Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 18

Embedding voice files
A project I'm running, and a related event in mid-January will soon add around a thousand recordings of article subjects' voices to their biographies. I'd like to embed those in the relevant infoboxes, as in (using Infobox person). Can we add the necessary parameter to this template? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Sticking a listen directly into an infobox is somewhat inelegant. I'd prefer for support to be baked more directly into infobox if possible, avoiding lots of nasty superfluous divs and code-copying. For the time being, it's not too gross to use the existing out-of-infobox positioning, is it? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I discussed this when the project started (for infobox person, IIRC), and the consensus was that this was the best method to use. Embedding within the infobox prevents unsightly "steps" which occur one some articles; encourages standardisation of layout, allows the voice file to be referenced in the emitted metadata, and facilitates Wikidata integration. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Point taken, though I still think we can improve the output (if I can convince the file tag, when in audio mode, to consent to paying attention to any CSS at all). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * No, please - give them their own little box. Much too crufty and against WP:INFOBOX principles. Of course adding them is an excellent idea, but not in the main box. Johnbod (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes please. Nobody except Johnbod would prefer to . It works well with infobox person, and it should be just as useful in this template. --RexxS (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, as an experiment. The old audio/video player icon is huge and looks out of place on a page. If the experiment does not work, and is just as unsightly, we can always switch back. Any more elegant alternative is worth trying. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We've had audio files embedded in 'person' infoboxes for many months now; see, for example, Corrie Corfield, Bill Thompson (technology writer), Keri Davies, Mark Porter (doctor), Rémi Mathis, Sue Black (computer scientist), Jamillah Knowles, to name but a few. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No. What do you do with a huge number of files, like for John F. Kennedy? Or any modern President, actor, musician, etc. Could be hundreds of files. If it is limited to one or a several, who gets to choose? Essentially, we are a visible encyclopedia. Yes, we have voice. But we are not allowed to edit voice! They are only there as possible bibliography to back up written material. They are a distraction in the infobox IMO. Student7 (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Surely we do the same as we do when there are a huge number of image files? We pick one for the infobox by consensus, of course - why should it be any different for choosing a sound file (or for any other edit)? We are an online encyclopedia; readers are able to make use of a wide variety of user agents to peruse our content and sound is just as legitimate as vision. Are you going to tell visitors who use screen readers that "we are a visible encyclopedia"? Of course we can edit sound clips, just as we can edit images or videos and a visit to Commons will show you the range of multimedia available to our project. Letting our readers know how a subject's voice sounds is just as encyclopedic as letting them see how the subject looked, so why would it be any more of a distraction that having an image in the infobox? --RexxS (talk) 20:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No. I agree with Johnbod ... sorry RexxS, one counterexample disproves the theorem. :-)   Audio is too crufty.  But that's just a style opinion, I'd prefer to keep the main infobox uncluttered and put the audio in a separate box (as beautiful of a separate box as possible of course).  That said, I have nothing (in theory &mdash; I haven't actually specifically looked) against Corrie Corfield and other articles that "integrate" the audio with the main infobox, where it makes sense for that particular article.  But as a general rule, Student7 is on the money.  Audio is *not* something anybody can edit.  This is not just a technological limitation; it is a direct-quotation-limitation.  Audio is an opaque blob, which usually contains words-with-meaning, but wikipedians cannot ethically *edit* said words-nor-meaning.
 * For example, we have an article on Bono, of U2. Should the One-And-Only audio-clip in their BLP infoboxen, use Bono's speaking voice, or their singing voice?  If we use a song, which song?  Line from the chorus, or line from the melody?  Include 'background' guitar by The Edge, or strip it out as "not Bono" ... thus murdering the musical qualities of the song?  If speaking voice, aren't we raising something to Noteworthy which is actually not?  Well, in Bono's case, he has become reasonably Notable as a speaker on political issues like health, war, wealth, et cetera, but for most people, the "sound of them speaking" is not notable-slash-encyclopedic.  Disc jockey?  Sure, we need Howard Stern's voice in his BLP.  News anchor?  Sure, we need Walter Cronkite's voice in his BLP.  Musician?  Maybe... but methinks not, see reasoning above, clips belong in the album-articles.  Politician?  Kinda.  But then the real question becomes, what *one* audio soundbite of 30 seconds or less exemplifies the essence of the person?  Doubt we can ever judge fairly, with exceptions like  Clara_Peller being exceedingly rare.
 * Photographs *are* traditionally encyclopedic, by contrast: before those existed, hand-created portraits were used.  Picking one photo for the infoboxen is pretty easy.  The reason is simple:  in a photograph, the person may be posed a specific way, or dressed a specific way, or seen with certain props, but they are still always themselves.  By contrast, audio contains words which have meaning, and except for something banal like Barack Obama saying "My name is Barack Obama" the words are almost never self-referential, and the meaning will almost never cut to the essence of what the BLP is about.  Picking the "one" photo for the infobox is rarely controversial, because the person is themselves, in all photographs of them.  Picking the "essential" audio clip, is guaranteed to be pointlessly controversial.  Better to have a separate place for audio, where we are not constrained to one short clip which must give the 'essence' of the speaker en toto, and can instead present a library of clips.  HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * p.s. There is absolutely zero conflict with screen-readers, the think-of-the-blind argument is a total red herring. Screen-readers work best with prose in a linear layout, and work worst with infoboxes and multimedia, methinks.  Screen-readers also work fine with photographs, as long as the photo has descriptive alt-text.  There is obviously some benefit to having audio in the article, somewhere, which permit the readership to hear famous music, or famous speeches, or even famous  catchphrases I suppose.  But that audio-benefit applies to *all* our readership, not to blind folks using screen-readers exclusively.  Audio is an enriching and useful thing; for articles about specific pieces of music, it is an *essential* enrichment.  But for articles about BLPs, it is a decorative thing.  The article on Clara Peller can be fully and completely encyclopedic, without an audio recording of her catchphrase... and if there *was* any multimedia, a video recording of the original Wendy's commercial with the originally-famous-catchphrase would be vastly preferable to an audio recording made later.  Hope this helps.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Dispatch article
This infobox is discussed, at Wikipedia Signpost/2013-07-10/Dispatch, using Winston Churchill as an example.

I agree with the argument that the succession/ prime minister information is superfluous on that article; it's already in the succession boxes at the foot of the article. That infobox should also display persona biography (dates of birth and death, etc.) ahead of posts held.

