Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 23

Replacement of Infobox:MP by "Officeholder" via AWB
Redirect template Infobox MP has been around for a long time, and is used in many articles. It serves a valid purpose, and should not be systematically replaced by Infobox officeholder via use of an automated tool, merely due to an arbitrary change to a rule by a single editor.


 * Template:Infobox MP is a redirect currently transcluded by 1,986 articles, and is one of numerous redirects to template Infobox officeholder. The redirect exists since 2007, and has been used continuously on numerous articles since then.
 * AutoWikiBrowser is a semi-automated tool that operates off a list of replacement rules (like these), and will rapidly replace anything appearing in the list of rules with a replacement token. In this edit to the AWB rule set, a new rule was added which will cause replacement of all occurrences of "Infobox MP" that it encounters by "Infobox officeholder".

In my view, the redirect template Infobox MP serves a valid purpose, and should not be replaced. The term "MP" is customarily used as an abbreviation for Members of Parliament, and abbreviations are one of the standard purposes of Redirects. The Redirect guideline specifically mentions it in Alternate forms of a name as found in reliable sources and common databases. In addition, "MP" serves as a More specific form of [the] name than "Officeholder" does. There is a long history of using Infobox MP in articles, for example: the article John Mercer Johnson has used Infobox MP since 2009. And finally, the redirect Infobox MP is not broken, and per the guideline, there is no reason to "fix" it.

The AWB rule to replace Infobox MP was arbitrary, and does not accord with long-standing consensus. The addition of the rule is recent, and its effects are not yet widespread, so I believe there is no consensus for it; therefore any editor may simply remove it per WP:BRD. But I wanted to raise this topic in order to invite a wider discussion. Mathglot (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about AWB, but in browsing around, I found this page, and this the addition of a rule replacing Template:Infobox MP seems to be a violation of the terms of bullet 3 or 4. Mathglot (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC) updated in response to following comment Mathglot (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What is "this"? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC).


 * Clarified with redaction above. Mathglot (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * For bullet 3, see my long answer below, for bullet 4 see my short answer beginning with "You are very unlikely", also, at the risk of belabouring the point "Normally you should not make page edits just to bypass redirects..." Thirdly and perhaps importantly, there is no way that changing the template rules is a breach of bullet 4, this is a category mistake.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC).


 * The primary problem here is that there are so many redirects, all apparently different to anyone who is not clued in on the details of the back-end of the back-end of Wikipedia. This means not just new editors, but even established editors who do not go near templates and template redirects, of whom I believe there are many.
 * The impression that this multitude of redirects creates is that there are many more templates to "learn" and that if you want to write about someone, you have to have intimate knowledge whichever special template applies to them. Migrating to a single name for the template obviates this problem.
 * Long-standing consensus was to migrate these names using primarily AWB general fixes, which means that we are only changing them when other changes are made, which has various benefits which will be obvious.
 * I will add some statistics when I get time, probably tomorrow evening, or the day after. (WP:NOTCOMPULSORY is a myth.)
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC).


 * This also seems to violate AWB rule #4: An edit that has no noticeable effect on the rendered page is generally considered an insignificant edit. If in doubt, or if other editors object to edits on the basis of this rule, seek consensus at an appropriate venue before making further similar edits. Mathglot (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Which edit are you referring to? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC).


 * The instruction to replace with  was actually added in this edit - the diff that you provided consolidated a number of existing replacements (besides adding a heap of others). -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding that, Redrose64! Mathglot (talk) 21:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You are commenting on the wrong level of indentation. Feel free to remove this comment if you fix it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC).


 * I'm referring to any edit by any user using AWB that invokes the replacement rule in question. I don't know who might be using it, so it might be hard for me to find a diff. Since invocation of the rule leaves a rendered page that is identical to the page appearance before the edit was made, this is a violation of AWB's own rules (which, in turn, are a reflection of larger community consensus about editing). Mathglot (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You are very unlikely to find such an AWB edit that does not change the rendered page. The reason is that, firstly not all AWB editors have "general fixes" turned on, and probably hardly any do all the time.  Secondly most AWB users are scrupulous about setting the app, not to make edits which are non-rendering, so that these templates will only be changed if there is a rendering edit, or something else substantial, being done at the same time.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC).


