![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Hello. I would like to propose addition of "Citizenship" and "Ethnicity" parameters, same as in the {{ Infobox Writer}} and {{ Infobox Scientist}}. The problem is application of infobox to biography articles about minority politicians. See how many articles about parties of ethnic minorities we have Cat:Political parties of minorities. The inclusion of "Nationality" parameter is insufficient as it can't be applied for minority politicians. For example infobox in Béla Bugár article would be misleading with "Nationality" parameter. Bugár is a Hungarian politician from Slovakia, former leader of the Party of the Hungarian Coalition. Many similar examples could be found easily. I see no controversy in this proposal, both parameters are included in infoboxes mentioned above and it is no problem. Cheers. - Darwinek ( talk) 17:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
| blank1 =
and | data1 =
to archive this. --
Philip Stevens (
talk)
21:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Whatever the usage percentage (a small number seems likely), nationality/ethnicity seems too much like special-pleading for the infobox. For particular office-holders, ethnicity may be significant, but for a great number of others (even where information is known), it's really not of any special importance. If the matter is important for that individual, by all means put it in the lead, but don't treat it as generic structural information about the office (or its holder). LotLE× talk 21:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with LotLE, and I also don't understand the need for the 'Citizenship' parameter, unless there are countries which don't require their officeholders to be citizens of the country. Flatterworld ( talk) 15:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, I will use blank parameters. Still "nationality" parameter cannot be used for politicians of ethnic minority parties. - Darwinek ( talk) 17:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Could someone change the code back so that the prefix and suffix do not appear and above and below the persons name before they used to be all on the same line.--
Barryob
(Contribs)
(Talk)
18:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Could it be changed so the person's political party is at the top, right below (or next to) their name? — AMK1211 talk! 14:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to request appointer2, appointer3, etc be created in line with many of the other fields. Bush shep ( talk) 22:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
| 1blankname2 =
and | 1namedata2 =
. --
Philip Stevens (
talk)
22:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Is there a hard and fast rule for this? I haven't been able to find clear guidance on it. In many cases it doesn't make a difference, but there are a number of instances where putting the legal name is just confusing to readers. Full legal names are always in the first sentence of the lede, so is it necessary to also put them in the infobox? Take, for instance, the Nancy Pelosi article where the infobox clumsily reads "Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi." Wouldn't the article title be more appropriate (and easier for readers)? Thanks -- Loonymonkey ( talk) 00:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Although I will not press the issue, I do wish to point to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes), which says:
The top text line should be bold and contain the full (official) name of the item. This does not need to match the article's Wikipedia title.
I agree that for the Nancy Pelosi article, it does look somewhat weird, but I was only following what the MoS says. — Kurykh 03:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Please look at User:Kaydell/Morgan Bowen. Morgan Bowen is not the incumbent, however, it seems quite difficult if not impossible using this template to identify him as a candidate. Fred Talk 12:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Per this discussion I've added the "prior_term" parameter to accompany "state_senate" and "state_house". It was designed use on Iowa legislators' pages, to limit the disproportionately long infoboxes that resulted due to redistricting. -- Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
This field should be excised from the infobox. Aside from the fact that its inclusion appears politically motivated (i.e., to cast certain candidates as more out-of-touch with the populace than others) and that it is used selectively, it's also about as trivial as listing the officeholder's height, weight, hair color, and eye color in the infobox. Sure, net worth should be included somewhere in the text of the article, but giving it prominence in the infobox is nothing less than incendiary.- PassionoftheDamon ( talk) 10:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm neutral on whether net worth should stay or should go. Many editors have argued that religion or alma mater have no place in the infobox for many of the same reasons (i.e. irrelevant, could be mentioned in the article). The same could be said for any other personal information. If you start deleting one field, where do you draw the line? The fields are all optional in any case. DCmacnut <> 16:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe template senator, template Senator, etc. should all be permanently protected as well. e.g. the recent edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template:Infobox_Senator&diff=prev&oldid=236916229 which put a POV image on every senator's page on wikipedia. -- Rajah ( talk) 20:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
People using this template seem to be commonly altering the formatting of the honorific prefix. See, for example, David Cameron. The addition of the extra 'small' and 'br' tags seems reasonably common, and avoids formatting looking like John Barnes, 1st Baron Gorell where word-wrap kicks in in the middle of the name (certainly in my browser). I've no idea of the history of the template, but is there any way this sort of thing can be standardised within the template, rather than having template users adding extra markup? Mrh30 ( talk) 14:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
In addition to monarch I like to have a parameter, head_of_state. --
Iterator12n
Talk
20:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Disabling editprotected request while discussion continues. Feel free to re-enable the request if / when it's appropriate. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 02:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
| 1blankname2 =
and | 1namedata2 =
? --
Philip Stevens (
talk)
09:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Is there any point in having this in the infobox? I say this because it appears that a common consensus appears to have developed to forgo this field under all but the most exceptional of circumstances.
I don't know whether this 'consensus' is between a few people who have some sort of grudge against the field, but there appears to be no way of getting this field onto any article of note. Even Hillary Rodham Clinton should prove impossible, she was born Hillary Diane Rodham but I believe that if one tried to put that into her infobox one would find it swiftly removed.
