Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 20

RfC
Note: It has been requested to review the closure which is the subject of this RfC, see the pertaining thread at AN. Kraxler (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC) Withdrawn. Kraxler (talk) 14:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

An RfC Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder/Archive_18 was closed with "Consensus is reasonably clear that successor or predecessor should not be used in infoboxes where significant redistricting has taken place. Useitorloseit did raise a valid concerns about POV over what level of redistricting is needed to render these parameters unusable" on 28 June 2014

The RfC asked: 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?

An RfC Template_talk:Infobox_officeholderwas closed with "Consensus is in favour, but the group expressing opinion is small given the breadth of scope and the arguments against are rather strong, so it is hard to call this anything other than a vote in favour rather than an actual consensus. I advise against wholesale implementation of any decision and instead advocate a limited trial with examples proposed by opposers to see just how workable it is or is not in practice, with real-world examples" on 25 February 2015.

The RfC contains '''In the infobox of a US representative, the tenure should not be split if the person has been continuously sitting in Congress, disregarding the redistricted numbers. The predecessor and/or successor should show the actual previous or next officeholder, if the subject defeated/was defeated by the other person, or succeeded/was succeeded without redistricting. In all other cases, the parameter should be omitted. If the representative is still sitting, "currently representing the Xth District" should be added.'''

Did the second RfC close invalidate or void in any way any part of the prior RfC? Does the wording of the second RfC imply or state in any way that the prior RfC would be voided or invalidated? Would edits made incompliance with the first RfC close be properly voided or invalidated or properly changed under the second RfC close? Collect (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion
This arose as a result of made in accord with first RfC,  with edit summary  changed box under instructions from the closing rationale at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#RfC Congressmen's tenures in infobox my edit  your claim that the extant RfC was voided is exceedingly weak and finally the piece de resistance  see talk page, this was done according to the expressly stated instructions in the closing rationale, one more revert and the thing goes to ANI, directly. Frankly if this is the modus operandi anticipated by the closer, I would be quite amazed. If this was the actual original intent of the RfC proposer above, I urge that we state here and now that it fails as a method of editing on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * An RfC about the implications of an RfC for an RfC? Oh dear...  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well quite. The issue is that there is no clear consensus either way. There are claims that it will lead to bonkers results, which are strongly supported, and the only way to avoid that is sound editorial judgment. If the proposal to test it with limited scope immediately leads to examples of unsound editorial judgment based on seeing what you want to see and ignoring the rest, then the trial can be considered a resounding flop and we go back to the status quo. I took this on because I am entirely uninterested in the topic area (which makes the resultant accusation of WP:INVOLVED pretty funny). I'm content to mediate the limited scope trial if people want, or you can get someone else in, I really don't mind. Or you can go to WP:AN and ask for it to be vacated as bonkers, which it may well be. It's a good faith effort to draw something out of a meandering discussion that was often off-point. I have no especial emotional investment in the outcome. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It was always clear to me that the spirit of the June 2014 RfC was a strong consensus that we should not use irrelevant or misleading district numbers in succession boxes, as the wording made it plain that a greatly changed district number was not of any value in succession. Binksternet (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That makes sense as a reading of it. IMO, the actions of Kraxler show that there is no intention to even think about proceeding with caution, in which case the only possible outcome is a reversion to no consensus, and leave the status quo (see additional comment at the head of the close). Or have it vacated, I don't actually care (good luck to anyone who tries to re-close and doesn't give the pro advocates what they want, their Talk banner will be alight for months). Guy (Help!) 23:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You mean "infoboxes", not "succession boxes", right? – Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I mean succession boxes. The infobox RfC was so clear about what kind of content we don't want in biographies that I took it to mean any kind of boxes including succession boxes contained within infoboxes and also succession boxes at the bottom of the article. Binksternet (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The January succession box RfC was the parallel to the earlier June infobox RfC and reached a clear "no concensus" on any change to succession boxes. You might recall that the applicability of the infobox RfC to succession boxes was discussed and the succession box RfC was held precicely because it was felt that the infobox RfC did not apply to succession boxes, as they serve a distinctly different purpose than infoboxes.  – Philosopher Let us reason together. 02:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thus the January RfC does not overturn the June 2014 RfC which strongly settled the matter of how to treat redistricting/succession in boxes. Binksternet (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Note The above RfC has become moot with the proposal, and informal adoption, of the format shown here below, in the next thread. Please do not add any comments here, discuss (if necessary) below. Kraxler (talk) 13:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

other_names
We need the field "other_names". Women have their maiden names or a different surname if they were married more than once. Men may be known as "W.W. Smith" or "William W. Smith" or "W. Wallace Smith". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Template hack: order fields
When any of the order (order2, etc.) fields are filled in, I find that double square brackets print around the following office name (see Jerome Wiesner). (They don't appear if order is left blank.) I can't think of any good reason why this would be desired behavior, so I think it's a hack. Am I correct? JustinTime55 (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Please see the template documentation which clearly states that: "The parameter order is used in conjunction with office to state that the officeholder is the nth holder of the office, for example "2nd President of Mauritius". If order is not specified, the value of office can be wikilinked in the usual way, for example, " ". However, if order is specified together with office, the value of office is automatically linked to a Wikipedia article of the same name, whether such an article exists or not. Wikilinking cannot be used to redirect the link elsewhere, but a piped link can be created like this: " " (note that the double square brackets have been omitted)." Ebonelm (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * you can also use title if the wikilinking is a problem. Frietjes (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Make links to office optional
For some reason, this template links to the office only when an order is specified. For example, if the parameter 'office' is set to 'President of the United States' and the parameter 'order' is set to '44th', the office will be linked, but if the order is not specified it wont be. This is really inconvenient when the office is something like 'Member of Parliament for Morley and Outwood', because there most likely won't be a page for the office of the MP from that specific constituency, and nor should there be. I think it would be better if this whole feature was removed, but that would require manually adding links to hundreds of pages with this infobox, so instead I request that a parameter be added to turn this off, such as 'links' which could be set to no. Liam987  (talk)  18:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment While I actually think it would be a good idea to remove the automatic linking when the order function is used, I don't know if what you have requested is technically possible. Also without wanting to sound like a broken record as you will see in the section above this is not the first time topic has been raised in the past few days. As you will see in the template documentation there is a clear way to get around the problem you describe. In the example you give the problem would be resolved by writing " ". While of course I understand that the example you gave may only be a hypothetical it is worth pointing out that for members of the British Parliament the order function isn't really appropriate due to changing boundaries, bye-elections etc. which makes listing the order of the office held irrelevant and mildly misleading. Ebonelm (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * While I am amused by the often misleading results of insisting of "proper order" for any office, I suggest that no entry should be made in any infobox which is of misleading or grossly inapt biographical value, or even of negative actual biographical value. The purpose of any biographical article should be to provide useful and usable biographical information, not to provide information which is "technically correct but completely useless" as the Microsoft anecdote goes. Collect (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC).


