Template talk:Infobox government agency/Archive 1

Preceding
This parameter should probably be altered to allow for departments and agencies formed from the amalgamation of multiple entities, such as DFAT. --cj | talk 15:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, still tossing up over that one. At the moment the same result can be acheived using a br tag, and looking at the best way to ensure it renders in the fastest time possible. Thewinchester (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Some suggestions
Nice work getting this up and running. Even though this template has just appeared in the maternity ward (as so put on the Aussie noticeboard), I'd like to make a few suggestions: I can help out with these if you like. - 52 Pickup 15:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Non-English name: I've been working a lot on German and Dutch articles lately and this template could come in really handy. So what would really help here is a field for the native (non-English) name. Since you've got vcode stuff on the agency field, a separate field would be required instead of just adding a line break within the "agency_name" field.
 * Location: Where is the agency located? That is useful info. In some countries, the government agencies are not necessarily located in the capital city (eg. Germany, where everything is all over the shop). If you want to go the extra mile, geographical co-ordinates could be added here too (not displayed in the template, though, but at the top).
 * Photo: If a logo/seal is not available, in many cases a photo of the building may be available. What are your thoughts about an extra field for that?
 * html code: even with all of these if-fields, wiki table code can be used. HTML code in templates is discouraged since it makes the code bigger and transclusion sometimes slower.


 * Yes, the nurses are still cleaning up the mess on the floor of the maternity ward, and they're still figuring out how to attach the name braclet to the thing. I've tried to keep the number of fields down to the bare minimum, so I would say that photo should stay out (best put in a relevant place within the article). Non-english name and headquarters location i'll add tomorrow, but I don't know if encouraging the use of microformats adds anything to the article. Thanks very much for the offer of help on converting it to the wiki table code, i'll take you up on that tomorrow. Will give you a shout via your talk page. Cheers, Thewinchester (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Good job. I have no idea about microformats, but so long as they do not interfere with the template's functionality then I don't care. Actually, with the way that the image fields are set up, it is easy to simply use one of them for a photo if necessary (not displaying the captions automatically is a good idea). - 52 Pickup 12:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice work on converting to the wikitable format and dealing with some of those little niggles. Have just finished rolling out the box to a bucketload of articles all over the globe, so just sit back and wait for the template to get used and abused. Thewinchester (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