 * Not sure I buy the assertions about "the primary problem", or the impression about "more templates to 'learn'". What evidence do you have of this? Nobody signs up to Wikipedia, and heads for the list of redirects of Template:Infobox officeholder.  They see an article about somebody similar to the person they want to write about, and they copy that. If it already uses Infobox officeholder, then they copy that template, and if it uses Infobox MP, then they copy that one. So where's the problem?  Even if what you say is true, and I'm not persuaded that is is, then changing John Mercer Johnson to use Template:Infobox officeholder instead of Template:Infobox MP won't help fix your supposed problem one iota.  I think you've got a solution in search of a problem.
 * But if you think there really is a problem, then the way to attack it is with proper documentation. In my opinion, it's because of missing, minimal, confusing, contradictory, or incorrect documentation, that editors shy away from certain areas of the encyclopedia. If you can describe the problem you think exists regarding templates, I bet that improving the documentation will mitigate the problem far more than consolidation of useful redirects. I'm willing to sign on to assist with that.
 * Finally, what "long-standing consensus" are you talking about? Is it some discussion that happened among the community of 1,855 AWB users? I remind you about WP:LOCALCONSENSUS; any consensus reached among the limited group at Talk:AWB does not trump community consensus about the proper use of redirects in the encyclopedia. Even AWB's own rules seems to argue against it. Mathglot (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry about the indentation, should be fixed, now. Mathglot (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm going to break this into numbered points, because the discussion is going off at tangents, serious allegations are being made, and just left fluttering in the wind, and significant points are being missed. I really don't have time for this, but I can see this getting out of control, so it's probably best to address as much as I can now.
 * It's not you replying on the wrong, level, it's RedRose64.
 * Though you shouldn't insert your reply to him, before my reply to him, it's confusing, and not standard practice.
 * The problem with his edit is it makes it look like my question to you is answered, so I will ask it again.
 * You have not said which edit is breaking rule 4. To break rule 4 you have to be using AWB to edit and make an edit which changes a page in a particular way. Which edit is the "this" that you are referring to?
 * "Assertions": It's my opinion that a big problem for new editors is that wiki-test can be confusing. The WMF agrees enough that they have spent, (probably many) hundreds of thousands of dollars on developing the Visual Editor, and the community has spent a huge effort in providing TemplateData. We should therefore make editing easier and more friendly. One way is to make it less complicated, having multiple names in use makes it more complicated. I think that is clear. So everything else being equal replacing template redirect names is a good thing. Sometimes it's not equal, for example was deprecated as being bitey, and replaced with, so in this case it's more important. Conversely some of the redirects to  make it clear why the template is being used and should not be replaced.
 * Abbreviations: This is a red herring, on three levels.
 * Firstly the idea of shortcuts is to save typing, the effort saved should outweigh the loss of clarity. If we have a short-cut that is automatically expanded, the loss of clarity is zero. This means we can use more shortcuts, save more effort, and still have readable wiki-code.
 * Secondly the fact that MP happens to be an abbreviation, does not mean that is a shortcut to, it's certainly not an abbreviation for it.
 * Thirdly the guideline you reference is really talking primarily about article names, and to a lesser extent WP: shortcuts.
 * Longstanding consensus refers the Status quo ante bellum affected by this edit where one editor wiped the whole page without consultation, all the way back to the original 2010 version which had one set of infobox redirects.
 * In terms of statistics, adding a template to WP:AWB:TR is the minimally disruptive way to migrate templates The current migration rate is approximately 0.6% per month. This is probably at least partly due to the chilling effect that harassment of AWB users has had, but I doubt it was over 2 or 3%. (I have been working on some of these issues for 15 years, at the current rate we would only address half the 466,000 infobox redirects in that time.) If you find this rate of change too fast, you are asking for a calcified Wiki.
 * Statistics:
 * When I last looked there were 98 active redirects to and 39 unused redirects. This is not a trivial amount of cognitive load, I doubt there is anyone who knows all 138 names and can say, when editing an article "Oh yes, I can just use the same parameters on Infobox Doge that I used on Infobox president-elect."
 * The number of total trsnaclusions of this infobox is 146,256 the number of transclusions of redirects is 66,626, the biggest contributor being the old at 14,248 uses.
 * I hope you appreciate the time and effort that has gone into this reply and that we can move forward constructively.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC).

Excessive capitalization
The infobox contradicts MOS:JOBTITLES and leading style manuals by incorrectly capitalizing the word "senator". Major style guides such as AP Stylebook and The Chicago Manual of Style, which explicitly state that "senator" should be upper case only when preceding a senator's name. Surtsicna (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