How can we best remedy these issues? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

RFC: successor fields
Should the successor/predecessor fields be kept, removed, or altered? —Designate (talk) 13:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support removal. I don't think succession information can be considered part of the essential data for an individual. It's essential data for the office, which is why we have a list on the page for the office, and tons of navboxes for almost every officeholder. The infobox has to be a trade-off; it can't just be any conceivably useful thing. Succession information doesn't come close to basic biographical data like offices held, birthdates, etc. I doubt many readers are loading up an officeholder's page to find the one person that came before them; if someone wants a single predecessor's name, they probably want the whole list, not just one name at a time. It's not a likely use case. Let's consider getting rid of it. —Designate (talk) 19:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support removal. It is distracting from much more relevant information, and by many personalities that held diverse offices results in a ridiculously long info-column. -- ELEKHHT 13:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support removal I agree with the point made by Designate, successors and predecessors are attributes of the office, not the individual. This doesn't mean that successors and predecessors do not deserve discussion ant he office, it may well be relevant to the bio that someone defeated someone else in an election, lost to someone else in an election, replaced or was replaced in appointive office, but those facts should be included in the main text only if they are important context, not automatically and always included. The infobox is not a place for such information.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  00:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak Support Keep - Not having a huge background in political biographies or infoboxes, I can't say I really have a strong opinion on this one. I appreciate the argument being put forth here by Designate that the infobox "can't just be any conceivably useful thing". The "usefulness" or "relevance" of the predecessor/successor info is most likely going to be highly subject to POV. That said, my POV is that the predecessor/successor info is very relevant and important. When I scan over political biographies, the predecessor/successor info is one of the first things I look to. It tends to provide historical context to a biography.
 * Additionally, my understanding is that the predecessor/successor info is optional, right? Seems like if it was too much info, individual editors could omit it at their own discretion on individual biographies.
 * Finally, if this change were to be made, I think we have to acknowledge it would be a fairly major change affecting thousands of biographies. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but I think it does mean we should be sure we get a lot of eyes looking at this, and pretty clear consensus for the change. NickCT (talk) 12:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that you're not yet quite fully informed, so maybe should withhold your decision for a while. Regarding the "optional" aspect, when I removed the field previously from articles I have been reverted with the single argument that consistency across political bios has priority. So making it optional would require a clear indication in the template documentation. Regarding high usage, you're right, the infobox is used in 69,901 instances. I think the biggest problem is with politicians which held a large number of positions, and thus the addition of predecessor&successor fields makes the infobox very long, duplicated by a long column of navbars like here - which I find makes the article look like some blog of a psycho that feels the need to repeat everything in a shouting format. -- ELEKHHT 13:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * re "that you're not yet quite fully informed" - So inform me. I'm always willing to change my decision in light of new information. What I said above was an initial impression.
 * re "consistency across political bios has priority.... biggest problem is with politicians which held a large number of positions.... the infobox very long" - Ok. I completely appreciate what you're saying, and I see how that could be a problem. My concern is that you're going to throw the baby out with the bath water. B/c the predecessor/successor fields are problematic on some pages, doesn't mean they aren't helpful on others. Perhaps an alternative to removing the predecessor/successor fields would be to add a comment to the template page or some policy pages reading - "On some biographies where a subject has held a large number of offices, filling in predecessor/successor fields may lead to overly large infoboxes. In general, for subjects who have held more than X offices, predecessor/successor fields should either be omitted, or should be omitted for all but the most significant office(s) held by the subject". NickCT (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't really like the argument that unnecessary features can be removed on a case-by-case basis if everyone agrees they're disruptive, but otherwise will be included by default. It's tough because (as Elekhh said) it's hard to get consensus to make one article different from 99.9% of them. Drive-by editors will always dump that information back in, and it's a headache to make the case for each article. I think we should treat the infoboxes as excluding information by default and only including it if editors can make the case that the information is fundamental. The real problem isn't length but whether the information belongs there.
 * The problem is that the fields are more likely to be used by readers for higher offices where the sequence is notable (presidents, PMs, kings) than for minor offices (Congressman), but people who have attained those higher offices will invariably have longer infoboxes—so you're excluding the information on the articles where it's most likely to be useful and including it where it's most likely to be meaningless. This is why a standard length doesn't really work. —Designate (talk) 01:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * @Designate re "I think we should treat the infoboxes as excluding information by default" - I could definitely get behind the idea of excluding the predecessor/successor info by default. How do you achieve that technically though? Do you have to write it into policy or something? NickCT (talk) 16:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Some articles are too short to have an infobox and succession boxes. The current arrangement allows the infobox to contain the summary information and to provide succession information. Additionally, I'm very uncomfortable with people coming here to try to remove the feature altogether just because they were unable to achieve consensus for removal at particular articles. The very fact that consensus is hard to achieve even with long infoboxes should be seen as an argument for keeping the feature, not deleting. That something is popular is a poor reason for getting rid of it. Finally, if it is so terrible having duplication (I don't really see the problem), then why not apply the logic in favour of getting rid of succession boxes? The purpose of the infobox is to provide information about the offices a person held. It makes no sense to remove some of that information and stick it at the bottom of the article. In the end, some people find it useful to have the information at the top, and some find it useful at the bottom. Just because you fit in to just one or neither of those camps and therefore don't find it useful to have the information in the infobox doesn't make it right to punish those who do. -Rrius (talk) 11:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It was a hypothetical. I was explaining why there's no point taking it to individual pages without a community discussion. —Designate (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep If duplication is really a problem get rid of the footers. Agathoclea (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Remove. This is most often done with a nav box below the article. As far as the general question raised, the longer a info box template has been around, the more parameters it tends to accumulate. It almost seems like they should be pruned periodically! Student7 (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep As far as I understand, we all agree that "preceded by/succeeded by" information should be somewhere in the article. The problem is just that it is usually duplicated. If that is the problem, I vote for removing navboxes from the bottom of the page, just like Agathoclea and Rrius pointed out. Most users just want to find out basic information on a person, and they usually only read the article lead, and less often the whole article. So, most users do not even get to the bottom of the page. So, the information on the top of the page is much more useful that on the bottom. Anyway, I agree that we should not have the same set of information two times in the same article. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, no, the duplication is not the only problem. The infobox is supposed to be a summary of basic information about an individual which appears in the article, and this information does not appear in the article and is not about the individual. It's just the wrong spot for this category of data, like putting the population of the city they were born in or the name of their chief staffers. It's not basic pertinent information. And it's not clear why we should assume readers go to the article on an individual to get a fraction of the succession data, rather than going the article about the office to get the whole list. —Designate (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Remove per "it's an attribute of the office, not the person", points given above. –Quiddity (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Remove from the infobox: there is a footer to deal with this and it overbloats an infobox. - SchroCat (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment if we keep them, can we have an explicit guideline as to what to do for the first holder of the office, to avoid disputes like the one happening in with Julia Gillard: . Mitch Ames (talk) 12:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I find it very useful when looking up politicians to be able to see who preceded and succeeded them in office. In fact, I find it about the most useful thing in the Infobox. I believe it is important information, not just about the office, but about the person, since it helps to work out where they fit in in the line of officeholders. I also agree with the comments by Rrius and NickCT. Neljack (talk) 04:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep It is incredibly useful to have predecessor and successor up front in the infobox, as often, such details are crucial to be easily seen. Succession boxes at the foot of the article are merely there for formality, but the main purveyor of such information should be the infobox. Ithinkicahn (talk) 11:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's generally the succession footers that need to go, because they're mostly outdated and ugly and create unhelpful clutter that results in creeping templatitis. It may indeed be the case that a person's predecessor and successor in a political position aren't technically attributes of the person, but it is useful and relevant information for the article to contain and the infobox is a less obtrusive place to put it than a handcoded succession footer is. Bearcat (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. People come to the article to look for specific information. They look at the top of the article first where these fields are located. There is no reason why an infobox cannot contain information on the office and the person at the same time. After all, we have the name of the person that they worked for, the president, governor, or mayor. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. My use-case is almost exactly what Designate describes as "not a likely use case".  :-)   If I'm reading about the SecDef, the generic article with "list of historical SecDef officeholders" is not useful to me, because the key details (stances held and achievements while in office and such) are always buried in the BLP articles.  Therefore, to understand the role of the SecDef during the Cold War, say, I usually pick the BLP article about the SecDef just before the Cold War started, and then keep clicking on the successor-links until I stop hearing about the Cold War.  So in a way, Designate is correct... in the hopping from officeholder-to-officeholder use case, I don't usually care about the *name* of the successor... but I want the hyperlink to that successor, in the infobox.  Going back in time is also common for me... I will read about the actions some officeholder took, and get curious about what kind of foolishness the predecessor was up to, that necessitated said actions... this curiosity then recurs, repeatedly, dragging me inexorably further back in time.  :-)
 * Of course, there is another use case which is also common for me, which is when I'm reading about a BLP, for the sake of understanding that BLP specifically. In this use-case, the names of the predecessor and the successor (and the appointed-by field), serve the purpose of situating the BLP in history.  Knowing that Volcker was just before Greenspan, and that Bernanke was just after, is important to the historical sense of Greenspan themselves... especially if I've heard of Bernanke but not Greenspan!  And while I'm certain Greenspan is an interesting person qua person, the main reason people read about him in wikipedia is because he was Fed chair, and therefore the names of (and especially hyperlinks to) the officeholders on either side are helpful.  I'd even urge expansion:  the infobox would be more useful methinks, if it said "Preceded by Paul Volcker ('79&mdash;87), Succeeded by Ben Bernanke ('06&mdash;present)".  HTH.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Education and Alma mater fields
Are we going to harmonize with "template:infobox person" and have a field for "Alma mater" and "education"? That way we do not have to keep fighting over which of the many schools someone attends gets to be their singular nourishing mother, which is the only field supported here. "Alma mater" (singular) by Wikipedia usage appears to be the undergraduate education. Some people attend prep school or prominent high school like Bronx Science, college, graduate school. Some people have multiple degrees, like M.D.-Ph.D. or were Rhode Scholars and split their education with time at University of Oxford. The education field can list all prominent schools separated by breaks. Either field can be left empty. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Mayor
We need the field "| mayor = ". We have city offices appointed by mayors, like chief of police and fire chief. I am working on the chiefs of police and fire chiefs for New York City and Philadelphia. We already have fields for presidents and for governors, for federal and state appointees. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "appointed by" would be more generic, and this more useful? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, I'd misunderstood RAN's request on my talk. "Appointed by" makes sense to me, and covers this use case: if you can whip up some code I'll sync it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

