of the template I cannot revert the template under WP:BRD, however if the editor who made these changes does not - and thereby allow for discussion - I will be making an application to have it reversed. Shatter Resistance ( talk) 16:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Name | |
---|---|
United States Senator from State | |
Reverted it. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 17:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for making the reversion. Shatter Resistance ( talk) 19:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
The changes were proposed above. The concerns raised have little merit: at most they would suggest a lighter field shading, but this is at best subjective (the likes of {{ infobox football biography}}, written specifically with accessibility in mind, manages fine with the proposed shade and is far more commonly used), while all the other comments are nothing but gut reactions, and starkly ill-informed for the most part. I'll leave this for a while in case it generates constructive commentary, but currently there's very little suggesting that the proposed changes would not be a significant improvement. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 22:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
For a user who seems to want to correct others it should be noted that thumperward/Chris Cunningham is not accuratley portraying the claim that the changes were proposed. Rather the talk page was informed that changes had been made which is an entirely different situation. On another point, the claim that the changes improve its appearance when parameters are omitted as claimed by thumperward/Chris Cunningham is WP:POV which it seems the vast majority of comments so far disagree with. If the template can be made simplier or improved in formatting without the change of the style of the infobox as it currently is then I'm sure no user would have an objection to that, however, that is not what has happened. Shatter Resistance ( talk) 15:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Is there any way that the changes are made and the color remain as before? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 19:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Ignoring the bold and whatever on Earth "your edits weren't even to the template, that is a massive concern, instead you linked this template to its own sandbox" means, most of those comments would apply to every {{ infobox}} (font sizes and such), and the native name comment is simply indecipherable. As far I as I can see I have not altered the native name code in any significant manner. I certainly can't see how the new code would require current transclusions to be altered. If test cases or non-hyperholic critique is forthcoming in the next few days I'll be happy to look into it. Otherwiuse, unless anyone other than Shatter Resistance has problems with the current sandbox code I'll sync it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 23:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
<hr />
element itself is semantically rendundant to a new table row anyway. They're merely a throwback to the days when there was little or no consistency at all on Wikipedia's infoboxes.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) -
talk 12:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)The sandbox has been updated to use the present header colour. If there are no objective problems with the new code I'll sync it in a few days. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:45, 28 June 2011 (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 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
I would like to a nonmilitary award to a governor. Is there some way to do this? GcSwRhIc ( talk) 15:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I created Articles containing bullshit template parameters ( configuration), which happened to focus on uses of this template ("Infobox officeholder"), even though the logic is abstracted to apply to any template (in theory). It might be nice to catch some of the listed parameter names in the code ("birth_name" instead of "birthname" looked like particularly low-hanging fruit). Just a thought. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 19:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
{{
Infobox settlement}} and {{
Infobox person}} have the parameters |native_name=
and |native_name_lang=
. This template, should have similar parameters so that such names are not shoe-horned into the |name=
, as is currently the case on
Nat Wei, and can be marked-up with the appropriate language code. So, immediately after {{{honorific-suffix}}}</span>}}
, please add:
{{#if:{{{native_name|}}}|<br /><span class="nickname" {{#if:{{{native_name_lang|}}}|lang="{{{native_name_lang}}}" xml:lang="{{{native_name_lang}}}"}}>{{{native_name}}}</span>}}
which code is taken directly from the settlement template.. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
The Michael McGinn article uses the mayor version (it used to use the general one, but I changed it). In either version, the deputy parameter ends up wikilinked with the assumption that it should point to "Deputy Mayor of Seattle". I don't see anywhere in the documentation that it says that will happen. Is there a way to prevent the wikilink, in this instance a redlink?
Also, at the moment, the deputy parameter specifies two deputies. I tried using deputy2, but it doesn't seem to work. Why?-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
|office=
to |title=
it won't use the "office" to invent wikilinks for the deputy (or any) fields. By the way, changing "infobox officeholder" to "Infobox Mayor" does nothing, since it redirects here. Thanks!
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk) 01:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
|deputy2=
if the officeholder has held a second office (i.e., |office2=
or |title2=
) and there is a deputy associated with that office. Does that make sense? In this case, you did the right thing to put both in the same field. To be entirely semantically pedantic, you can wrap any "lists" inside the {{
unbulleted list}} template, which will emit proper html list markup (e.g., this could also be done for the list of children). Otherwise, it looks fine to me. Thanks!
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk) 01:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I notice that if a value is specified for the "source" parameter, but no value is specified for the "date" parameter, then the "Source:" line is actually displayed outside the infobox (see this version of the Vijay Mallya article as an example). Was that intentional? DH85868993 ( talk) 03:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Should {{ infobox candidate}} or others be used on articles that aren't about the person, but about a particular campaign? For example, Al Gore presidential campaign, 2000. AWB apparently assumes that any article with this template is a person article, and adds persondata to it. [1] I just need to figure out if that's a misplaced template or something to update in AWB. Thanks! -- JHunterJ ( talk) 12:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Would it be possible to add the service number to the military person data after the rank? In Australia it is often the easiest way to look up and WWII service personnel. It is in the military person infobox but you cannot specify it for an officeholder. I tried using the wild card military_data params, but this puts it down the bottom, unlike the usual name/rank/service number that you find in the military box. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 23:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Could {{ Infobox peer}} be merged with this template? As best I can tell, the only parameters it would need that this one does not have are "|known" and "known_for", which could either be added here or ignored. The template is used at fewer than 200 articles, and I'd be willing to do whatever mop-up work is needed at the articles, but I writing the code changes is beyond my abilities. - Rrius ( talk) 02:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
For some reason, User:WOSlinker is removing the alma_mater parameter, and possibly others from articles. I don't recall any consensus to remove this parameter. What's up? -- Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
|alma mater=
was removed, but |alma_mater=
is still there. I suppose it has something to do with trying to keep the use of "underscores" consistent. Thanks for the note.