 * Oops didn't see the same topic being raised directly above. Anyway, the place where I specifically had a problem with this, better than the British parliament example, was at the page Sonia Lagarde that I'm translating from French. She was the third "vice president of the assembly of the South Province of New Caledonia". There isn't even a page for this position in French, and the possibility of there every being one in English is incredibly miniscule. There are so many minor positions like this that should never have their own articles. Liam987  (talk)  19:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ Please provide mock up code (such as in the Template:Infobox officeholder/sandbox) that can be moved online. If you just want to discuss this more, please continue. —  xaosflux  Talk 03:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've disabled the request pending code in the sandbox. I suggest a simple ifexist check and only to link if the target of the link actually exists. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Infobox version
I started a version based on infobox, now in the sandbox. it still requires more extensive testing, but should be ready soon. Frietjes (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Frietjes I support this. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. This will allow us to resolve the issue of embedding, described above. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's great news! – Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * now nearly done, but I still need to exercise a few more of the important parameter permutations. you can see the initial results in the testcases, testcases2, testcases3, ... Frietjes (talk) 19:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Should I hold off on making the parameter changes discussed at, above, until you've finished? – Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Philosopher, if you feel comfortable making the change to the current template, then go for it. I can always merge your changes with the sandbox (or you can try to do that as well :) ). Frietjes (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What happened to this? I see the code has been removed from the sandbox. Liam987  (talk)  19:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 March 2015
Currently, is displayed between  and  fields, leading to a semantically correct but rather ugly result (see here). To fix the display style, some editors repeatedly roll the into the  field which semantically however isn't optimal. I therefore propose switching the two parameters and slightly adjusting the latter in size, as accomplished in the template's sandbox. Regards, --PanchoS (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC) As I said before: We can either switch position and adjust size, which is what people do anyway, even if it means adding the native_name manually. Or we can turn the native_name into a regular field as in Infobox person. The current situation simply doesn't work out, neither visually nor does it make any sense. --PanchoS (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Template:Infobox person has the same problem. Liam987  (talk)  19:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Infobox person has got a regular field for native names. Alakzi (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be an alternative solution for this one here, too. I'm actually fine with whatever is practicable and can be consistently applied. --PanchoS (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be OK with me. Consistency is always a plus. Alakzi (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: This has been requested and rejected previously. It would be a bad thing to do. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Why? Liam987  (talk)  20:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm curious, too. --PanchoS (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You say, "do not re-enable template until consensus is reached". Okay, but the progress of the discussion depends on you clarifying what you mean with "It would be a bad thing to do." In the archives, I couldn't find a discussion on this aspect, but maybe you (or someone) can point me to it. --PanchoS (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * See above. Alakzi (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree Nizolan's point in that discussion. It looks weird the way it currently is. Liam987  (talk)  00:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ouch. Searched the archive but didn't spot it on the current page. Sorry for that.
 * It makes sense to do it the same way as it's done on Infobox person, for consistency's sake. I'd like to hear Andy's explanation of why it would be bad. Liam987  (talk)  19:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You already have. See above. (That's a comment on the original proposal, not on mirroring Infobox person, which would be a good thing.)  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Request: Change 'In office' legend to 'In role' for Infobox First Lady
There are perennial complaints that First Ladies are not officeholders and that their infoboxes should not have a legend of 'In office' above the dates. For the latest such posts see Talk:Nancy Reagan but there have been a number of other such complaints over the years. In most respects the officeholder infobox template is appropriate, since First Ladies have start and end dates, predecessors and successors, and so on. But the position is really more of a role than an office. Therefore, this is a request to change Infobox First Lady such that it has a legend of 'In role' rather than 'In office'. Thanks. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * done. if this causes a problem, we can always investigate a more 'fine-grained solution', like toggling the label based on the use of the officeX parameters. Frietjes (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * am I going crazy, or has this change been applied to every officeholder's infobox? Moonboy54 (talk) 23:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * yes, if this causes a problem, we can always investigate a more 'fine-grained solution', like toggling the label based on the use of the officeX parameters. Frietjes (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * well it has the potential to cause a lot of confusion. I don't see why the entire template for all political offices should be changed to accommodate the First Lady. Moonboy54 (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I made a comment supporting the change for the First Lady page, but I agree with Moonboy54 that it should not be applied to all officeholders. The problem after all is that the First Lady is a role, not an office. Perhaps it should be changed back, with a new field of "In role" also added so that it can be used when appropriate. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have the technical knowledge, but can we have an option to choose to use "In role" but default to "In office"? Connormah (talk) 19:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wasted Time R, Moonboy54, AtHomeIn神戸, Connormah we now have "In office" as the default and you can change it to something else [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nancy_Reagan&type=revision&diff=661893570&oldid=661765772 like this]. I changed a couple of the first lady templates, but will leave it up to others to change the rest.  I decided to go with a more free-form label since I can imagine someone may want to change this to "In position" in some cases.  if this causes a problem, I can track any non-standard uses and address it with a different solution. Frietjes (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, this latest formulation looks good. I changed a couple of First Lady articles that I work on.  There are some infobox-tweaking regulars who will come along and change the rest of them I'm sure.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Village pump (policy) discussion
Started a discussion regarding part of the MoS, and concerning the use of links within this infobox template at the Village pump. Village pump (policy). — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 07:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