That is a simple solution. How did it get to proliferate to "| deputy = | lieutenant = | monarch = | president = | primeminister = | chancellor = | governor = " ? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Next question: Which field should we be using no matter which entity appointed the person? "| deputy = | lieutenant = | monarch = | president = | primeminister = | chancellor = | governor = " or "appointed by =" ? "Appointed by =" gives the label: "Appointed by Woodrow Wilson" whereas "President =" gives "President Woodrow Wilson". Lots of options are nice, but having a consistent look and feel is important also. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I'd prefer to use "Appointed by" and ditch the rest. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. For complex cases, like Alan Greenspan, we can still have a list of the various presidents that appointed them, just instead of saying "presidents: reagan bush1 clinton1 bush2" we can simply say "appointed by: reagan bush1 clinton1 bush2 (presidents)" which is more generically useful.  What about the |deputy= field, can we replace that (and synonyms) with something like "superior of" or perhaps "assisted by" ... or maybe even "minions"?  ;-)    &mdash; 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It looks like we still need the "| mayor = ". Some heads of municipal offices are not appointed by the mayor but serve under the mayor. They are elected by the city council (or alderman, or freeholders, depending on the city) to serve the new mayor. Can we add the field? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

missing end-date and incumbency
If start_date is given but end_date is not, a link "incumbent" is automatically generated. However, in the case of historical figures the end_date might be missing because it is unknown or because we can't find it. Is there a way to suppress "incumbent" in that case? Zerotalk 03:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Denomination
It seems to me that we need a denomination field, to be able to distinguish between religion and denominational affiliation, without losing good and specific information. –St.nerol (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This could get complicated.
 * There is a joke that runs: "I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are you christian or buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me too! Are you episcopalian or baptist?" He said, "Baptist!" I said,"Wow! Me too! Are you baptist church of god or baptist church of the lord?" He said, "Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you original baptist church of god, or are you reformed baptist church of god?" He said,"Reformed Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off." -- Emo Phillips
 * While it may not be that complex for most people, there may be more than one or two qualifiers/"denominations." For example, there are supposedly 33,000 Protestant "denominations." Might be easier if the guys in the joke were "just" Baptist! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Student7 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 7 March 2014‎ (UTC)