For the same reason, it should also be "Prime minister" and "Vice president" instead of "Prime Minister" and "Vice President". Surtsicna (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes you are very probably correct, I will admit that I have given up on some of these titles, even in running text. Good luck. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:07, 10 September 2019 (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. As much as I "get" this edit request (and find it perfectly acceptable), it would be nice to have a list of places where this issue is located so I don't have to hunt and peck through a hundred lines of code and possibly miss some. Doesn't have to be super-detailed, but something along the lines of  will go a long way towards getting this done in one shot. As a note, I suspect the majority of the code you're looking to change is in Infobox officeholder/office. Feel free to re-open this when a list has been made. Primefac (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Medieval Islamic officeholders
Not sure if this was brought up previously, but there should be a parameter for “Caliph” in the same way we have parameters for Monarch, President, Chancellor, etc. This is particularly relevant for medieval Islamic provincial governors during the thirty-year pre-dynastic period of the first four caliphs and would also be relevant for the Umayyad (661–750), Zubayrid (683–692) and early Abbasid periods (750–1258). —Al Ameer (talk) 02:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Isn't this covered by 'Monarch'? --Philip Stevens (talk) 10:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Script Error
Just alerting whomever watches this page that there's a script error right now... &mdash; Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 00:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , which article? – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Uh,, the template to which this talk page is attached: Template:Infobox officeholder. To be exact, it says that "The time allocated for running scripts has expired." (As this is one of the templates I use the most often, I'm a bit worried.) &mdash; Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 01:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Huh, seems to be resolved now. &mdash; Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 02:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Counting children
What number of children should be given in the infobox if a person has four children from a marriage, one confirmed from an affair, and rumours of others reported by RS? "4"? "5"? "At least 5?"? Leave the field blank? Or something else? This issue has emerged at Talk:Boris Johnson. EddieHugh (talk) 13:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Whatever reliable sources say. If there's contention, as you mention in your last sentence, then it should be hashed out on the article's talk page. Primefac (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Nationality/Citizenship
Other biography infobox documention says do not use nationality or citizenship unless they are different than the place of birth. This limits redundant information and makes the infobox more useful. I don't see such guidance here, and some of the examples actually show U.S. born people with American. Is there any objection to making equivalent changes to the documentation here? MB 02:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * MB, I see there's been no response, and it seems eminently sensible; you got my vote. Why not be bold, and see if anybody objects? HTH, Mathglot (talk) 04:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I decided to try to handle this for all bios in one place. See this discussion if you are interested. MB 01:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Surname
Would it be a good idea to add a "Surname" spot? Wikitrumpets (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for your suggestion, but no. Many names have complex naming considerations, and there are templates for them such as Spanish name, Portuguese name, Chinese name, and others.  Attempting to duplicate the effort in dozens of different naming schemes around the world in this one article to figure out what the "surname" is, is a fool's errand. Much better, is just explain it in the body (if necessary) and/or use one of the numerous naming templates, if appropriate. Mathglot (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Moving party information further up/making position details collapsible

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wouldn't it make sense to move the information about a politician's party to a more prominent position near the top of the infobox? In many cases, it's the most basic info one needs to have any idea of their viewpoints and political role. Right now, it's buried in the 'Personal details' section, often under 4-5 positions held, some of them long ago or insignificant. I don't think it even fits as a personal detail for a politician - for others, one could view it as a kind of personal trivia, but for politicians, it's an absolutely central part of their job and position which should be displayed prominently on a template like an infobox, whose purpose is to give a quick overview of the basic facts one needs to understand the individual's role. Kranix (talk &#124; contribs) 16:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I totally agree. And I would add also religion, which is quite more important than alma mater and several other items. --Checco (talk) 18:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Given the history with religion, you'd need to open a new RfC if you'd like to add that. With regards to party, Kranix, do you have a specific position you'd like to propose? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Re religion: Here's a link to the RFC about religion in Template:infobox person, and here's a link to the discussion for this specific infobox. The short summary: it is not allowed in Infobox person or here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I know and I think it is quite a bad thing. I am considering a new RfC. --Checco (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, if the entire list of positions is to remain like now, featured on top and in sequence, it would obviously have to be moved above all of them. But while we're at it, I think a better idea would be to make collapsible the list of positions, or perhaps just the details of them (office dates, precedessor, successor). Chuck Grassley's infobox, for instance, is simply too long for a non-collapsible overview template. Kranix (talk &#124; contribs) 01:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