death_cause not supported?
I notice that infobox officeholder does not support the parameter death_cause. Is this an oversight? Infobox person does support it. Seems like an interesting and relevant data point. - Kzirkel (talk) 10:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Ward
I attempted to use the "ward" parameter but it seems like it's been removed? Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder/Archive_15#Ward it was agreed that it would be added, but it doesn't work when I try. I'm trying to use it to add to the infoboxes on the new batch of UK MPs who were previously local councillors, and ward is more accurate than councillor. Any help? LaSeandre (talk) 21:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Cabinet positions
Many veteran politicians have cabinet positions held included in this infobox. In many cases this makes the infobox, in my opinion, extremely and unnecessarily long for the articles (see for example Lloyd Axworthy, Jean Chretien, Lou Hyndman, etc). I think mention in the prose of the article as well as in navboxes is sufficient for this - I'm wondering if there's any other views on this? Connormah (talk) 13:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We ran into this problem, interestingly, for Chinese politicians who have held a plethora of roles, many of which are actually quite important offices, but it makes the infobox so unbearably long. For example, Xi Jinping, the current Chinese leader, has nearly a dozen important offices currently, but also historically has held the top post in Shanghai as well as governorships of provinces, was the head of the party school, in addition to membership in numerous Communist Party bodies such as the Politburo, which are also worthy of mention. To address this problem we decided to put only his top three offices in the infobox, and outline the remaining offices in the infobox footer. I know the situation may be a little different from that of Canadian politicians but maybe perhaps it will offer some insights into how to shorten an infobox. (See also Li Keqiang and Hu Jintao). Colipon+ (Talk) 19:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * - That's how I see it too. But I'd like to hear some other opinions. Someone kept reverting me at the Axworthy article a while back on this. IMO the infobox shouldn't go beyond the references section or reach half the article (except for stubs). Connormah (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could take inspiration from Infobox member of the Knesset - see, for example, Isaac Herzog. We could use the present format for their most important offices and the Israeli format for the remaining ones. Alakzi (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would support reducing the size of the infoboxes by limiting the number of past offices listed in full. In the case of British politicians, it's not just cabinet offices that get listed but junior ministers and very often the opposition shadow to a ministerial post.  See Harriet Harman for example.  The Israeli format looks worth pursuing.  --Sussexonian (talk) 01:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the |portfolio= parameter could be used as well, or the format that Canadian Governor Generals use (see David Johnston, for example). Connormah (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC notice
I have started an RfC regarding how spouse names should appear in biography infoboxes. I am notifying here because discussion that prompted the RfC was on Talk:Bill Clinton. You can find the discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_person. Thank you.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 20:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Governor General field
In Australia, the title of Governor-General has a hyphen in it, yet in this infobox it appears as "Governor General". Is it possible for it to be fixed? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Where are you seeing the unhyphenated version? Peter Cosgrove contains a hyphen, for example. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The label of governor_general is unhyphenated. Alakzi (talk) 10:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done I've made the label of governor-general hyphenated. Happy endeavours! Alakzi (talk) 13:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * , my apologies, I should have explained that it was in the infoboxes of Australian Prime Ministers. The issue was brought up at the Malcolm Fraser talk page., thank you very much for fixing it. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

image_size doesn't work
Pls. see Hasnain Mirza. What's wrong? - üser:Altenmann >t 22:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nailed it: wrong 'image' value. BTW why does the template allow it? - üser:Altenmann >t 22:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Cause of death
Would it be possible for someone to add a cause of death section in the person info bit of the infobox (|death_cause = is used in infobox person) please?

Thanks,

Gotha &#x262d; Talk 15:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC) Gotha &#x262d; Talk 15:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

"Native name"
Hi, I noticed some recent changes in the font size of the field "native name" and for the Chinese language this renders the text unreadable (or at least, too small) on some platforms. Could whoever made this change kindly revert it, or make a setting to increase the size of Chinese text? Not sure if user finds this change equally unappealing. 21:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Could someone please respond to this item? Colipon+ (Talk) 19:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Colipon, it's currently rendered at 115% of normal text size. are you saying that Chinese text is unreadable at normal font sizes? Frietjes (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this now looks fine at 125%. Colipon+ (Talk) 19:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Substantial benefit to users by adding official twitter / social media links to politicians info boxes
Propose adding new personal property to template.

twitter = { { twitter | account } } as an optional property in the personal section for Office holders / MPs to allow links to their verified accounts, which often are highly active and relevant.

PoliticalSocialMediaLink (talk) 00:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Infoboxes vs succession boxes
See article Barbara Snelling. The info box officeholder nearly duplicates the info in the succession boxes. The bio is short and the article looks a bit silly as a result. IMO, the duplicate material in the info box should be rm. Shorten the info box information for readability. Detracts from the article and renders the succession boxes irrelevant IMO. This should be worked out as a policy for all officeholders IMO. Student7 (talk) 15:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

"Notes" parameter
Could someone add a "notes" parameter to this infobox such as the one in Template:Infobox military conflict? There's currently a "footnotes" parameter here, but the style is different from "notes" in that the former does not have a line separating it from the rest of the infobox. It doesn't seem like a controversial request, and I would've added the parameter myself, but I cannot figure out how to. --Al Ameer (talk) 04:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Officeholders-elect when the officeholder fills a vacant seat?
What do you do with an officeholder-elect who is taking office where there's no particular person being succeeded? The specific use case I'm asking about is for David Wecht, who was elected to one of three vacant seats on the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. I've looked and it doesn't appear that the seats are designated in terms easily convertible to predecessor/successor. Is there a way to do essentially what the  parameter does without naming a predecessor to come? —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 01:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes
There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox concerning what What should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 January 2016

 * predecessor = Barack Obongo change to Barack Obama

198.0.237.251 (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see any such parameter in this template. In which article did you see that the predecessor was listed as "Barack Obongo"?   Paine   00:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Welsh & Scottish First Ministers
I was bold and deleted Elizabeth II from the infoboxes of the Welsh & Scottish First Ministers. I did this so they would be consistent with the Northern Irish First Ministers & deputy First Ministers. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC on inclusion of Monarch in Information Boxes on NI politicians
A recent RfC about the use of this template requires some more input - especially as it is in a politically difficult area Snowded  TALK 11:12, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


 * (Previous comments:) (1) Doesn't actually add anything to the Martin McGuinness article, or other Northern Ireland Republican/nationalist politician articles, except maybe giving unionists a cheap laugh and a moment's validation. However, if we must have it in NI politician infoboxes, surely a less contentious term that wouldn't be found grossly offensive by Republicans/Nationalists could be arrived at? (2) Should we also add "Population", "GDP", "Longest river" and "Highest mountain" to FM/DFM infoboxes? Monarch, longest river, population and highest mountain are relevant for WP entries on states. Not for entries on individual politicians. And considering the lack of power enjoyed by the "monarch" of a parliamentary democracy, the relevance even on the constituent UK state's pages is tenuous.