Employer
For people who are no longer in office, or for whom the office is occupied at the same time as they have a professional career, this template needs the employer parameter, like in Infobox person. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Normally, the reason this box is used is because the person is noteworthy for being elected. Usually only for that reason. There are exceptions. Clint Eastwood was most notable an actor, not a mayor. Jesse Ventura is more of a quandary because of the prominence of his governorship. Editors there have preferred the elected office. Ronald Reagan wasn't really that prominent an actor, compared to his presidency. "Profession" within the box seems to solve the problem. We don't want to clutter boxes if we can avoid it, IMO. Student7 (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I've certainly found a good many cases where he parameter is needed, over the years, I think your "usually" needs qualification, if indeed it's not bogus. I also note that all your examples are from the US; the template, though is used for subjects from around the globe, including places where employment is apparently more common and significant. "profession" should not be used for "employer", for reasons of preserving data granularity, but its very existence is an argument for an employer parameter. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Question for ministerial positions/cabinet members
I wonder what is the best way to link to the cabinet a minister belongs, which in many cases is more interesting than linking to the individual Prime Minister. Parameters cabinet or minister_from don't seem to serve this particular need.

The template documentation and examples did not help me to understand the best way to do that, probably because they currently have a very US-American flavour and ministerial positions are quite specific in the American presidential system, however Infobox minister redirects there and this seems to be the right template.

Does anybody have an idea on how to do that? Place Clichy (talk) 11:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC) (Copied from Archive 17)


 * I am missing this functionality too and I think that we should implement it. &mdash; Petr Matas 06:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It would also be useful to be able to add custom fields to each office entry. Then, it would be possible to present relevant information that the template does not anticipate, like the cabinet, which the minister belongs to. &mdash; Petr Matas 06:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Look at Yulia Tymoshenko to see what we are trying to do. &mdash; Petr Matas 06:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Legibility
Currently, there isn't enough contrast, in size and/or colour, between the font used for the honorifics and post-nominal letters and that used for the subject's name. The subject's name, which should obviously be the most prominent textual element, becomes camouflaged among a jumble of words and letters. Can the sizing and colours/tones be adjusted to remedy this legibility issue? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This relates to discussion at Talk:Michaëlle Jean. There is also a related RfC there on the use of plainlist in an instance of this template, where editors may wish to comment. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy;Andy's edits 17:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is how the default styling of Infobox officeholder would render the section if it were allowed (what Miesianiacal calls "camouflaged among a jumble of words and letters"):


 * Here is how the article is rendered at present with dimmer, smaller text that breaches MOS:ACCESS "The use of reduced font sizes should be used sparingly. Avoid using smaller font sizes in elements that already use a smaller font size, such as infoboxes, navboxes and reference sections. In no case should the resulting font size drop below 85% of the page fontsize (or 11px)." and is simply too small (and dim) for many (including myself) to read:


 * I would suggest, as a compromise, that the infobox could be amended to slightly reduce the default font size and weight of the honorific and post-nominals as I . this would be the result (and that's pretty much at the limit of what I can comfortably focus):


 * What do others think? --RexxS (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Another alternative is to keep the honorifcs as at present, but make the name bigger. I've mocked that up here. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I considered that, Andy, but infoboxes have a limited width, so keeping the name at 110% and reducing the size of the honorifics (as in the sandbox) allows longer names, etc. without undue wrapping, and seems more to match the spirit of what Miesianiacal is trying to do. Setting the name at 126% as in your mockup would make it significantly larger than names in other biographical infoboxes. Additionally, per MOS:BOLD, there's no reason to have the honorifics at more than normal font weight, and whatever solution is found ought to at least remove the bolding from them. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The accessibility and legibility topics are a subset of the Text formatting discussion on the Talk:Michaëlle Jean page. Can we terminate/consolidate this discussion and keep everything in one place because decisions in both threads will affect infobox officeholder. --Karl Stephens ( talk &#124; contribs ) 17:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * or terminate/consolidate Talk:Michaëlle Jean and continue discussion on this page so long as we're not discussing the same point in two pages. --Karl Stephens ( talk &#124; contribs ) 17:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As the styling for text in an infobox ought to be part of the infobox, I believe this is the right place to have any fruitful discussion. The debate at Talk:Michaëlle Jean stopped on the same day that it was raised here. As there are no other suggestions to answer Miesianiacal's question (and assuming no further discussion ensues here), tomorrow I propose to boldly make the changes to this template that are in the sandbox. I'll clean up the articles that transclude Infobox governor general or Infobox Governor General and have inline styling of the honorifics. --RexxS (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The version looks liked a good compromise that meets policy especially for accessibility. --Karl Stephens ( talk &#124; contribs ) 02:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it certainly is looking better. The contrast in font works well. My only critique at the moment would be that the subject's name is still a little too small, but, I did note the comment above about the want to avoid wrapping. If there's no way to make the subject's name bigger vis-à-vis the honorifics/post-noms without making the latter smaller than 85% or the former so big that it will cause wrapping more often than is reasonable, then, I guess this should do. Is there a way to make the font of the subject's name more bold? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't recommend trying to make the title extra-bold because some browsers handle that badly (it's already bold because it's in a row header (). I've to make the title 5% bigger. You can edit the sandbox as well, if you want to try bigger sizes, because it's not protected like the main template is. You may need to purge the sandbox page to make any changes visible. Unfortunately, the 'preview' box at the bottom of the sandbox version doesn't work because of the redirect. Would Freeman Freeman-Thomas, 1st Marquess of Willingdon have the longest title ("the Marquess of Willingdon") that you're aware of? --RexxS (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the Earl of Aberdeen and Temair and the Duke of Connaught and Strathearn are probably the longest among Canadian governors general. I can't think of longer outside that group. The names in the infoboxes at the two aforementioned articles are wrapping already, though. So, I'm not sure they influence the decision much.
 * If 5% bigger is okay by everybody else, I'd go for it. And then leave it at that. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's only a slight increase in size - it doesn't even alter the line wrap at John Hamilton-Gordon, 1st Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair when I tested it - and it's probably safe to carry out, so I've gone ahead and . It's easy enough to revert if anyone finds a problem. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  15:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