 * You're suggesting something like the display to the right? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the idea. It could be made even more compact if the [show] button was an [expand] in the blue fields, but that may be less clear to readers, so I don't know whether it's a good idea. I definitely prefer your layout to the current one. It almost halves the height of the entire infobox, which is a significant improvement in my eyes. Kranix (talk &#124; contribs) 22:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay. You could seek consensus on the article's talk page to implement collapsed infobox section begin (you can also change the "Further information" to something else if you liked) - this doesn't technically require any change to this template, although it could in theory be something mentioned or recommended in the documentation. What do you think of the positioning for party? I've used a workaround of shoving that into a different parameter for the moment, but we would need consensus here to make that a more formal change. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit late to the discussion, but I'd strongly support some arrangement that would significantly condense the infobox by use of collapsible sections. I should think that the collapsible function would only be available if more than one office were input. Also, I should think that for incumbents, the section would be expanded by default (if there is more than one simultaneous incumbency, then the most relevant one would be expanded). I'd also support the show/hide button being included in the gray bar, as Infobox royalty uses. Just spitballing: Perhaps some way of even grouping offices together to maximize collapsed space. For example, a more elegant fix than is currently used on the Winston Churchill article.  Ergo Sum  23:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S. if anyone cares for an example of an Infobox officeholder that is far, far too long, see Kenneth Clarke.  Ergo Sum  23:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC
Per the above discussion, should the template be modified to accommodate collapsible offices to alleviate excessively long infoboxes?  Ergo Sum  01:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 *  Comment Support, long infoboxes on short articles make pictures impossible, hundreds if not thousands of affected articles. If it collapsed so that only his picture and signature were visible it would be a lot more attractive, and also something similar for infoboxes like countries and cities which often tend to be longer than the screen, they should collapse to pictures only. I wouldn't delete the info though. Infoboxes are great. ~ R.T.G 02:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, nothing would be deleted. Only a collapse function.  Ergo Sum  05:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Changed to support ~ R.T.G 17:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose per MOS:DONTHIDE. If an infobox is that long that you want to hide it, then I think the problem is with the content of the infobox itself. Fix the problem, not create a hack around it. Specifically looking at the above infobox example - in my opinion, chairs of commities is something very trivial that should be in the article, but not in the infobox itself. That should be left for significant positions, so in the above example, Senate and House membership. --Gonnym (talk) 10:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Infoboxes are great. You have a standardised template for listing the most important bits of information. It is not possible to bring all articles into uniform which use long infoboxes, such that they might be irrelevant. Look at this article on a Cannon camera Canon EOS 100D ~ R.T.G 17:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If it is not possible to have the infoboxes collapsing on mobile phones, what we need is a tag like that changes the code sent to a phone. ~ R.T.G 17:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose per MOS:DONTHIDE. The solution is to stop stuffing piles of trivial detail into infoboxes.  An infobox is meant to be an at-a-glance summary of  details, not every single detail that can possibly be crammed in just to use every available parameter. One hint: If you can't find it in the main article body, with a reliable source, then it shouldn't be in the infobox. Move it to the article body, or if there's no source for it, just delete it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't program anything, but I have an idea what programming language is like. I find it difficult to accept that collapsable content is impossible for mobile phones, and if it is, almost all pages which have extra large infoboxes already depend on collapsable content further down the page. How does that work? For example here, I'm looking at London. Included are stuff like "Area" with 5 params, total, urban, metro, old city and "greater" city area. I can read those figures off the infobox as quickly as you read their titles in the previous sentence, in a machine-like scanning manner, just like you can. Now, the area of London totals approximately 607 square miles. Including the urban area directly around it is 671 square miles. Including metropolitan areas directly adjacent to that the total is 3,236 square miles. The traditional center of the city, known today as City of London (as opposed to "London City" for describing the modern metropolis), covers an area of only 1.12 square miles. The Greater London area covers 606 square miles. Forgive me, if there are any inaccuracies in my description of the area of London, but you did not scan those five sentences as quickly as I scanned the info from the infobox, no way. Large infoboxes have an important value. Articles would look a lot better if those infoboxes were collapsable. On mobile phones, per concerns about awkward content, main infobox genres could be set up that they showed as a tab on the phone. You'd swipe the tab in to show the infobox and swipe it back out to show the screen. It's not impossible as MOS:DONTHIDE allows us to believe. ~ R.T.G 06:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm not going to hop on everyone who comments here, but I am going to go and complain at the MOS because this doesn't seem impossible as that guideline suggests. ~ R.T.G 06:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)