So my point is to ask what is the purpose in this field? It appears not to be wanted by the community, even though I myself find it a quite sensible addition.-- EchetusXe ( talk) 17:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Officeholder should also include the option "Chief Minister". Indian states are ruled by Chief Ministers and it is more relevant to mention the Chief Minister in the case of a Member of Legislative Assembly or a State Cabinet Minister than the Prime Minister. Thanks- Ravichandar My coffee shop 19:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I think there's a discussion to be had about whether Template:Infobox Representative-elect is needed – it's only useful for about 9 weeks in every 104 and, although we're currently in the midst of those 9 weeks, it's only currently transcluded in two articles. Leaving that discussion aside for a moment, it's clear the wording needs to be changed. It currently reads "Representative-elect from [State]'s [xth] district". Given that it only seems to be in use for members of the United States House of Representatives, it should read "U.S. Representative-elect..." to distinguish its subjects from members-elect of state legislatures (over 40 of which style members of their lower house "representatives"). — Lincolnite ( talk) 22:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
Would it be possible if u can change the Personal data information of religion to Religious beliefs because it makes more sense to say, Sunni Muslim or Protestant Christian, rather than specifying the exact religion or church. thankyou.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.14.77 ( talk) 15:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
We have a situation regarding the infobox for Michelle Obama until January 20. Is there a way to suppress the "incumbent" line and change "Assumed office" to "Taking office" like the President-elect/VP-elect templates are? She's not "elect" so that won't work. Any suggestions? Thanks Tvoz/ talk 20:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
"Taking office" sounds too informal. I recommend replacing this caption in the infobox with "Term begins". This sounds more "official".
Thanks. 98.217.123.201 ( talk) 05:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)sean_2015
At least for use for US Senators, there is a "succeeding" parameter that results in "-elect" being put after the title. Is it possible to either change that one or create a new one that will add "-designate" for appointed Senators? - Rrius ( talk) 03:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
It was suggested to me that I work this up in a sandbox. I am having trouble, though. I can't figure out how the "succeeding" parameter suppresses "Incumbent" and spawns "-elect". Can someone help me out? - Rrius ( talk) 22:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Is the alma mater field intended to be used to show the highest level of education that someone has achieved, or just what schools they attended? If it is only meant for schools, should we add an "education" parameter? I see that there is an archived talk about changing the name of the field, but that talk did not address the intended purpose of the parameter. -- Arctic Gnome ( talk • contribs) 22:06, 30 November 2008 (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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Hello. I would like to propose addition of "Citizenship" and "Ethnicity" parameters, same as in the {{ Infobox Writer}} and {{ Infobox Scientist}}. The problem is application of infobox to biography articles about minority politicians. See how many articles about parties of ethnic minorities we have Cat:Political parties of minorities. The inclusion of "Nationality" parameter is insufficient as it can't be applied for minority politicians. For example infobox in Béla Bugár article would be misleading with "Nationality" parameter. Bugár is a Hungarian politician from Slovakia, former leader of the Party of the Hungarian Coalition. Many similar examples could be found easily. I see no controversy in this proposal, both parameters are included in infoboxes mentioned above and it is no problem. Cheers. - Darwinek ( talk) 17:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
| blank1 =
and | data1 =
to archive this. --
Philip Stevens (
talk)
21:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Whatever the usage percentage (a small number seems likely), nationality/ethnicity seems too much like special-pleading for the infobox. For particular office-holders, ethnicity may be significant, but for a great number of others (even where information is known), it's really not of any special importance. If the matter is important for that individual, by all means put it in the lead, but don't treat it as generic structural information about the office (or its holder). LotLE× talk 21:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with LotLE, and I also don't understand the need for the 'Citizenship' parameter, unless there are countries which don't require their officeholders to be citizens of the country. Flatterworld ( talk) 15:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, I will use blank parameters. Still "nationality" parameter cannot be used for politicians of ethnic minority parties. - Darwinek ( talk) 17:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Could someone change the code back so that the prefix and suffix do not appear and above and below the persons name before they used to be all on the same line.--
Barryob
(Contribs)
(Talk)
18:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Could it be changed so the person's political party is at the top, right below (or next to) their name? — AMK1211 talk! 14:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to request appointer2, appointer3, etc be created in line with many of the other fields. Bush shep ( talk) 22:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
| 1blankname2 =
and | 1namedata2 =
. --
Philip Stevens (
talk)
22:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Is there a hard and fast rule for this? I haven't been able to find clear guidance on it. In many cases it doesn't make a difference, but there are a number of instances where putting the legal name is just confusing to readers. Full legal names are always in the first sentence of the lede, so is it necessary to also put them in the infobox? Take, for instance, the Nancy Pelosi article where the infobox clumsily reads "Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi." Wouldn't the article title be more appropriate (and easier for readers)? Thanks -- Loonymonkey ( talk) 00:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Although I will not press the issue, I do wish to point to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes), which says:
The top text line should be bold and contain the full (official) name of the item. This does not need to match the article's Wikipedia title.