"Lieutenant Governor" field
Seems to me that the "Lieutenant governor" field messes with the alignment of the infomation column on templated that use this eg. Alison Redford, Alexander Edmund Batson Davie, John Robson, etc., in that it compresses it and makes unnecessary line breaks... is there any way a linebreak can be put between the words "Lieutenant Governor" on the box? Thanks. – Connormah (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've taken the nowrap off the label. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Connormah (talk) 05:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Why not abbreviate, "Lt. Governor" or "Lieut. Governor"? Activist (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Relations field
"Relations" is rather ambiguous. Wouldn't "relatives" be better? Zerotalk 11:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * We should maintain consistency between the parameter name in this and other biographical templates, not least Infobox person. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree, but the parameter name listed at Template:Infobox person is "relatives", not "relations". Zerotalk 12:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Birth name
Any reason that this template doesn't have, say, a birth_name parameter? For people like Matthew Oakeshott, Baron Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, for example, it would be sensible to include the name "Matthew Alan Oakeshott" in the infobox. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Add a new item called 'Votes'
In the article on Rory Stewart, in the info box, it mentions that he had:
 * Majority	11,241 (24.9%)

But clearly 24.9% is not a majority, though was enough to get him elected. I suggest we add a new item called 'Votes', so we could have:
 * Votes 11,241 (24.9%)

Aberdeen01 (talk) 03:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

A reminder: Custom fields exist
I'm seeing some calls to add additional fields in earlier discussions.

Just a reminder: blank1 and data1 and so on exist so you can use custom fields. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  03:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed they do, but they're less useful than specific fields for two reasons. Firstly, They're not predictable, so it's much harder to programatically analyse or reuse them. Secondly, they can't be reordered so, in the case of a full name, for example, they don't appear alongside related name fields. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

While on the subject of missing parameters
What about origin? It probably wouldn't take me long at all to compile a rather lengthy list of persons whose birthplace is significantly different from the family's place of residence at the time of their birth. As myself and others have pointed out in numerous past discussions, we shouldn't be giving undue weight to a person's birthplace when it's strictly incidental to their overall story. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 11:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean. But it is strictly accurate. Not giving the real birthplace seems like we are fudging facts. Never mind that the person "lived" in his birthplace for the first few days of his/her life only! Omitting birthplace seems "funny." Lord knows with the Birther Theorists still abounding, it definitely seems like we're trying to hide something! Student7 (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Birthplace is significant for a number of reasons, even if the person did not live there for long. It can be a starting point for anyone looking for a registration-of-birth certificate. It can also affect nationality/ citizenship status. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Chronological order of offices
Should the chronology run with the most recent office at the top or the most recent office at the bottom? I just looked at 10 people and they were about equal in the way the chronology was displayed, as well as one that was not in chronological order, but had the most important one at the top. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is my question as well. Look at Charles de Gaulle. First listed is president of France (1960s), then leader of the French forces (WW2), then other offices ending with prime minister (just before becoming president). I think that we should either adopt a policy to order by significance (as seems to be the case with de Gaulle) or a reverse chronological order (most recent at top, which in most cases will be the most significant office). --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 02:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Wikipedia mavens. I am wondering how hard it would be to make one new field available for most elected officials, an "Eligible For Re-election" field with month and year and a bold header similar to "Assumed Office." This field could have a profound impact on how users digest Wikipedia information for elected officials. Right now, if a user researches for Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, for example, he/she discovers he came to office in 1997. They might assume 1996 was an election year for his office (He could also have been appointed in the wake of a death/resignation). Then the reader must either Google for when Sessions is up for re-election or else do mental acrobatics to decide when Jeff Sessions is up again for reelection. They might try to calculate in their head following election years => 2002, 2008, and 2014. This is an awful lot of mental gyration for most readers simply trying to quickly distill the most important data for Senator Jeff Sessions. In a day and age when most Americans probably think 6-year terms are too long and elected officials should be subject to term limits, seems like a field like this would be very valuable to voters, writers, teachers, etc; but I would not be sure where to create the field in the template for general use. I would gladly volunteer to go in and add this field to pages for all 50 US Senators. I understand how to use the fields once they're part of a template; but I don't know how to integrate the initial coding. --KWSager (talk) 01:26, 21 10 June 2014 (EST)
 * I think what you want should be called current_term_expires for countries like the United States with fixed-length periods between elections and current_term_expires_no_later_than for countries like Great Britain where there is a maximum period before the next elections but "snap elections" may be called before that date. It should be written to include behind-the-scenes code similar to update after, so that when the term expires the article is put into an "out of date article" maintenance category. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  23:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit requests on 20 June 2014
To amend the instructions for "predecessor" and "successor" per apparent consensus at the RfC:

Where the use of "same district number" is used for determining "predecessor" and "successor" in any office, but where the area is so altered as to make such a "predecessor" or "successor" of little or no biographical value, the word "redistricted" should be used rather than using names of officeholders whose connection is accidental by virtue of district number, but unrelated to any election contests between officeholders.

Collect (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. First, you will need to prepare your requested changes in the template's sandbox, then, when you reactive this edit template protected request, please make sure to include a link to the consensus and a clear "Please change "X" to "Y"." format. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 22:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

It is not a change to the template proper but to the instructions under "Usage" Collect (talk) 23:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Second edit request
Paragraph 4 under "Usage" currently has:

Where a politician was redistricted into a new district, you can use |prior_term= to indicate which district(s) he was in before. This saves space in the infobox by not generating a completely new office each time redistricting happens. If you do this, it is recommended that you list the person preceded when the subject first took office and the person succeeded when the subject last left office. If more complete documentation of the districts is desired, it can be done with succession boxes at the end of the article.

The change would have it read (per RfC above with a clear consensus):

Where a politician was redistricted into a new district, you can use |prior_term= to indicate which district(s) he was in before. This saves space in the infobox by not generating a completely new office each time redistricting happens. If you do this, it is recommended that you list the person preceded when the subject first took office and the person succeeded when the subject last left office. If more complete documentation of the districts is desired, it can be done with succession boxes at the end of the article. Where the use of "same district number" is used for determining "predecessor" and "successor" in any office, but where the area is so altered as to make such a "predecessor" or "successor" of little or no biographical value, the word "redistricted" should be used rather than using names of officeholders whose connection is accidental by virtue of district number, but unrelated to any election contests between officeholders.