 * SupportWP is written to be read, and clarity is important, We can refine the details. The mobile interface can deal with the display problems.  DGG ( talk ) 22:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment from initiator: It seems this discussion is growing to encompass infoboxes generally. Perhaps it is time to escalate the conversation to a forum that would garner more input about a larger, combined policy/technical change. I'm not sure what the appropriate forum for Wiki-wide proposals is.  Ergo Sum  01:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Consensus for acting
Could we start a consensus discussion for what to do for "Acting" officeholders? See Donald L. Weaver, Mark Filip, Michael Huerta. They all have the "Acting" in different places. I feel like something like this needs to be standardized.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 17:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I found this RFC.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 02:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Add description for "Political party" and "Other political affiliations"
I think "Political party" parameter is pretty straightforward. The description could say: "Subjects affiliation with a political party". However, the "Other political affiliations" is more challenging. I've seen it used for various things, but the main thing I see it used for is the subjects past party affiliations, and the current party is listed under "political party" (For example see: Donald Trump). While that does appear to be the main use, I think it shouldn't be used for that. I think all current and past political party affiliations should be placed in the "political party" parameter and the "other political affiliations" should be used for non-political party affiliations. For example, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is affiliated with the Democratic Party (U.S.) and is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America which is not a political party, but a political organization (In this example: Political Party=Democratic and Other political affiliations=DSA). So the description for "other political affiliations" could say: "Subjects affiliations with any political organization that is not a political party (not used for former political parties). Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 08:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Why?
Why is the column "Mother" placed above "Father"? Thanks. – Flix11 (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Why not? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 April 2020
The following parameters display job titles in title case, but per MOS:JOBTITLES should be lower case, or sentence case.


 * Governor General
 * Prime Minister
 * Vice President

Please change Chris the speller  yack  02:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)  Chris the speller   yack  02:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Governor General to Governor general
 * Prime Minister to Prime minister
 * Vice President to Vice president
 * It seems to me that the existing capitalization might be consistent with the third bullet at MOS:JOBTITLES: When a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The important part of that third bullet is "formal title"; "Vice President of the United States" is a formal title, but "vice president" is a common noun. "As Kennedy's vice president, Johnson made eight recorded trips aboard Sequoia", even though Johnson was Vice President of the United States. Chris the speller   yack  17:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. * Pppery * it has begun...  19:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * A consensus was achieved; that is how the MoS was created. If you need a new consensus, please say where. Chris the speller   yack  19:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This appears to me to be a legitimate dispute over how to interpret the MOS. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Again, please say where. Right here? Or a new discussion on the talk page of the MoS? Chris the speller   yack  20:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As I was trying to say above, it seems to me that the formal title is what is being listed in the infobox, so it should be formatted with Word Case. The title is addressed as a title or position, it is not plural, it is not preceded by a modifier, and it is not reworded. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * OK, one more time: "Vice President of the United States" is a format title, while "vice president" is a common noun found in any dictionary, in lower case. Chris the speller   yack  21:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

There should be no dispute about how to interpret the MoS. But I have seen cases where editors have failed to give the MoS a good, hard examination. I can boil it down for them this way: a job title like "vice president" is a common noun that should be in lower case except in three cases. The MoS says " ... capitalized only in the following cases:
 * When followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e., when they can be considered to have become part of the name: President Nixon, not president Nixon


 * example: "he threw his support to Vice President Biden"


 * When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office, e.g., the Queen, not the queen (referring to Elizabeth II)


 * example: "Donald Trump assigned the task to the Vice President" (where it is obvious that Vice President Pence is meant)


 * When a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself


 * example: "Johnson became Vice President of the United States in 1961" ("Vice President of the United States" is a formal title)

The job title "vice president" by itself fits none of these three cases. Any dictionary lists "vice president", not "Vice President". There is simply no reason to capitalize, except for the "V" when it starts a heading. Chris the speller  yack  21:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying, but I believe that in this infobox, when it says "Vice President", it is a short way of saying "the person who was serving as Vice President of the United States when the person described in this article was in office". It's the formal title for a specific position. The MOS does not give examples of shortened versions, but you can see them in use at Theresa May. We might need to solicit opinions from MOS talk page watchers. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh no, it's even worse than I thought. There is a current RFC on MOS:JOBTITLES, so I don't think our little discussion here matters one whit. Let's wait to see how the RFC turns out. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

What Happened to the Infobox?
What in the World happened to the offices in the infobox? The offices held are no longer labeled, and they run together in longform. It looks bad and not very  encyclopedic. I sincerely hope it's a mistake. -- Sleyece (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Just came here to raise this issue. Not seeing any edits on this template that would explain the issue.  But yeah, any new edit on an article containing the officeholder infobox is displaying without the office/title information -- Asdasdasdff (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's fixed -- Asdasdasdff (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I came here to see if there was any major change. Not sure what the issue is, but for right now what I see shows that the issue is not fixed. – ᕼᗩᑎᗪOTO (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you give an example article that shows the problem? Keith D (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * At that time, no article showed any office. Half and hour later, the Justin Trudeau article showed his offices but the Donald Trump article did not. Right now all articles I can see using this template no longer have the issue. – ᕼᗩᑎᗪOTO (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Something's wrong
I reverted your edit, but I'm not sure if that was the cause of the problem. I'm not an expert in templates. The problem is that in all articles that use this template the start of the term appears duplicated. Do you know the reason?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 23:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * . Thanks. . --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|TALK

