![]() | This template was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
There has been some reverting ( [1] vs [2]) over whether there should be a note pointing out which positions are cabinet-level vs. those positions that are actually in the cabinet. {{ Obama cabinet}} makes this distinction and in the interests of clarity I think this template should as well.
Please discuss the rational for not including this information before reverting this template again. ~ Paul T +/ C 22:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I've tagged this article as partaking of the Obama series of articles' "probation." ↜Just me, here, now … 05:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
User:Josephabradshaw. Therequiembellishere ( talk) 17:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Is it used anywhere? Is it any better than Template:Obama cabinet? Grsz 11 21:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
A merger has been suggested of this template with Template:Current U.S. Cabinet or vice versa. Reason: To avoid redundancy when articles display both (since their functions and rationales for existence would appear to be fairly indentical?) ↜Just me, here, now … 13:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
↜Just me, here, now … 18:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Therequiembellishere ( talk) 20:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
The purpose of Template:Obama Cabinet is to show everyone who has ever been on Obama's cabinet from the beginning of his term until the end of his term. It may look ridiculous now, but in the long run, it will just a useful a navigation tool as all of his predecessors have. The purpose of Template:Current U.S. Cabinet is transparent. It cuts straight through to show who are incumbent cabinet officials and it's changing nature means that it'll never be on any page permanently. Template:Obama personnel, Cabinet-level child-template was supposed to show the cabinet members in order of their nominations, which it hasn't followed and is now obsolete. I don't see a reason for the newest, and most incompetent, of the three to be the surviving template. On top of it all, it was a template to be used for the transition, which is over. It is this template that has the weakest standing and it's this template that should be deleted, not the other two. Therequiembellishere ( talk) 22:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
The "Child-template" goes within a larger template, which is a huge and unattractive piece of work. As I've said before, there is no point in putting that huge article on every member of the Administration and the Cabinet, when there could be one template for each. Keep the Admin-level Child template separate from the Cabinet template. Also keep the Current Template, as it will eventually show different things than the Obama Cabinet template. Also keep the infobox template, as it is meant to show the Cabinet members in a different manner, eventually as an anchor for the Cabinet article similar to George W. Bush Cabinet. Grsz 11 23:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I want to put forth my proposal for consideration:
I believe that each template has a unique use and utility. On articles where multiple cabinet templates are present, a discussion should take place on the talk page for the relevant article to decide if a specific template should be omitted (or not). ~ Paul T +/ C 23:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm still not sure what Template:Obama personnel, Cabinet-level child-template offers. Grsz 11 00:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I like Justmeherenow's latest format change. It now shows the current cabinet, as well as their position. I think now we've answered the various needs. We have this to show the current composition, as well as Template:Obama cabinet to show the over-time composition. With these two now showing different things, I still think the Cabinet should be removed from Template:Obama Administration. If we can work out that issue, all we need to do is simplify the name on this thing. Grsz 11 03:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I propose that all templates except {{Obama cabinet}} and {{Obama cabinet infobox}} be deleted, because all other templates basically tell the same thing and nobody really cares who his Chairman of committee X is etc. ABC101090 ( talk) 00:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't see why we have to vote on bundled proposals. There seems to be agreement to delete this particular template and to keep at least two of the others, regardless of what happens with the remaining templates. There is no reason to discuss all templates on the talk page for this particular template, of all templates.
In particular, the question if {{ Current U.S. Cabinet}} should be deleted, should be discussed at Template talk:Current U.S. Cabinet. I will start a section to do that there. — Sebastian 02:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Why not put all Cabinet-level positions, including VP, at the bottom with a line between them and the Cabinet. The blue is rather hard to see and would be more difficult to put in a key or legend. Grsz 11 03:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi. i was just at Category:Obama Administration personnel. when you hit "show" to display this template fully, the ruight edge goes off the screen. however, no horizontal scroll bar appears which would enable the user to vierw the right edge. could you please fix this? thanks. -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 20:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This template was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
There has been some reverting ( [1] vs [2]) over whether there should be a note pointing out which positions are cabinet-level vs. those positions that are actually in the cabinet. {{ Obama cabinet}} makes this distinction and in the interests of clarity I think this template should as well.