 * Add: This optional entry on the template shouldn't be included for nationalist/Republican NI politicians. Including "monarch" it is needlessly "pointy".  If something must be included, then add "Head of state" instead. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:43, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is needlessly pointy. The queen is a monarch, she reigns, she wears a crown, she isn't an elected head of state etc etc. Any citizen in the UK or a Commonwealth country has Queen Elizabeth II as a monarch, even if they would vote for a republic in a referendum.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * By that logic, Monarch should be added to the 'football biography', 'military person', 'religious person', 'Muslim scholar', 'cricketer', 'Alpine skier' and indeed every 'person' infobox templates. Regarding the pointiness - we're talking about a place where they have riots about flags and burn effigies, and think that's normal. You have the option to not needlessly cause drama or offence, simply by confirming that an optional parameter in a template is indeed optional... Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

If we're going to continue to include the monarch in the infoboxes of English, Scottish & Welsh politicians? Then we must continue to do so for Northern Irish politicians. AFAIK, Northern Ireland is still a part of the United Kingdom, just like England, Scotland & Wales. GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "AFAIK, Northern Ireland is still a part of the United Kingdom, just like England, Scotland & Wales." How is this relevant? The First Ministers of Scotland and Wales are appointed by the sovereign. The First and deputy First Ministers of Northern Ireland are appointed by the Assembly. It makes no sense to include the name of the monarch. Moonboy54 (talk) 21:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Elizabeth II is not shown in these infoboxes as the appointer. GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * She's not, but it's another example of how NI politics differs from Britain's. Gob Lofa (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * She's not shown as the appointer in the other British politician infoboxes, either. Therefore, no need to make changes to only Northern Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * If you really can't see that Northern Ireland is different to the rest of the UK, should you be commenting at all? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Elizabeth II still reigns over Northern Ireland, as she does over England, Scotland & Wales. Unless & until that changes? my position on this infobox matter, won't. GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Most of these points have been made at Talk:Martin_McGuinness. The field is problematic for some people and not entirely necessary, but being a politician in the UK or a Commonwealth country means having the Queen as head of state and nominal head of government. The argument that it should be removed for Nationalist but not Unionist NI politicians is a non starter in my view, because it leads to a deliberately imposed inconsistency.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Bastun's points. I disagree with the contention that NI politics infoboxes must be identical to other UK ones; NI political structures aren't. Gob Lofa (talk) 18:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

No reason has been given for making NI infoboxes, or other monarchy infoboxes, different from others. We routinely provide the head of state in a politician infobox, regardless of the country and regardless of the political system. Consider Dick Cheney, who was US defense secretary (that section of his infobox lists Bush Sr, who appointed him) and US vice president (that section of his infobox lists Bush Jr, with whom he served). Or consider Junichirō Koizumi, whose infobox includes Emperor Akihito, who doesn't have any powers, even nominally. Or consider Joseph Boakai, whose infobox lists current President Sirleaf. And on and on and on...there's no reason to remove this field from the NI politicians' infoboxes when the same setup is used with politicians worldwide. Nyttend (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I've just had a look at the pages of the last three presidents of Republika Srpska (see List of Presidents of Republika Srpska); none of them have their head of state in their infoboxes. Gob Lofa (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * How about we make the entry special Head of State? Get rid of the odd "appointed by' which is not in the template.   Given that is the intention it would be less contentious that naming it as Monarch or President  Snowded  TALK 05:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Less contentious, certainly. Would support "Head of State" as a compromise. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a sensible suggestion. The infobox doesn't currently have a field for Head of State, although one could be added by someone with the relevant authority. Only template editors and administrators can edit the template.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 12:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * a very simple solution would be to use the appointer field in the template, for the relevant roles the monarch appoints Ouime23 (talk) 12:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No real value in that. The appointment in the UK is simply a confirmation not an actual appointment.  What is your objection to explicitly making the name of the field "Head of State"?   You can make it the nature of the appointment clear in the text.  Snowded  TALK 18:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * TBH, I don't see a lot of difference between 'Head of State', 'Monarch', 'President'. But, if HoS will calm the waters? then no prob. GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the status quo. The argument is that the Monarch did not appoint the NI officials. However, that argument has no grounds, as the template does not have the monarch as appointer. GoodDay (talk) 14:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * No, read above. That's only one of the arguments. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * we are giving users the false impression, that the monarch appoints NI leaders, you may argue that she is there as the head of state but that is not what it comes across as Ouime23 (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ouime23, please hold off from making changes like this, until things are settled here. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