Articles added to unknown parameter category after recent change to parameter check

 * The number of articles in (22,473 at this writing) appears to have increased significantly after this recent change. When this happens to me, it is because I have omitted a valid parameter. I looked through the diff to see if I could find any errors, but I haven't found anything yet. Would you mind double-checking your work? Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I found and fixed education, nominee, and occupation. There may be more. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * After some null edits, the category is back down to a large, but probably valid, 21,310 articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I did a fourth check and didn't find any that were still missing. Thank you for jumping in on that so quickly (so much for double-checking, next time I triple-check). Primefac (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Potential link to category of controversies
Has there ever been any discussion here or elsewhere regarding inclusion of a link to categories containing controversies around officeholders? In general I think something (maybe not a link to the category) might be useful. Looking at some specific examples: If anyone knows of a better place to ask this question that'd be great too!  ·addshore·  talk to me! 18:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Donald Trump -> Category:Trump administration controversies
 * Barack Obama -> Category:Obama administration controversies
 * Addshore, are you anticipating adding such a link somewhere in the infobox, or somewhere else in the article? If the former, in a new parameter or one that already exists? Just trying to get a better understanding of what you're interested in. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly mind, and also don't know too much about the internals of this template, but it would be nice to have the category exposed in a uniform way. This could be in this info box template, or perhaps in one of the link boxes at the bottom of the article. OBviously the infobox is more visible and might make more sense.
 * Looking again at both the Obama and Trump articles perhaps the Template:Donald Trump series and Template:Barack Obama sidebar might be better locations? Which would mean I should be asking at Template:Sidebar/US President  ·addshore·  talk to me! 07:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree that if this is to be done anywhere that would be a more logical place. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Started at Template_talk:Sidebar_person/US_President Thanks!  ·addshore·  talk to me! 08:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Addition of Chief Minister & Department(s)
Hi. Can we add Chief Minister for Ministers of State/Provincial (sub-national) governments? We already have Governor and even Lieutenant in the Infobox. Outside US (mostly in Europe and Asia) Chief Minister(s) are more common and generally Head of Government of their respective Sub national authorities.

Also adding Department(s) might be helpful for Cabinet Members holding multiple small departments and ministries at once. Manasbose (talk) 08:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Spouse
Can't seem to find Spouse, or does it fall under relations? Naihreloe (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * never mind. found it Naihreloe (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

religion
Can we please re-add the religious affiliation field. For better or worse it is relevant in a lot of political situations. Irtapil (talk) 04:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It was discussed 3 years ago. But only two people gave an opinion, and it looks like one of those two users has since been blocked. That's not much of a consensus.
 * I can think of very few leaders where it could not be fairly uncontroversially described in half a dozen words or less. The only cases i can think of where there is any substantial debate are some of the original 1940s Nazis.
 * It could be made further unambiguous by adding a word or two to the field name to clarify that it is whatever they publicly declare themselves to be, so there's no room to debate conspiracy theories (e.g. Obama is a secret Muslim) or level of adherence (e.g. Trump breaking almost every rule of Christianity). I'm a bit setumped as to what we could add, "publicly stated religious affiliation" is too long? but maybe someone has a better idea?
 * Here's a link to the original RFC (April 2016). We don't put religion (or ethnicity) in infoboxes about people unless the infobox is specifically about religious leaders. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I totaly agree with User:Irtapil. As I have long argued, religious affiliation is an unambiguous information, which is far more relevant than several other infos currently included, such as alma mater. It is time to re-discuss the issue. --Checco (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Go for it. Since the definitive discussion appears to have been held at Village pump (policy), and the discussion would presumably affect nearly all infoboxes for people, that is probably the most appropriate venue. The onus would be on the RFC proposer to explain what has changed since 2016 that would persuade people to change their minds. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Notability
Is the template meant to be filled out completely in an article? Like, if the lemma person is barely notable, is it a helpful information to list their spouse, children, father, mother, aunts and uncles who have no notability of their own? Might well be that is intended, I don't know and I find it irritating to see an infobox which is longer than the actual article. Any help appreciated. Thanks and kind regards, Grueslayer 09:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It should be filled out with information that is verified in the article. Primefac (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:LPNAME would likely be a relevant reference in the circumstances you describe. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed; spouses are usually named, but children (unless notable) are generally not. Primefac (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answers, that gives me a picture already. Kind regards, Grueslayer 09:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