Please discuss the rational for not including this information before reverting this template again. ~ Paul T +/ C 22:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I've tagged this article as partaking of the Obama series of articles' "probation." ↜Just me, here, now … 05:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
User:Josephabradshaw. Therequiembellishere ( talk) 17:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Is it used anywhere? Is it any better than Template:Obama cabinet? Grsz 11 21:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
A merger has been suggested of this template with Template:Current U.S. Cabinet or vice versa. Reason: To avoid redundancy when articles display both (since their functions and rationales for existence would appear to be fairly indentical?) ↜Just me, here, now … 13:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
↜Just me, here, now … 18:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Therequiembellishere ( talk) 20:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
The purpose of Template:Obama Cabinet is to show everyone who has ever been on Obama's cabinet from the beginning of his term until the end of his term. It may look ridiculous now, but in the long run, it will just a useful a navigation tool as all of his predecessors have. The purpose of Template:Current U.S. Cabinet is transparent. It cuts straight through to show who are incumbent cabinet officials and it's changing nature means that it'll never be on any page permanently. Template:Obama personnel, Cabinet-level child-template was supposed to show the cabinet members in order of their nominations, which it hasn't followed and is now obsolete. I don't see a reason for the newest, and most incompetent, of the three to be the surviving template. On top of it all, it was a template to be used for the transition, which is over. It is this template that has the weakest standing and it's this template that should be deleted, not the other two. Therequiembellishere ( talk) 22:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
The "Child-template" goes within a larger template, which is a huge and unattractive piece of work. As I've said before, there is no point in putting that huge article on every member of the Administration and the Cabinet, when there could be one template for each. Keep the Admin-level Child template separate from the Cabinet template. Also keep the Current Template, as it will eventually show different things than the Obama Cabinet template. Also keep the infobox template, as it is meant to show the Cabinet members in a different manner, eventually as an anchor for the Cabinet article similar to George W. Bush Cabinet. Grsz 11 23:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I want to put forth my proposal for consideration:
I believe that each template has a unique use and utility. On articles where multiple cabinet templates are present, a discussion should take place on the talk page for the relevant article to decide if a specific template should be omitted (or not). ~ Paul T +/ C 23:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm still not sure what Template:Obama personnel, Cabinet-level child-template offers. Grsz 11 00:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I like Justmeherenow's latest format change. It now shows the current cabinet, as well as their position. I think now we've answered the various needs. We have this to show the current composition, as well as Template:Obama cabinet to show the over-time composition. With these two now showing different things, I still think the Cabinet should be removed from Template:Obama Administration. If we can work out that issue, all we need to do is simplify the name on this thing. Grsz 11 03:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I propose that all templates except {{Obama cabinet}} and {{Obama cabinet infobox}} be deleted, because all other templates basically tell the same thing and nobody really cares who his Chairman of committee X is etc. ABC101090 ( talk) 00:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't see why we have to vote on bundled proposals. There seems to be agreement to delete this particular template and to keep at least two of the others, regardless of what happens with the remaining templates. There is no reason to discuss all templates on the talk page for this particular template, of all templates.
In particular, the question if {{ Current U.S. Cabinet}} should be deleted, should be discussed at Template talk:Current U.S. Cabinet. I will start a section to do that there. — Sebastian 02:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Why not put all Cabinet-level positions, including VP, at the bottom with a line between them and the Cabinet. The blue is rather hard to see and would be more difficult to put in a key or legend. Grsz 11 03:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi. i was just at Category:Obama Administration personnel. when you hit "show" to display this template fully, the ruight edge goes off the screen. however, no horizontal scroll bar appears which would enable the user to vierw the right edge. could you please fix this? thanks. -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 20:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)