I agree that for the Nancy Pelosi article, it does look somewhat weird, but I was only following what the MoS says. — Kurykh 03:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Please look at User:Kaydell/Morgan Bowen. Morgan Bowen is not the incumbent, however, it seems quite difficult if not impossible using this template to identify him as a candidate. Fred Talk 12:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Per this discussion I've added the "prior_term" parameter to accompany "state_senate" and "state_house". It was designed use on Iowa legislators' pages, to limit the disproportionately long infoboxes that resulted due to redistricting. -- Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
This field should be excised from the infobox. Aside from the fact that its inclusion appears politically motivated (i.e., to cast certain candidates as more out-of-touch with the populace than others) and that it is used selectively, it's also about as trivial as listing the officeholder's height, weight, hair color, and eye color in the infobox. Sure, net worth should be included somewhere in the text of the article, but giving it prominence in the infobox is nothing less than incendiary.- PassionoftheDamon ( talk) 10:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm neutral on whether net worth should stay or should go. Many editors have argued that religion or alma mater have no place in the infobox for many of the same reasons (i.e. irrelevant, could be mentioned in the article). The same could be said for any other personal information. If you start deleting one field, where do you draw the line? The fields are all optional in any case. DCmacnut <> 16:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe template senator, template Senator, etc. should all be permanently protected as well. e.g. the recent edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template:Infobox_Senator&diff=prev&oldid=236916229 which put a POV image on every senator's page on wikipedia. -- Rajah ( talk) 20:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
People using this template seem to be commonly altering the formatting of the honorific prefix. See, for example, David Cameron. The addition of the extra 'small' and 'br' tags seems reasonably common, and avoids formatting looking like John Barnes, 1st Baron Gorell where word-wrap kicks in in the middle of the name (certainly in my browser). I've no idea of the history of the template, but is there any way this sort of thing can be standardised within the template, rather than having template users adding extra markup? Mrh30 ( talk) 14:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
In addition to monarch I like to have a parameter, head_of_state. --
Iterator12n
Talk
20:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Disabling editprotected request while discussion continues. Feel free to re-enable the request if / when it's appropriate. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 02:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
| 1blankname2 =
and | 1namedata2 =
? --
Philip Stevens (
talk)
09:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Is there any point in having this in the infobox? I say this because it appears that a common consensus appears to have developed to forgo this field under all but the most exceptional of circumstances.
I don't know whether this 'consensus' is between a few people who have some sort of grudge against the field, but there appears to be no way of getting this field onto any article of note. Even Hillary Rodham Clinton should prove impossible, she was born Hillary Diane Rodham but I believe that if one tried to put that into her infobox one would find it swiftly removed.
So my point is to ask what is the purpose in this field? It appears not to be wanted by the community, even though I myself find it a quite sensible addition.-- EchetusXe ( talk) 17:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Officeholder should also include the option "Chief Minister". Indian states are ruled by Chief Ministers and it is more relevant to mention the Chief Minister in the case of a Member of Legislative Assembly or a State Cabinet Minister than the Prime Minister. Thanks- Ravichandar My coffee shop 19:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I think there's a discussion to be had about whether Template:Infobox Representative-elect is needed – it's only useful for about 9 weeks in every 104 and, although we're currently in the midst of those 9 weeks, it's only currently transcluded in two articles. Leaving that discussion aside for a moment, it's clear the wording needs to be changed. It currently reads "Representative-elect from [State]'s [xth] district". Given that it only seems to be in use for members of the United States House of Representatives, it should read "U.S. Representative-elect..." to distinguish its subjects from members-elect of state legislatures (over 40 of which style members of their lower house "representatives"). — Lincolnite ( talk) 22:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
Would it be possible if u can change the Personal data information of religion to Religious beliefs because it makes more sense to say, Sunni Muslim or Protestant Christian, rather than specifying the exact religion or church. thankyou.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.14.77 ( talk) 15:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
We have a situation regarding the infobox for Michelle Obama until January 20. Is there a way to suppress the "incumbent" line and change "Assumed office" to "Taking office" like the President-elect/VP-elect templates are? She's not "elect" so that won't work. Any suggestions? Thanks Tvoz/ talk 20:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
"Taking office" sounds too informal. I recommend replacing this caption in the infobox with "Term begins". This sounds more "official".
Thanks. 98.217.123.201 ( talk) 05:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)sean_2015
At least for use for US Senators, there is a "succeeding" parameter that results in "-elect" being put after the title. Is it possible to either change that one or create a new one that will add "-designate" for appointed Senators? - Rrius ( talk) 03:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
It was suggested to me that I work this up in a sandbox. I am having trouble, though. I can't figure out how the "succeeding" parameter suppresses "Incumbent" and spawns "-elect". Can someone help me out? - Rrius ( talk) 22:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Is the alma mater field intended to be used to show the highest level of education that someone has achieved, or just what schools they attended? If it is only meant for schools, should we add an "education" parameter? I see that there is an archived talk about changing the name of the field, but that talk did not address the intended purpose of the parameter. -- Arctic Gnome ( talk • contribs) 22:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)