"other name" parameter
Infobox person, which this template uses, supports a parameter  for "Other notable names for the person, if different from name and birth_name", but this template does not. Could it be added? I tried using it for U.S. Representative Edward J. Livernash, who later changed his name to Edward James de Nivernais. TJRC (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Image
I think the image size we need to show is 220px, because 200px so small. Đạt Ngọc Lý (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you tried using image_size? The documentation for Module:InfoboxImage says When "size", "sizedefault", and "maxsize" are not defined, "frameless" is added, which displays the image at the default thumbnail size (220px, but logged in users can change this at Special:Preferences). – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Capitalization of "Senator" in infobox
Infoboxes that used to say "United States Senator from X" now say "United States senator from X". This seems to be a recent change, but I can't find the relevant discussion. I disagree with this change. While "senator" should not be capitalized in prose, it should be capitalized in the infobox for the same reason that "president", "governor", and "secretary of state" are: in the infobox it is used as the name of the title, not as a generic descriptor (per MOS:JOBTITLES). Davey2116 (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There was a 2019 discussion here. I don't know if it is the only one. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed this too. And you're right that MOS:JOBTITLES would indicate that "Senator" should be capitalized in the context that it's used in the IB.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Pinging, who made the change. Can you link to a discussion supporting this change? – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pinging me. Yes, I made the change here.  Frankly, I can see both sides of this, and I don't anything specific in MOS:JOBTITLES that addresses this either way.  If it's unsettled, then let's settle it and put it in MOS:JOBTITLES.  —GoldRingChip 13:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright. Should we just continue the discussion here or start a new one at the talk page for MOS:BIO?--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 18:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest starting/continuing here, and ping the other projects so they know to join. —GoldRingChip 20:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Though I must admit, I don't have much familiarity with these discussions, so I'm not sure how I would go about notifying the relevant projects.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 01:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * can you please notify the necessary WikiProjects for this discussion? I don't know which ones to notify. Thanks!  I-82-I &#124;  TALK  08:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I completely agree that we should do this. The U.S. Senate is a proper noun, as it is a branch of the U.S. legislature. "Senator" needs to be capitalized, and it looked very strange when I saw that it was not.  I-82-I &#124;  TALK  08:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The United State Senate is not a proper noun. It is not a noun at all. It is the proper name of an institution. The word "senator" in "United States senator" is a common noun. It is not the proper name of anything or anyone. As such, it is not capitalized unless preceding a name. See MOS:JOBTITLES, AP Stylebook, The Chicago Manual of Style, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 20:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

, per the spirit of WP:BRD, you should undo the unilateral change you made, which effects hundreds of bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * OK… done! —GoldRingChip 12:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Co-leader
The 'Co-leader' parameter needs to be added to the documentation. I don't know if it also needs to be added somewhere else to stop article preview saying 'Page using Template:Infobox officeholder with unknown parameter "co-leader"'. Nurg (talk) 09:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's in the documentation, but for some reason the regex check is choking on the - in "co-leader" and "governor-general" (but oddly enough, not the / in "jr/sr"). Not sure what the appropriate fix will be. Primefac (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * by escaping the "-" character in the Lua patterns (not exactly regexes) for co-leader and governor-general. I think those are the only patterns with hyphens. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * They are, and thank you. Forgot that sometimes Lua ≠ regex. Primefac (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for escaping. I still couldn't see it in the documentation so I have added it. I'm not sure if I have added it too much or not enough, so please check. Nurg (talk) 05:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thought it was, guess it was just the TemplateData. Thanks for adding it. Primefac (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Committee chairs
I believe I have suggested this elsewhere, but cannot find it now; the infobox should add a parameter/label "chair" or "chair_of" (and possibly also "ranking_member") for members of legislatures who chair committees or subcommittees.

Having committee chairs as separate offices obscures the order of significance and is a major source of clutter in the case of long-serving legislators. (See, e.g. Joe Biden or Ted Kennedy)

It would be quite easy to subsume this office, sacrificing only the exact terms in office, their predecessor, and their successor, which are all still reflected in the succession box. For example, Joe Biden's infobox would include the following under United States Senator from Delaware:
 * Chair: Judiciary (1987–95) Foreign Relations (2001, 2001–03, 2007–09) Narcotics Caucus (2007–09)

I'd love to hear more feedback. If this is well-received, I would also suggest possibly considering a similar change for minor party leadership roles. (e.g. Steny Hoyer and Joseph W. Martin Jr.)-A-M-B-1996- (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Does anyone have a thought on this? I found my earlier suggestion but nobody responded then, either.-A-M-B-1996- (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

"Shadowing" parameter for Members of Parliament
Hello, I'm new-ish to Wikipedia.