2007 Template overhaul debate (formerly "Recent changes")
A user decided to take it upon themselves to make massive changes to this infobox without any discussion on talk, precedent, and not withstanding the fact these changes were just adding unnecessary pollution to this infobox. If you'd like to make wholesale changes, please as per standing community practice open a discussion on the talk page first instead of just going headlong into it. Thewinchester (talk) 12:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but those changes added use without having any effect on existing pages that use the template. You do not own the page (WP:OWN) even though you created it!  I can make good faith improvements to the template on my own, and I saw now reason to discuss them on the talk page as they just added functionality without hurting any existing instances of the template.  As for my improvements "polluting" the infobox, I respectfully disagree.  Also, your reversions broke many instances of the template that use the new features.  --CapitalR 18:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Then here's a novel thought - build consensus before making major changes. It's simple, and something you should have known if you are such a prolific editor as you claim. Boohoo that the reversion broke the implementation on some pages... that's likely caused by your poor understanding and failure to use parser functions properly, which won't get you an ounce of sympathy from the community because you were the one who caused it. OWN isn't going to win the game here either, as there were a large amount of significant editors both on an off wiki who contributed to this template, and already a large number of templates have become depreciated because of this one because it's so well structured (particually because it learned from the lessons of how and why these predecessors failed to gain acceptance). Provide a reasonable rationale for the changes as to why they are needed, and then the community can talk about it and thrash it out to decide if they are appropriate or necessary. I'll tell you now that I would oppose the changes as they not only are they infobox pollution (infoboxes should be short, simple, and contain only top-level information which is relevant across all areas they could be used in), and in any case added US-leaning systemic bias which is strongly discouraged. Thewinchester (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with CapitalR. This is not your template, Thewinchester. Consensus is not required for changes, no matter how significant.  I, myself, have watched beautiful articles and templates I've created get all edited by other editors.  That is the WikiWay.  "Pollution" is your opinion, not a Wikipedia policy.  See: WP:OWN, WP:Be Bold.  Your approach in this discussion above has been unpleasant and unhelpful, Thewinchester, and your reversions are inappropriate.  You may ask for protection, then you would perhaps need consensus for my fellow Administrators and I to consider it.  Thank you.—Markles 22:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As an administrator I am looking on at the amount of reversion and so forth going on on this important template which appears in many articles - we simply cannot afford to have this amount of uncertainty (particularly given the very large nature of the changes), and on the basis of this and the fact that many other commonly used templates are protected and edits are required to be done using the editprotected template, I've locked it down. Also keep in mind that article bloat can become something of a problem on Wikipedia - in templates I've assisted in the creation of, the emphasis has always been on keeping the bulk down as much as practically possible, as not everyone has a super-high-speed internet connection and WP is meant to be the encyclopaedia anyone can edit, not just those in offices or homes with excessively large bandwidth. Orderinchaos 08:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I asked User:Orderinchaos to elaborate, and I agree with what he replied to me, which I will repeat here.—Markles 13:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC):
 * "Being bold is taken way too far in many instances. The changes were of no clear benefit to the template, and for such a widely deployed template, I viewed the changes as blatantly disruptive. Major change requires major justification, and definitely some form of consultation prior to engaging in them - although I am one of the major developers of WP:IAP, I wouldn't dream of making major alterations to that template (which has generally been a success in an Australian places context) without seeking a range of opinions both inside and outside the talk page, and giving it a number of days and taking on board other suggestions. As of this moment, not one word has been posted to Template talk:Infobox Government agency justifying the changes. The template has been in use for some time without these changes, it would not hurt anybody for a little bit of discussion to take place and for CapitalR to indicate why he feels dozens of extra fields and mandated image sizes are a good idea."
 * I have no problem with people reverting my edits to the image sizes. However, seeing as this template is being used in lots of places besides agencies (like departments, bureaus, commands, offices, etc.), the extra fields are necessary to handle all of the different cases.  Either we need to allow the fields, or we need to create a more general template to handle the other cases that this one cannot cover.  I'd like to hear other people's solutions to this problem if they do not wish the extra fields to be included.  For example, how would United States Department of Defense use an infobox correctly if the extra fields are not included?  Thanks, and I look forward to hearing comments.  --CapitalR 17:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Due to a recent reversion, this template is currently broken on a number of pages, such as United States Department of Defense (and all other US departments, office, commands, and non-agencies). Just thought I'd let everyone know, as it is causing incorrect information to be displayed on those pages (i.e. labeling them as agencies instead of the correct term).  --CapitalR 18:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed new version

 * Ok, so I've got a compromise solution that perhaps people will be willing to agree to. The major problems people are objecting to with my edits appear to be the "pollution" of having a few extra parameters which generalize this template to handle more than just agencies.  My solution is to apply my changes, but do so at, and then make this template itself make a call to  with specific settings enabled.  Thus, agencies can still be defined exactly the same way as before using this template, without the extra parameters "polluting" it.  However, if people want to use the extra parameters, they can use  instead (for non-agencies, that one would always be used).  This should in no way affect how instances of this template actually look (they will remain exactly the same as they are now).  I think this is a good idea and a way to solve both the concern of extra parameters, and my concern that this template cannot currently handle anything else besides agencies.  Please post any comments about it here; I'd like to hear what others think.  Thanks, --CapitalR 20:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I set up a test case for this at User:CapitalR/Infobox Government agency and User:CapitalR/Infobox Govt Unit. Below are a few examples of the infobox in use to compare the existing version with my proposed version so you can see that there are  no differences to existing instances, just additional optional features to make the old version handle more than just agencies.


 * In a nutshell, these new changes do the following:
 * Move the main code from to the more general, as it is now designed for more than just agencies, but any type of government (such as departments, commands, bureaus, administrations, offices, etc.).  (Note that  is currently up for deletion, which is okay for now, but if these changes are approved we can just undo that).
 * The calls  as a meta-template.  The parameters for  remain exactly the same (no additional parameters, no renamed parameters).  If someone wants to use this template for something other than agencies, then they can use  instead.  However, since both will be using the same code-base, their look and feel will remain consistent.
 * In the template, the following new features are added:
 * Ability to specify type (department, agency, office, etc.)
 * Ability to enter free fields of one's choosing for specific pages. This is common practice in a number of other infoboxes, such as the very general.
 * Ability to specify the type of a preceding, superseding, parent, or child unit (i.e., one can specify "Preceding Office" instead of just "Preceding Agency", or "Child Programs" instead of just "Child Agencies").
 * Ability to specify the acronym of the government unit.
 * Also, the following code changes are made:
 * Renaming parameters to be general instead of for agencies only (i.e. parameter "child1_agency" is renamed to "child1" and "parent_agency" is renamed to "parent").
 * Clearly, the additions are fairly as far as look and feel go, but help to generalize the template. I think these are good features and will help add this template to pages of non-agencies.