This is in accord with the RfC above, and there is no reason to have it in a sandbox first as it makes absolutely no change to the template itself. The underline is to make absolutely clear what is to be added, and the strikeout is to indicate a sentence which would be quite unclear in application with the new sentence. The use of "succession boxes" at the end of the article is not actually a part of this template. Collect (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Padlock-silver-slash2.svg Not done: is usually not required for edits to the documentation, categories, or interlanguage links of templates using a documentation subpage. Use the 'edit' link at the top of the green "Template documentation" box to edit the documentation subpage. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

This is not on a "documentation subpage". There is no way to edit the usage paragraphs without using the edit request form I used. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Third edit request
Repeating above request as Catch-22 applies -- there is NO WAY to edit the Usage section which is where the requested edit will appear. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Collect (talk) 23:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The doc page isn't protected. Go to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_officeholder/doc&action=edit and edit it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- it would have been nice to be pointed this way first . Collect (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC on successor/predecessor where a district is not reasonably viewed as the same after redistricting
Where the use of "same district number" is used for determining "predecessor" and "successor" n any office, but where the area is so altered as to make such a "predecessor" or "successor" of little or no biographical value, should the infobox be deprecated for such redistricting changes? 19:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
This arose at Michael Grimm (politician) which has an interesting infobox asserting that he was succeeded in Congress by Charles Rangel. It was pointed out to me that the consensus somewhere must have been to treat districts in that manner, although I have not found such a discussion, and it general will only show as a problem where a state has actually lost one or more districts and the new district numbers bear no connection to former district numbers, which is a relatively small number. In such instances, few as they are, the results may be rather risible. I suggest that where such a "clean break" on districting occurs, that a note to that effect be placed in the infobox and not use the inapt "predecessor" and "successor" results. Collect (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The same question arises with an office itself. If an office with a functional jurisdiction, akin to an office representing a district, has completely changed its character between officeholders but keeps the same name, is "such a 'predecessor' or 'successor' of little or no biographical value"? Int21h (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My inclination is to say its the same, but could you give an example of the type of office you are thinking of? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Very likely also true. Where the term "successor" and "predecessor" have no actual biographical value but exist only for an artificial "continuity" then it is likely the use is "useless."   While not covered in the RfC, this would also be a solution to "predecessor" and "successor" for Popes, monarchs etc. where  "simultaneous officeholders" existed.  And I still can not find any substantial discussion in the past about this -- since very rarely do "complete non-overlaps" seem to occur.  When they do, they are a doozy.   Collect (talk) 20:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hrm, in the case of Popes or Monarchs where there is a schism or dispute, unless there is a reliable WP:RS/AC saying who the actual successor was -I think the succession box should likely list both, and perhaps provide a link to the article/section about the schism. Certainly in the case of Scisms both branches claim to be the legitimate successor. However, these things usually ended with a de-facto winner (although sometimes a few generations later) so we could just go with whichever "genealogy" "won" as the true successor.

If the shape of a district changes in a very minor way, or even a moderate way, how do we intend to deal with that? Let's do a thought experiment. Imagine a square foot moved from district 1 to district 2, and both congresspeople won election. How about if one retired? Imagine just the house of the congressperson was in said square foot? I have real concerns that this hasn't been thought out well. Hipocrite (talk) 11:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Did you miss where the area is so altered as to make such a "predecessor" or "successor" of little or no biographical value ? Your cavil is not actually pertinent to the query made, alas. Collect (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a reasonable question. If one looks at district n, in year y and year Y+1, it most cases the overlaps in area will be 100%. In extreme cases it will be zero per cent. However, it could be any value between 0% and 100%;; it is reasonable to ask where to draw the line. The words: where the area is so altered as to make such a "predecessor" or "successor" of little or no biographical value hint at a value closer to zero than to 1, but do not provide sufficient guidance if, for example, the overlap is 25%. Those situations may be rare, but we have to draw a line.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If there is doubt as to applicability of "predecessor" or "successor" then presumably the editors at such anarticle might determine whether the data is of some actual biographical value. If the editors at  such an article find it is of importance for readers, than clearly it is up to WP:CONSENSUS, but the current system is deeply flawed at this point. Collect (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Back in the Good Old Days (or the Dark Ages, you decide), if one wanted to learn about their Congress in more than a superficial fashion, it was necessary to go to a library and pour through various and sundry dry reference volumes. My recollection of reading those sort of books is that they tended to treat a "10th Congressional District" as a single lineage, noting when necessary that the physical boundaries changed from time to time.  I've had a years-long issue with the practice of state-level election districts in my state of Alaska being treated the same way.  Typically, these editors are relying too heavily upon ourcampaigns.com and taking what they find there too literally, ignoring common sense, not to mention ignoring the difference between that site's reliably-sourced and user-contributed content.  Many of our district numbers change each cycle, but in some cases a constituency will experience only a change in district number, with little or no change in geography.  Speaking of Alaska and geography, the distance between the homes of our state representative from District 1 prior to recent redistricting (Kyle Johansen) and the representative from the current District 1 (Doug Isaacson) is roughly the same as the distance between Denver, Colorado and Rockford, Illinois.  That alone makes this Rangel/Grimm thing appear to be small potatoes, never mind the scores of times it's been repeated in the case of this one state, which has never had multiple congressional districts and also has the smallest bicameral legislature in the country. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  07:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a problem that can only be resolved by a little bit of research in each case, I think. George Miller, who is retiring this term, hasn't moved from his old (Contra Costa) CA-7 district, which is now denominated to one mostly east of Sacramento, while his is now renumbered the 13th. On the other hand, Jim Cooper (TN-4) chose to run for the Senate and returned to move sixty miles from Shelbyville to Nashville, TN (TN-5), to win a seat there. The two districts only share a narrow border equidistant between the two cities. Aggressive gerrymandering, such as in North Carolina, really confuse things. Activist (talk) 05:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The good old days, alas for urban areas, contained few redistricting initiatives. So one might actually see no geographical change at all for the 10th Congressional District, though its population had changed, substantially sometimes, from the previous census. Now we redistrict routinely every ten years even if we shift the District a few feet. Else the state winds up in court explaining why one person does not have equal weight in each of its districts. Student7 (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My use of "Good Old Days" was somewhat facetious. I most certainly wasn't referring to the days before Baker v. Carr, Reynolds v. Sims and the Voting Rights Act forced wholesale changes at the state level, lest anyone think otherwise.  In fact, when I wrote those comments, the first thing to come to mind was various books I read following the 2002 elections, when the current system of vigorous, structured redistricting was already firmly in place.  Local libraries have a tendency to discard materials such as this with greater frequency, so I dunno what luck I'd have in finding anything to provide examples. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  11:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support As being least misleading to Wikipedia readers overall. It will not affect a great many districts, but the few it does affect may result in laughter among folks who look at such matters.  No laws require states to maintain the same numbers from one redistricting to the next, so, in theory, a Congressperson from "Drarg's"  (arbitrary state) second district" may be from "North Drarg", and the new "second district" may be at the other end of "Drarg." For successor, the quickest solution is to use "redistricted" for either "successor" or "predecessor" as needed.  Collect (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Support (agree)' Activist (talk) 05:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support This is analagous to how we deal with succession in the British Peerage, for recreations of titles. For example Earl_of_March was created 3 times, and our succession boxes do not link continuously between them (Roger_Mortimer,_1st_Earl_of_March and Esmé_Stewart,_3rd_Duke_of_Lennox for example both say "New title"). Where a single geographical area is redistricted, and we can identify the new district, or someone managed to survive redistricting, we can link to the new district with a note, rather than making a nonsense "succession" based on nothing other than name of the district. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, per above posts. Anything else is simply misleading. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Provisional oppose pending researching the matter. We need to find out how "the outside world" treats such things and follow that. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  21:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC) Updated: See new comment below. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  04:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * mirrors the proposed change, saying "New York's 11th Congressional District (formerly the 13th) is based in Staten Island....". However, more research is needed.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  21:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The New York Times uses the logical progression considering the actual location of the district and not the "district number." (specifically, it in no way implies that Rangel is Grimm's "successor" in Congress)   Collect (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Rangel's own page seems to treat it per the suggestion, saying "The district that represents harlem", and specifically discussing the redistricting.