OK I see four in favour of a change to Head of State from Monarch/President? No opposes and Ouime23 not responding to the specific question. If that is the case we can make the request and then go through the UK articles to get them all in line. Snowded TALK 23:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Go for it. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I oppose the inclusion of head of state where the head of state does not appoint the person, I have provided links to the relevant legislation that shows there is no link between the monarch and the NI FM/dFM, you have not provided a reason that would support its inclusion Ouime23 (talk) 12:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I dislike this supposition that the field is compulsory. I've given examples of where it's not used. Gob Lofa (talk) 13:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think it has to be compulsory, but we need an agreement on when it is not used. Why we would exclude mentioning the Head of State simply on the basis of appointment I am less sure of.  By changing it to Head of State we remove the ambiguity that seems to continue to cancern our SPA account Ouime23  Snowded  TALK 13:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Leave empty. It's obviously a contentious issue. The whole point of the NI Assembly and Executive is to bring opposing traditions together. There's no reason to score political points on Wikipedia when the politicians themselve avoid doing it. Scolaire (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The Queen invites someone to be Prime Minister, and has weekly meeting with him. The government is her government and she reads out a speech they prepare every year. None of this is true for the First Minister or Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland. The Monarch is not listed for the Mayor of London either. For only result of including the monarch here is to needlessly annoy nationalists. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 12:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * as far as I can see the consensus is to remove the monarch from the NI FM/dFM infoboxesOuime23 (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Why not remove the monarch from all the FM & DFM bios of Scotland, Nortern Ireland & Wales. Removing the monarch from just Northern Ireland FMs & DFMs, to make Irish nationalists feel better, is unacceptable. GoodDay (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * as I have said before it's not about nationalism please take your assertions elsewhere the NI FM dFM are not comparable offices with the Scottish and Welsh ones.. The monarch appoints the Scottish and Welsh FM so it is appropriate on those articles Ouime23 (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't show the monarch as the appointer in any of the aforementioned articles. Why keep asserting that it does? GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * not but it gives that impression, the monarch has no link to the NI FM dFM so is irrelant to include itOuime23 (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It is relevant, as long as the British monarch reigns over Northern Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * using that argument, you would have to include the monarch on every infobox for a UK citizen, which again is a non starter and the argument doesn't make sense Ouime23 (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We'll have to agree to disagree on this matter. I won't support making Northern Ireland a special case here. We either include the monarch in all FM & DFM infoboxes or we exclude from all. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * this is an encyclopaedia which gives factual information we should not be making appeasement to people who cannot grasp the UKs constitutional arrangements Ouime23 (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We'll leave it up to the other participants. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Umm Ouime23 you really aren't helping yourself here and being an SPA is not helping you either.  In response to your earlier statement there is no consensus here to remove monarch from the template or to make it optional - just count.  You also seem to be the only editor making an explicit question between the Head of State and appointment.   By making the name of the field "Head of State" (only you are are opposed to that so far) we make it clear what the name is without implications that the individual accepts the role of a monarch.  So there are two questions (i) do we change the name, for this there does seem to be agreement and (ii) is the inclusion of Head of State as a field a requirement for all politician articles?   If the answer to the second is no then we get a third namely: Should it be removed for all NI politicians or only for nationalists?    Snowded  TALK 20:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I: have already stated the monarch should only be included for roles where the monarch appoints them, we should not included them for any other UK politician i.e. local government leadersOuime23 (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep that is your opinion, is it still your opinion if we make the field 'Head of State"? I assume it is, but there is no consensus so fare for that. Removal of the Head of State has some agreement but not necessarily for that reason.   I don't think it will reach consensus especially if we want to remove it from all NI politicians.  So the three questions I ask above are relevant.   Remember the body of the article can make the nature of who appoints clear in proper context  Snowded  TALK 20:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * the answer to your question is the head of state/monarch whatever you want to call it should only be included in roles where there is a link ie appointed by, for other roles such as council leaders/ mayor of London it should not be included Ouime23 (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, if we've participants refusing to recognise the nature of Northern Ireland or the nuanced compromise that nature requires, who am I to agree to one? Striking earlier support for compromise. Remove what is in any case a non-compulsory field, per, , , and. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Remove. I see no compelling case for including the UK head of state in the infoboxes for NI politicians, nor for any other politicians for that matter. I note the head of state is omitted from the infoboxes of Northern Ireland Assembly and First Minister and deputy First Minister, where a better case could be made. In my view, a head of state listing is more suited to the infobox of an office than a person. Daicaregos (talk) 12:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Remove - from all FMs & DFMs of Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland. Keep out of FMs & DFMs of England aswell, if England should form its own devolved Parliament. GoodDay (talk) 13:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Remove. Forgive an unrepentant republican...but in all the cases noted above, twas the voters who actually appointed them. And by the way I wouldn't be surprised if User:GoodDay is waiting to say that Canadian etc such pages should also require removal. Such a trouble maker. :) Juan Riley (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I would like to see the Monarch removed from the Canadian premier bios infoboxes aswell. But, that's a tad more difficult, considering the number of bios involved. GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * it seems clear the consensus is to remove the monarch field form the NI FM/dFM articles, could someone please update the articles? I would do this myself but I fear it would be reverted by other users. Ouime23 (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Remove from all of them, including Scotland & Wales. GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * this discussion is about he NI roles as has been pointed out the monarch appoints the Welsh and Scottish FM's, is you want to remove it from those articles please made your case for doing soOuime23 (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If we don't agree to remove from all bios-in-question? I'll have to withdraw my support of removal in the Northern Ireland bios-in-quesiton. It's either all or none. GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Was about to say I am brave or foolish enough to do the removal, but, however, not really experienced enough to do so. And then User:GoodDay saved me. I think (sigh) I have to agree with him. Juan Riley (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Though I briefly reverted Ouime23's deletions today on the Norther Ireland-based articles-in-question, I later restored those deletions with further corrections. We appear to have a consensus to exclude the monarch.

Now, I've reverted Ouime23's additions of Scottish Parliament as nominator, to the infoboxes of Scottish FMs. Do we need to have a Rfc on that topic? GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This topic seems to remind me of a discussion on "how can unionist politicians come from Derry, if they only refer to the city as Londonderry?". Seems hypocritical.Dubs boy (talk) 22:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ouime23, hasn't been around since January 5. He/she got what he/she wanted & left. GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Canadian governors general
There is a discussion at Talk:Jeanne_Sauvé on whether a lower office, specifically Speaker of the Canadian House of Commons should be included in the officeholder infobox for a governor general or whether it's the "standard" to exclude such offices. Alexander&#39;s Hood (talk) 01:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC announcement regarding the Religion field in infobox on Bernie Sanders
There is a current RfC underway regarding the Religion field in the infobox on Bernie Sanders. The RfC is at Talk:Bernie Sanders. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Resting place parameter
There is currently an RFC going on regarding whether the "resting place" parameter should be used for "cremation". See Template_talk:Infobox_person. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit Request
Please allow to use parameters |father= and |mother=, results can however be displayed in a combined head parents. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  17:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC) @ Can you please help? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  17:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Capankajsmilyo, let's wait to see if there are any objections ... Frietjes (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Done, and I enabled relatives, since this this is used for positions in some countries that are reserved for members of ruling families. Where was there a consensus to disable these specific basic features of Infobox person here?  WP:EDITING is policy, and page protection is a non-normal impediment to it, that we erect only to prevent vandalism or massive disruption. Thus, a good-faith edit-protected request to do something this routine and not-possibly-disruptive should be honored by default, absent objections (current or in the consensus record) that raise concerns that override it for legitimate countervailing policy reasons, or undeniable common-sense/practicality ones. In particular, the decision by an admin to protect a template for cascading reasons (i.e., because it is a high-use template or because of its use in many protected articles that are frequent vandalism targets) is a technical rationale for protection and has nothing to do with the template's actual content and configuration. This template only has template-editor, not full, protection anyway, and Frietjes himself routinely edits it. The template-editor privilege isn't a "first-class editor" right, it's just a matter of technical and policy competence. PS: The original enabling of only parents made for poor output: "Parents: Jane Doe" isn't grammatical.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  03:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Denomination
I'm wondering why there is no Denomination parameter. (There is for Infobox person.) Most infoboxes (that I've seen) have the denomination in parentheses following "Christianity". So, instead of having parenthedicals, why not just have a parameter for denomination? --Musdan77 (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. If possible, could it be formatted as " " rather than on two separate rows in the table as it currently is in Infobox person. I believe this makes sense for "Islam (Sunni)" just as much as for "Christianity (Southern Baptist)" or "Judaism (Orthodox Judaism)". --Scott Davis Talk 23:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The (proper) norm is to just put the denomination in the infobox with religion, as in George H. W. Bush, Harry Reid, David Cameron, and a host of others. There's no need to list the main religion and the denomination both. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 16:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. The words denomination and religion are not interchangeable nor are they synonyms. Hawaan12 (talk) 03:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Infobox person was edited on 18 February. Its current behaviour can be seen here. There are three cases: R+D, R only, D only, and each one displays R and/or D using only one line of output. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Please sync with Template:Infobox officeholder/sandbox. This (a) copies from Infobox person the new code for religion/denomination - test cases at Template:Infobox officeholder/testcases; (b) repairs the implementation of the "unit" parameter, which was accidentally broken by the edit on 5 March.