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk) 22:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
|education=
should also probably be changed to |alma_mater=
instead of being removed. --
Philosopher
Let us reason together. 23:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
It would have been nice to have more discussion or a "courtesy notification" though before this was executed. I logged in today to find that WOSlinker had been tinkering with 18 of the Missouri politicians I've either created/expanded and monitor. Freaked me out at first. If the Mo. Sec. of State office ever gets it in gear and sends me the permission to use the pols "official" pics here on WP, I'll be adding photos to those infoboxes. If there is to be an entire new format/template for infoboxes, I'd appreciate a notice on it. Sector001 ( talk) 18:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
|alma mater=
and didn't notice that it left |alma_mater=
in place. Whoops! --
Philosopher
Let us reason together. 00:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Does anyone else think that parents should be a field if children are listed? Currently I use the "person" template since "office holder" doesn't have a "parents" field. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 22:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Can someone move the "birth_name" parameter above birth_date and birth_place? (See Template:Infobox_person)
Infobox person | |
---|---|
Born | Name Date Place |
Infobox officeholder | |
---|---|
Personal details | |
Born | Name Date Place |
What is the preferred value for term_start when an individual is designated as "acting" for a vacant office, and then subsequently becomes the permanent office holder? Do you use the date on which she became Acting, or the date on which she took office pursuant to the appointment?
I'm leaning toward using the "Acting" date. My basis is that, if an officeholder was only acting, that would obviously be the date to use, so why not for an Acting who later becomes permanent? And besides, otherwise there would be an undocumented hole in the continuity. Thoughts?
I'm specifically thinking of Maria Pallante, who was named Acting Register of the U.S. Copyright Office effective January 1, 2011; and then was nominated for the permanent position and took office permanently yesterday, June 1, 2011. After some dithering, I've used the January 1 date. TJRC ( talk) 18:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Can anyone confirm a precedented standard of using the term "president-elect" for incoming presidents in countries outside the anglosphere? Furthermore, is the concept president-elect an official title in the anglosphere or merely common usage? Talk/ ♥фĩłдωəß♥\ Work 19:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I've gone through the codebase (and that of the sub-templates) and stripped out a lot of crufty old code and styling material. The result is a leaner and more readable codebase, and a more compact and consistent output. See the test cases page for a comparison. Suggestions welcome. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I've now (finally) synced this, after picking up the code changes made to the main template since April. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
There are a couple of parameters (ethnicity and citizenship) that aren't on the documentation. As a result other editors won't realise that they are available for use unless they come across them by accident as I did. Could these be added to the documentation. There may be other parameters that aren't on the documentation.-- obi2canibe talk contr 17:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
What has happened to the template! It seems to have been massively changed in style without any consensus. It appears amateaur in its presentation and now looks exactly like the kind of infobox's that have slowly been being removed over recent years. Because of the protected nature of the template I cannot revert the template under WP:BRD, however if the editor who made these changes does not - and thereby allow for discussion - I will be making an application to have it reversed. Shatter Resistance ( talk) 16:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Name | |
---|---|
United States Senator from State | |
Reverted it. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 17:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for making the reversion. Shatter Resistance ( talk) 19:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
The changes were proposed above. The concerns raised have little merit: at most they would suggest a lighter field shading, but this is at best subjective (the likes of {{ infobox football biography}}, written specifically with accessibility in mind, manages fine with the proposed shade and is far more commonly used), while all the other comments are nothing but gut reactions, and starkly ill-informed for the most part. I'll leave this for a while in case it generates constructive commentary, but currently there's very little suggesting that the proposed changes would not be a significant improvement. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 22:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
For a user who seems to want to correct others it should be noted that thumperward/Chris Cunningham is not accuratley portraying the claim that the changes were proposed. Rather the talk page was informed that changes had been made which is an entirely different situation. On another point, the claim that the changes improve its appearance when parameters are omitted as claimed by thumperward/Chris Cunningham is WP:POV which it seems the vast majority of comments so far disagree with. If the template can be made simplier or improved in formatting without the change of the style of the infobox as it currently is then I'm sure no user would have an objection to that, however, that is not what has happened. Shatter Resistance ( talk) 15:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Is there any way that the changes are made and the color remain as before? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 19:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Ignoring the bold and whatever on Earth "your edits weren't even to the template, that is a massive concern, instead you linked this template to its own sandbox" means, most of those comments would apply to every {{ infobox}} (font sizes and such), and the native name comment is simply indecipherable. As far I as I can see I have not altered the native name code in any significant manner. I certainly can't see how the new code would require current transclusions to be altered. If test cases or non-hyperholic critique is forthcoming in the next few days I'll be happy to look into it. Otherwiuse, unless anyone other than Shatter Resistance has problems with the current sandbox code I'll sync it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 23:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
<hr />
element itself is semantically rendundant to a new table row anyway. They're merely a throwback to the days when there was little or no consistency at all on Wikipedia's infoboxes.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) -
talk 12:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)The sandbox has been updated to use the present header colour. If there are no objective problems with the new code I'll sync it in a few days. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)