as does the NY Times, where his predecessor is Adam Clayton Powell, Jr.. Rangel's infobox is basically nonsense, saying he has 4 different predecessors, when he has continuously held the Harlem seat for decades. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support pending some examples of how some real life sources deal with this. per examples above --John (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, per examples above by Gaijin42 and others. Jonathunder (talk) 23:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support In an electoral contest for someone to succeed another implies that the new rep beat the former rep at an election (or might have if the former rep hadn't died or retired). If the boundaries are all redrawn from scratch it just doesn't make sense. A person might be described as moving constituency even though they continued to represent the same place. To count as the same constituency the territory covered by the new constituency should be substantially the same as the old constituency, and treated by most sources as such. For example: Ed Balls is listed as having represented two constituencies even though there was some overlap between the new and old ones. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 23:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support obvious improvement and de-cluttering of infobox. -- ELEKHHT 09:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Michael Grimm did not "succeed" Charlie Rangel in any sense other than the numbered districts getting moved around. Decluttering is a bonus. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Subject to some clarification of how to deal with messy situations such as a redistricting in which 10% of the district (by area) and 40% of the district (by poppulation) is in overlap, but the reminader is from a different district. While far from an expert on such matters, I think such siutaions can occur. S Philbrick (Talk)  20:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The clarification is "of little or no biographical value" - if the district is so changed as to make the information of little or no value to the reader, we ought not to provide it to the reader. In short - a 95%  "same district" would likely not be confusing, while a "under 25%  district" would almost certainly be confusing.  We do not need to define an exact percentage here -- just say that if the information is not actually useful, it should not be given. Collect (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Changed from "provisional oppose" to Support in the instant case being discussed per the discussion above, Recommend case-by-case discussions with the burden of demonstrating that the "outside world" disregards the seat number when making any future changes to mentions of predecessors or successors and making a strong recommendation that the predecessor/successor connections be kept consistent. In other words, if John Doe (8th district) becomes Amy Smith (10th district) after a redistricting and either a retirement or losing an election, the articles about John Doe, Amy Smith, and the article about both districts should be consistent in their use of "successor" and "predecessor."  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  04:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In the Rangel case where he now has multiple predecessors, I think you mean "only the logical actual predecessor and successor" should be used, rather than specifically citing "all predecessors and successors for prior and later uses of that district number"?   Or do you mean "the Rangel current use is optimal for consistency"? (shown below)  Thanks. Collect (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose- I'll add the counter-argument for the sake of it. Though U.S. Congress biographies make 0 reference to redistricting (I've yet to see one among hundreds), almanacs and state blue book-type gazetteer sources list them only year to year, making following one individual's electoral history a matter of having to review every district. Though unreferenced, List of United States Representatives from Florida addresses it the best I remember in the introduction, but suddenly removing navigateability from thousands of articles does the readers a disservice (disregarding the 7 single states, 428 x 5 is 2140 references needed just for the last 5 decades, the majority of which boil down to 'minor change'; there are 7,390 state legislators); while it could be done solely with succession boxes at the bottom, not all those have been done. Dru of Id (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The official Congressional biographies do not use "district number" as the qualification for asserting much at all -- the person is called "the Distinguished Member from(State)" in the record.     does not make any reference at all to "district number."   As it does not use "district number" in the first place, there is obviously no need for it to refer to redistricting changing a district number.   Congress does not use "district numbers" for anything biographical at all.  And the argument this is too big a task"  Lo alecha hamlacha ligmor applies.   We must recognize the task, though we be unable to finish it.  And the "successor" and "predecessor" usages are individual to each article - we need not worry about breaking anything at all.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I stipulated I hadn't seen one even mention it so it would be a non-issue. I don't think the task is too large, or cannot be completed; as with anything else, its a matter of volume, time, and attention. I don't think very many editors understand the difficulties the disabled have navigating. Feel free to remove a useful navigation tool anyway. Dru of Id (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Reading the sample below- can you tell me exactly who was Rangel's actual predecessor and actual successor in Congress? If not, then the current system is not "disabled friendly" at all, and are not a "useful navigation tool".   Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose While I see the argument, I think it's POV to try to determine when there's a true successor and when there isn't. Even though there may be a case when there's no overlap, that still opens it up to arguments about how much is an overlap, etc.  Better to have a blanket rule that if the number is the same, then list the predecessor/successor.  Doing so will also convey the fact that the numbers and districts change a lot and don't mean that much, which will be lost if there's no links to the previous occupant.  Useitorloseit (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support – Per Collect's suggestion, using redistricted is going to be the logical choice as a predecessor or successor in many cases (see my comments above), just the same as with using at-large in certain cases. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 09:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Talkeetna, Alaska is still a work in progress, but may be helpful to this discussion. The Talkeetna voting precinct, upon which this list was based, has seen boundary changes from time to time, but nothing really of consequence.  The important consideration would be in noting how many times the district letters and numbers for this one precinct have changed over the years, and compare that with the maps of those districts.  The most substantial changes are to the lettering/numbering scheme, not to anything based on geography, as Talkeetna has been aligned with other portions of the Matanuska-Susitna Valley throughout Alaska's history as a state. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  11:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The consensus is quite clear at this point. Collect (talk) 22:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Height again!
Could you please add height under personal details!!!!!???? Heightism has been shown to be a factor in deciding elections and it does no harm to add it! Please??? Nick B 1993 (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It is rare that this information will be encyclopedic enough to put into the template. Should we add "Looks good on television" and (for Japanese officeholders) "blood type"?  I think not.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  23:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