Technically I have the permission to make this edit myself, having the template editor user right. But given the contentious nature of religion in infoboxes, I would like a second opinion on whether the change has sufficient support. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * See the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes, which was just started yesterday. I feel we should wait on the consensus of that discussion, so I'm leaving this request undone for now. If religion and denomination are not supported for people in general, then a good question for discussion is whether that information is particularly more relevant for officeholders than for the general population of notable people. wbm1058 (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Location of modules
I added module0 after seeing an attempt to wedge the module above the personal information section in Katharine Abraham (e.g., see fix [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katharine_Abraham&type=revision&diff=715556347&oldid=712190693 here]). but, it's possible that it was just a misunderstanding of how to use the module parameter. are the modules currently in the best place, or should we move them up? Frietjes (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

color - a deprecated parameter?
In the source code of this template, the line {{Infobox officeholder/office|color={{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{embed}}}}}|yes|#eee|lavender}} appeared a handful of times, however {{param|color}} is not found in {{tl|Infobox officeholder/office}}. So what happened? --Quest for Truth (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Nationality vs Citizenship?
Can someone please tell me what is the difference in the context of this infobox? thanks -BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) —Preceding undated comment added 16:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Very often they are the same. However in some countries such as Australia, there is a difference between "permanent resident" and "citizen". Also the Australians use the word "nationality" only in very formal situation such as when filling out forms related to traveling document (passport), otherwise they use the word "citizenship" in casual conversation. --Quest for Truth (talk) 15:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the only time this distinction is useful is in cases where someone is for all intents and purposes belonging to one nationality but has taken on citizenship of another nation for purposes other than naturalization. A prominent example might be Thaksin Shinawatra who is a citizen of Montenegro (probably among other countries) but apart from possessing a Montenegrin passport, he is undoubtedly a Thai national. Another example might be Kim Jong Nam who resides long-term in Macau and presumably has permanent residency there, which theoretically makes him a Chinese citizen although he'd never be considered one in practice. Colipon+ (Talk) 18:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Relatives
Parameters name change:  →   in data37.

Naughty Jeffrey (talk) 07:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Do we need to look for any instances which were using the uppercase variant? How long has this code been in the infobox? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Senator-elect?
Can somebody edit the template for senator elects that don't specifically succeed a specific person. In the Philippines, 12 senators were proclaimed as Senator-elect today. They are set to replace 12 of the current 24 senators. However, they don't represent a specific province or national subdivision, they are elected by the whole national electorate. For example, Manny Pacquiao's page says that he already assumed office in June 30, 2016, which is a date set in the future. "Incumbent" is also displayed which contradicts the Senator-elect title.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 08:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Error message and tracking category for unsupported parameters
I have added error tracking for unsupported parameters to this template. See. A red error message appears when you Preview the article, between the edit screen and the rendered preview. In the category, the articles are sorted by the name of the parameter that is unsupported.