 * New proposed code for


 * New proposed code for


 * Examples of existing code vs. new code:

These next examples show how some instances of the template are currently broken, and how they will be fixed by my suggested changes:

Overall, the changes to the look and feel of the template are very minor. All existing instances of the template will remain completely unchanged. End users will notice no difference whatsoever in how the template looks. All that will be done is to make the template much more powerful by allowing more than just agencies to be specified.

I appreciate all comments, thanks --CapitalR 23:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Your proposed change could be effected by the modification of a single field in the original template, requiring about 36 extra characters. I actually agree there is merit in that particular change. However, in discussions leading to this, I am not seeing evidence that there is any call from the community for a heap of other fields unrelated to the core of this proposal which should simply be matters documented in the article text - an infobox is meant to be a snapshot, a five-second summary for the time-poor, if you will. Infobox bloat is a real problem as it grows every article that it latches onto, and also becomes more difficult for others to maintain. Also, a "fork template" meeting one user's preferred specifications would ultimately enter a phase of template-rot as it would cease to be maintained while the original template would be undergoing development. We had this problem on the Australian project where at one point we had 27 different infobox types for places in Australia, and thousands of manually coded templates, and managed to get them down into one which is consistently and regularly maintained and debated. Despite very different opinions across a core group of 8 or 9 and a wider group of about 20, we've always managed the differences amicably but earnestly. Orderinchaos 04:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, ok, I'm not quite sure what field you're referring to, but I'm guessing it would be adding a "type" parameter as I proposed. That would be a good modification if consensus can't be reached on others.  Thanks for the reply. --CapitalR 04:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That was along the lines of my thinking. While I don't think it would be used much personally, it gives the freedom for users to do so without either too much effort or too much complicated code. In two places, from what I can see, one would have a or a #switch to limit the choices, which may make more sense as it reduces the possibility of near-undetectable vandalism by failed humorists. Orderinchaos 05:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, yeah, that works for me. In addition to the type though, there are still some problems with other labels (parent_agency, child_agency, preceding_agency, and superseding_agency).  All of those ones are labeled "agency" when this is not always the case if the infobox is used in a non-agency.  Adding "parent_type", "child_type", "preceding_type", and "superseding_type" (all of which would be optional and default to agency) could solve this problem (and also renaming "parent_type" to just "parent", etc.; all instances of this template could quickly be fixed to use the new parameter names with WP:AWB, as there are only a hundred or so articles using this template).  Also, adding "acronym" (which is very common for all agencies and other government bodies) would be constructive.  I suppose we can eliminate my other fields (the free fields and the date fields).  I don't think this is much to ask for, won't make the template too complex for end users, won't overly complicate the code, won't affect existing articles that use the template, and will provide all of the functionality necessary to use in a variety of government bodies.  I think adding these 6 parameters is well worth the cost of the increased versatility (being able to use in any government body instead of agencies).  --CapitalR 05:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this is overkill personally, "agency" in the sense used is a generic. I note that in most uses in this infobox it is lower-cased. Also with acronym, I think it's somewhat obvious - eg Department of Defence = DoD. It creates more stuff to clean up and fix when the departments and agencies have their perennial reshuffling - I know of one government department in my state that has changed name and website three times just while I've been editing Wikipedia. As programmers we're taught that redundancy is evil for this very reason - the less places that things need changing, the better. Orderinchaos 06:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, point taken, but I respectfully disagree. I think that the additional options are a good idea (they're optional anyways, so editors can just ignore them if they like).  I also think that it's not a good reason to not include extra features and options because the name of an agency might change in the future.  If the name changes, that's ok, we can fix the acronym at the same time we fix the agency name.  Besides, numerous instances of this template already were including acronyms, but in the "nativename" field instead.  I think that if people are using it anyways, we should just make it a real field.  I agree that simplicity is nice, which is why these features would be optional.  --CapitalR 06:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)