What an utterly fallacious rebuttal. An argument a hugely ignorant person would give. "Looks good on television" is not an infobox parameter on any page on Wikipedia but height is. Blood type is only significant in certain countries' elections and thus not a universal factor in deciding elections but every election contester in every country has a height which significantly influences someone's vote in any election believe it or not. The reasons used for omitting "blood type" and 'Looks good on television' from infoboxes can not be used to justify the omission of the height parameter. I wouldn't of minded if a decent argument had been presented but instead I get some jocular comment as a response which is supposed to shut me up. Highly insolent! Who are you to state what's encyclopaedic anyway and how can you even begin to take the line of argument that blood type and looks are as significant and as objective as height is? No one is objectively seen as 'looking good on telly' as there is always disparity in views on the way someone looks and blood type is objective but is only a significant influence in elections in certain geographical locations. Height however is OBJECTIVE and SIGNIFICANT EVERYWHERE!! Statistics, History and the gait, stance and actions of contemporary political leaders worldwide when in the public eye PROVE IT! I am highly offended that that reply was used in response to my request. I was polite and unassuming and my request was met with malevolence, ignorance, contempt and pretence and that is out of order. I would've preferred you just to have said without the reasons that it's not going to be done. I would've accepted that but as it is I'm shutting up and I'm deeply offended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick B 1993 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I admit that I was being cheeky with the "looks good on television." However, I did so because I believe that, like blood type, height is not a universal influence on elections, any more than eye color or race.  Yes, eye color and race, like blood type, height, and body build are significant election factors in some cultures, but barring a worldwide scientific survey indicating otherwise, we should not presume each of these is a significant election factor in all cultures.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  03:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Height has a pretty clear influence in some cultures, as does voice timbre, accent, etc., but it's just not infobox-worthy. Every athletic biography mentions height; very few political biographies mention it unless it's particular to a politician's image. It doesn't compare to something like alma mater or birthplace, which are universal biographical bullet-points. We need to keep infoboxes reasonable and short. They're not a catalogue of all conceivable data. —Designate (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Height is also subject to change (people shrink after age 55-70, or after spinal surgery), so even if it were important, it would also be misleading. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's also, for many politicians, not reliably sourceable at all. And while I'll admit that height can be a factor in political success, it's far from a determinative one — as noted below, being tall didn't help Bruce Weyhrauch at all, and being short hasn't hurt Steve Novick. It's at best a subconscious influence on some voters in some elections — and any analysis of the impact that it has is largely anecdotal, rather than being something that reliable sources really discuss in any depth. Bearcat (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

There are numerous sources which point out that Montell Jordan and Krist Novoselic are both 6'7". However, I haven't come across any sources which contend that this is the reason why they enjoyed success in the music industry.  In fact, compared to Kurt Cobain and Dave Grohl, Novoselic has largely been forgotten in the 20 years since Cobain's death.  As far as politicians go, when I met Bruce Weyhrauch in 2004, the first thing to grab my attention was the fact that he's in the 6'5–6" range. As history has shown, though, he wound up having a pretty unspectacular political career. His article is more a coatrack to Alaska political corruption probe than a proper political biography. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 09:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

denomination/ethnicity/race/other grouping
I'm not sure what would be a proper English term for this, but this field would be very relevant for infoboxes about people from countries with tribal/denomination/ethnicity/religion (yet not only religion; as religion is obviously not enough to show significance in contexts where other denominations are the prevalent), that would include for example tutsi and hutu in context such as Rwanda or Burundi; kurds (Sunni Kurd, shei Kurd) in Iraq and Syria, arab (christian arab, druze arab) or beduin in Israel, circassian in jordan, Bedouin (Sinai Bedouin or eastern desert or western desert), Nubian, saidi, Bahari's (lower egypt) and Upper Egyptians, tribal power relations and affiliations ...etc. --197.135.187.134 (talk) 00:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please have a look at the equivalent parameters in infobox person, and let us know whether you think they would meet this need. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess it would be ethnicity, I would prefer denomination but I guess in english it has a strong connotation with religion and sect. --41.130.12.64 (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Typo
The documentation says "The persons name". This should be changed to "The person's name". Furthermore, the section title "Nominee/Candidate" should be changed to "Nominee/candidate" per MOS:CAPS. --Omnipaedista (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * any particular reason why you don't just fix it? the documentation page is not protected. Frietjes (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I just did so. Thanks. --Omnipaedista (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

How deprecated is jr/sr?
I've raised a query at Talk:Ted_Cruz about that senator's infobox - it looks as though the useful text 'United States Senator' appears in his infobox through a horribly hacky dependence upon a deprecated field jr/sr being non-empty. Could someone who understands templates makes things better? 54.240.197.225 (talk) 11:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * the discussion is here. basically, there used to be a jr/sr. prefix to say "Junior Senator" or "Senior Senator". this would also turn on the heading  .  the decision was the Junior/Senior prefix wasn't necessary, but the method for indicating the individual is a senator stayed. you can, technically, replace it with | order = United States Senator from Texas .  however, I agree that the better thing would be to have say Texas which would replace the combination &amp;nbsp; + Texas.  comments? Frietjes (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Few people seriously use "junior Senator" with regard to an office. Collect (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Uh, I hear and see it regularly from reliable sources.  Gaijin42 (talk) 21:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought this was a discussion about how indicate that the infobox should turn on the 'United States Senator from state' heading? anyone have any comments about that? Frietjes (talk) 15:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)