If I have made any mistakes in coding, or if template changes are desired, please let me know. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Scottish & Welsh First Ministers infoboxes
Should Elizabeth II be in the infoboxes of Scottish & Welsh First Ministers? Note, Elizabeth II was removed from the Northern Ireland First Ministers & deputy First Ministers bios infoboxes, many weeks ago. Also, she's not in the Scottish & Welsh Deputy First Ministers infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC) −
 * I corrected the heading no one is arguing for the inclusion on the deputy first minister infoboxs. As for my argument for please see the discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder#RfC_on_inclusion_of_Monarch_in_Information_Boxes_on_NI_politicians the monarch appoints the Welsh and Scottish FM's therefore should be in the infobox.Ouime23 (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * No - Since Elizabeth II was removed from the FM & dFM infoboxes of Northern Ireland? Then Elizabeth II should be removed from the FM infoboxes of Scotland & Wales. Per consistency. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes to the First Minister as the monarch appoints them as per the above disscussion link Ouime23 (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Clarify: Are you proposing that Elizabeth II be included in the Scottish & Welsh First Ministers bio infoboxes, but not the Scottish & Welsh Deputy First Ministers infoboxes? GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * correct the monarch does not appoint the deputies no one has argued for the inclusion in their infoboxs82.132.233.46 (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - WUT? Nothing any of you says make any sense. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a dispute over whether or not Elizabeth II should be in the infoboxes of articles like Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon & Welsh First Minister Carwyn Jones, for example. GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the clarification. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * No - I really can't in my wildest imagination see any reason why we would include Elizabeth II in those infoboxes. That makes no sense whatsoever. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No we need to be consistent Snowded  TALK 07:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No - These pages are bios of the people doing that job, not articles about the office. Daicaregos (talk) 07:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * we include the monarch on other articles where the the appoint the person, the welsh and scottish ones need to be consistent. Ouime23 (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Colin Barnett, Premier of Western Australia - Monarch included
 * Jay Weatherill, Premier of South Australia - Monarch included
 * Will Hodgman, Premier of Tasmania - Monarch included
 * Adam Giles, Chief Minister of the Northern Territory - Monarch included
 * Bill Shorten, Leader of the Opposition of Australia - Monarch included
 * In fact, all Australian state leaders include the monarch in the infobox.
 * Brian Gallant, Premier of New Brunswich
 * Comment - No, we don't need to be consistent in that we have to include the monarch or not include the monarch in all the infoboxes. We have to include it where it makes sense to inlcude it. That means it makes sense to include the monarch for prime ministers. That makes sense. That's the leader of a country and it's relevant which head of state they are working under. It makes no sense including the monarch for other minor ministers. It makes absolutely no sense to me to include it for an opposition leader, IMO. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No — If the monarch isn't in the NI ones, they probably shouldn't be in the Wales or Scotland ones, despite the differences between the jurisdictions. The monarch's role is only formal, in any case — the First Ministers are elected; the monarch appointing anyone else would be a major constitutional crisis. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, and put it back in the N.Ir. ones. Just because Irish Nationalists don't like it isn't a reason for WP to hide facts.  It isn't strictly necessary for infoboxes to be consistent between similar articles, but they certainly  be, absent a compelling reason to differ.  Removing information for political reasons, in a way that probably violates WP:NPOV policy, isn't a compelling reason. All of the "no, be consistent" comments above are arguing for a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS / WP:FALSECONSENSUS "consistency" with a decision that should not have been made at a N.Ir. article; the actual consistency compliance would be to the larger set of articles on ministers in countries with monarchs. (Or have a broader RfC to remove monarchs from infoboxes of all of those).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:18, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, my inclination is to agree with SMcCandlish and write that since Elizabeth II is the Monarch of the UK, she should appear in the infoboxes for UK politicians (for all UK locations). If strong arguments can be made that the Monarch is irrelevant to the political process, then remove her from all infoboxes. But I haven't seen those arguments. -Darouet (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ouime23, wants to exclude them 'only' from the Northern Ireland FM bio article infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes in Scotland and Wales, though I think Queen of the United Kingdom is slightly better than Elizabeth II. No for Northern Ireland assuming the queen is not the formal appointer there. No to politicians (e.g. MPs) who are not appointed by the monarch.
 * We have mention of the appointing authority in other countries where it is less contentious (e.g. for Spain). The argument that in constitutional monarchies the head of state does not really choose has some merit, but (1) it is true as well of non-monarchies (see Cohabitation (government)), and (2) that would be an argument to withdraw unelected monarchs from all politician infoboxes, not just the ones where there are some sovereignty issues. Unless this RfC is a challenge about that as well, then consistency would be to include the appointing power, whatever it is (monarch, president, speaker of the assembly, head of army, whatever). Tigraan Click here to contact me 11:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Include as "The Crown" - The First Ministers are appointed by the Crown, not by any specific person. The ministers could be appointed by a monarch or by a regent. They could be appointed by Elizabeth II, or they could be appointed by her successor after her death. When Elizabeth II dies, the appointing authority does not also die, it continues on in the Crown. LavaBaron (talk) 05:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Question - are they appointed by The Crown or by the monarch? (Honest question, I do not know)
 * There is a slight difference, since the Crown is basically the State - if I remember correctly, in the UK it is "Her Majesty's Government", not "the Crown's Government", for instance. Tigraan Click here to contact me 08:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * AFAIK the monarch is the person of the sovereign, the Crown is the sovereign; the monarch exercises the power of the Crown. That's why they're called "Ministers of the Crown" and not "Ministers of the Queen." "Her/His Majesty's Government" is a term of legal art. Per Routledge's AS-level law textbook: "The title ‘the Crown’ is given to the monarch or sovereign of the country, that is, the Royal Head of State." and "Crown powers [include] ... appoint and dismiss the Prime Minister." I'm willing to stand corrected. LavaBaron (talk) 15:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Guidelines for when to include each parameter
Some guidelines as to when to use each parameter might be helpful. There is currently a disagreement (Talk:Julia Gillard) about whether the monarch and governor-general should be included in infobox prime minister. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitch Ames (talk • contribs) 13:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Viceroy
Needs to be included. Normally gender-neutral although there can be a vicereine. 213.205.198.194 (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Satoru Iwata
This template was removed (using TW?) from the Satoru Iwata article. I personally think mistakenly, but apparently there are people who insist that this template only be used for government offices? What's the appropriate template for non-governmental titles (like president of a company?) Why is it that this cannot be used in such a fashion? McKay (talk) 06:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like Infobox person is the right one to use. You can look through for a better one, but I do not see one. Compare to other articles, like Bill Gates or Lee Iacocca. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Cricketer
There are many cricketers who hold notable positions post retirement. It would be good to create a merged infobox of Cricketer and Officeholder or adding parameters of one to other. I have already initiated a discussion on Template talk:Infobox cricketer. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  09:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Presumptive
I have no idea how this edit would work however I was wondering if it was possible to add a parameter for an individual to be recognised as a 'presumptive' successor to an officeholder. For example at this moment Theresa May is the presumptive successor to David Cameron as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom which is expected to take place on 13 July 2016, 2 days from now. Constitutionally the term 'designate' which appears under the office name of 'Prime Minister' is incorrect as one can only become Prime Minister if invited to form a government by the Queen, and a few editors are complaining. It is not possible to be designated to this position however it is presumed that May will be asked to form a government. Put simply: can we please have a paramter identical to the one which currently produces the word 'designate' that produces the word 'presumptive'? Ebonelm (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there a reliable source that describes this person as the "presumptive" prime minister? I did a quick search, and reliable news sites use carefully worded sentences (outside of their headlines) to indicate that the way is clear, that she is expected to become the PM, or that she has no competition. I do not see the word "presumptive", however. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Presumed and expected are synonyms, its not a title but a description. However, there are quite a few that are using the term presumptive internationally, including other Commonwealth countries. The telegraph uses 'Prime Minister-presumptive' here. Ebonelm (talk) 01:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If it is only two days away, I don't really see why eager editors cannot simply just wait. There is really no need for wikipedia, a long-term encyclopedia, to provide up to the minute coverage of a person's presumed status. Colipon+ (Talk) 01:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 21 July 2016
Can someone put a break in the field  (or whatever the officer holder's title is) so that it is on one whole line? It looks horrible the way it looks now... wrapping around to the next line. A few examples are listed below:

John Doe

Member of the Kansas House of Representatives from the 65th district

John Doe

54th Speaker of the Kansas House of Representatives from the 24th district

John Doe

15th Chancellor of the University of Kansas

Corkythe hornetfan  02:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This request is unclear, at least to me. Can you use a sandbox page in your user space to show how the infobox looks now, then explain the change that you want? If you are feeling bold, edit Template:Infobox officeholder/sandbox and then use the sandbox version of the template in your example page to show us how you want the template to look. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Partly done: Rather than adding a forced line break before House of Representatives (and similar) links generated by the infobox, as in your first example, I've used an old CSS trick to discourage line breaks within the links.

For example, Barack Obama,, remains unchanged. Paul Ryan,, is now.

In your second and third examples, the infobox doesn't generate those links, it just displays whatever is given in the office parameter. Editing articles directly, to add line breaks inside the office parameter as needed, should work. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 09:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * See Don Betz as an example for the president. Not sure if that's what ya mean? Corkythe hornetfan  21:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Before Matt fixed it, the infoboxes were like the following:

John Doe

Member of the Kansas House of Representatives from the 65th district

John Doe

54th Speaker of the Kansas House of Representatives from the 24th district

John Doe 20th President of the University of Central Oklahoma


 * For the university presidents, not every infobox looks like the above, but a majority do. See mu comment for Matt above. Corkythe hornetfan  21:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like if order is given, office is automatically linked and is hard to adjust. It isn't documented, but using title in place of office should give a more flexible result. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 09:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

almae matres
Where someone has more than one alma mater the infobox should say 'almae matres' instead. Dubbin u &#124; t &#124; c 21:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Adding template edit box. --In Allah We Trust (talk) 01:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It's unclear why this edit request is specifically to this template. The more generic Infobox person does not conditionally pluralize the label "Alma mater". — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 01:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Verified Social Media Handle
A place for a Verified Social Media handle (twitter, .. ) should be added to the template. If it makes sense we have a place for an official's personal website, I think we're far enough into social media age that a twitter handle for instance makes more sense. it could be for Facebook or flicker if it was a photographer, Instagram for that kind of celebrity and all of that is open for discussion, but right now I think it's time to allow we add verified twitter handles! --In Allah We Trust (talk) 01:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think there are a number of reasons this would not be implemented. Before proposing any changes, make sure you have support for the change for this template, i.e. other folks have participated in a discussion and it reached consensus. Also, keep in mind that an infobox is not supposed to contain every piece of information (see WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE). — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 01:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Where should this discussion be? I thought this was the talk page/discussion page for this template. That's why I didn't add a template edit box, until matter reached consensus.--In Allah We Trust (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Should a Social Media handle like twitter be added to Infobox?

I've Switched into a question/vote format, as it seems this is the discussion place for the infobox. --In Allah We Trust (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There will be no 'voting' – see Polling is not a substitute for discussion. And given that "the purpose of an infobox [is] to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article", I don't think including that would be in accordance with . If the subject's social media pages are particularly significant, they will be linked to from their official website (which is already in the infobox) and possibly the external links section. Graham (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Understood. I was following the Scottish & Welsh First Ministers inboxes discussion/vote example above. Though I don't agree with explanation given; nowadays a twitter handle is more significant and thus useful/clickable in regard to politicians than a personal website. but lets put it to rest. --In Allah We Trust (talk) 22:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 27 August 2016
Periods of office should be separated by unspaced n-dashes, surely?  Tu rk ey ph an t 14:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Izno (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Erm, not sure what's unclear about period of office but change " – " to "–"  Tu rk ey ph an t 20:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, having the specific change will help me find the spot in the template, since this is one of those templates (given the length) that you have to hunt down what it is you're talking about. --Izno (talk) 23:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Izno (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This is against the Manual of Style which says: "The en dash in a range is always unspaced, except when at least one endpoint of the range includes at least one space." As the date ranges have a space, the dash should also be spaced. The template previously used unspaced for year-only ranges, and spaced where one of the term of office dates contained a space (e.g. 23 July 1790 – 1 December 1791, not 23 July 1790–1 December 1791). I think it should be changed back. --Canley (talk) 10:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the change. --Canley (talk) 10:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem with me. --Izno (talk) 12:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies for not finding that although it makes no sense to me.  Tu rk ey ph an t 00:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Suppress "Personal details" header if used as a module
Is there a way to suppress the "Personal details" heading when Infobox officeholder is used as a module in Infobox person? In particular, I would like the Political Party to be displayed with the parliamentary position, rather than under another heading, as in Gary Rowe. --Scott Davis Talk 02:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

native_name_lang formatting?
Hi, what's the appropriate formatting for native_name_lang? Is it "Malayalam" for someone whose name appears in Malayalam script? or is it the two-letter ISO 639-1 code for Malayalam: "ml"? Template:Infobox person seems to favor the latter (although I don't know why, since the language name doesn't appear in the infobox. Kinda think that's a waste of an entry.) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's the ISO code, the same as it is for every infobox with the parameter. I've replied to your other point at Template talk:Infobox person. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the reply. I'll add it to the instructions so that editors who are unfamiliar with this template know how to use it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Need help with this template on another language/Wikipedia
Hello, I tried to reproduce this template by copying and adapting it on the kabyle Wikipedia but I am having a problem with the "ambassador_from" field who display "Ambassador to" even if the person is not an ambassador (ex: here). Maybe I forgot something but as I am not an expert on the Wikipedia language I am unable to locate where is the mistake.

I have another problem of adapting this template. In the kabyle language the order come after the title, example :

- in english : 33$rd$ President of the United States

- in kabyle : Aselway n Iwunak Yeddukklen $wis$33

I would like to express in advance my appreciation for any assistance you may offer. --SalemB (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 2 October 2016
Can template:nowwrap be placed around the 'Governor General' and 'Governor-General' functions please, ie, so rather than:  it instead reads:. Many Commonwealth article infoboxes refer to the Governor-General however because they're not wrapped most opt to use the  and   functions with the wrap function as without the wrapping function it makes the pages look weird. For example see Justin Trudeau and Malcolm Turnbull both of which have infoboxes referring to the Governor-General but don't use the function itself because of its compromised design. Ebonelm (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Having the option to put nowrap around the person's name leaves the option in the hands of individual editors for individual articles. I recommend modifying the template documentation to suggest this option. Maybe I misunderstand. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have a feeling you're requesting an edit to Template:Infobox officeholder/office? I've synced its sandbox (and the main one is set up) in the meantime. Per WP:TESTCASES may you place your suggested change in the appropriate place? Toggling for now — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 21:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)