I'd like to request that a parameter for "Shadowing" be added to the infobox template for Members of Parliament. This would be useful for shadow ministers in the UK Shadow Cabinet, so it is possible to show who the particular shadow minister is shadowing in the Government. Would this be possible? Thank you in advance, and kind regards, DanJWilde (talk) 19:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Capitalization of the word "Senator" RfC
Recently, the template that appears on the infobox of every U.S. Senator was changed. It used to read "United States Senator from Anystate" Admin GoldRingChip changed this to "United States senator from Anystate". He also said that he wants this settled (see above), so I started this RfC.  I-82-I &#124;  TALK  08:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Option A Revert to previous version (uppercase, United States Senator from Anystate)
 * Option B Keep as changed by GoldRingChip (lowercase, United States senator from Anystate)

Comments

 * Option B. I've checked several style guides including Chicago and AP. As expected, they state that "Senator" should be capitalized only when it is used as a title before a name (e.g., "Senator Bernie Sanders"). When used as a designator rather than a title, it should be lowercase ("a senator from Massachusetts"). This is consistent with how we use other such titles ("You have an appointment at 11:00 with Doctor Smith", but "John needs to visit the doctor", not "John needs to visit the Doctor"). In this template, it is not being used as a title for a named person, so lowercasing is correct. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Option A. The last time I checked, we are still using official titles in the overwhelming majority of infoboxes with respect to titles of people.  If we are going to lowercase for titles in infoboxes (which I oppose, by the way), it should be done through a global RfC as to all infoboxes and not through inappropriate changes on an infobox-by-infobox basis by editors who fail to solicit and get consensus first. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Option A - “United States Senator from State” is like “Queen of England”... a formal title that should be capitalized. Note: I would lowercase in a more generic situation: “Smith was the only US senator to vote in favor of the provision”. Blueboar (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Option B - "Senator" should be lowercase because it is modified by "United States"; this makes "senator" a descriptor, not a title. We would also say "British prime minister", "Florida governor", etc. — Eyer (If you reply, add   to your message to let me know.) 17:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Option A - FWIW, I feel the de-capitalising push is getting out of hand. GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Option B, because it is in line with Wikipedia's own manual of style (MOS:JOBTITLES), AP Stylebook, The Chicago Manual of Style, and virtually every academic and journalistic English language style guide in the world. Option A is an unsubstantiated preference of some Wikipedians. Surtsicna (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Option B - Instinctively, it seems right to capitalize it, yet MOS:JOBTITLES, AP Stylebook, The Chicago Manual of Style, as others point out, and more, indicate otherwise. ( Though I'd found it counter-intuitive, I suppose you could say that I joined the "de-capitalising push" in general. Please let me know of any relevant discussion regarding, from interest, thanks.) Lindenfall (talk) 21:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * When anything is pushed to the max on this project. The eventual result will be a push back. GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Option A. MOS:JOBTITLES has become a monster and is widely disputed, and this is perhaps the most ludicrous application I have yet seen. Frankly, even as it is, I don't see how it could reasonably be read to support lowercasing here: we are saying that so-and-so was "Senator from Massachusetts" just like the first example of Nixon in MOS. Frickeg (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * MOS:JOBTITLES reflects the practice prescribed by the world's most widely used and reputable style guides. You are welcome to cite one style guide that prescribes more capitalization than MOS:JOBTITLES. Surtsicna (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure. Rule 8(c)(i) of the Bluebook (20th edition) specifically requires capitalization of "nouns that identify specific persons, officials, groups, government offices, or government bodies." The sixth example given of nouns that should always be capitalized is: "A sitting President's executive power allows him or her to pardon convicted criminals." --Coolcaesar (talk) 01:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm thankful we don't use The Bluebook here... Too many capital letters. — Eyer (If you reply, add   to your message to let me know.) 02:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Option A Article 1 section 3 of the Constitution uses the capital S throughout. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for injecting some humor into a MOS discussion; it is always welcome. For those not in on the joke here, the US Constitution also uses the long s character throughout and has famously questionable puncuation. It does not pretend to be a style guide, and we should not pretend that it is one. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Option A When referring to a "senator" in an article, it is lowercase, just as we would refer to the "president" in lowercase in an article. However, titles such as "President of the United States" or "United States Senator from Anystate" need to be capitalized. These are the official office names, and are distinct from the other usage, which is not a title, but rather a common noun.  I-82-I &#124;  TALK  01:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What is an "official office name"? --Bsherr (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Option A per what I wrote at the beginning of the section above. The usage of "senator" in the infobox is different from the common usage of "senator" in prose, and this is exactly the distinction that MOS:JOBTITLES makes in capitalizing one and not the other. Davey2116 (talk) 02:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Option A - While technically incorrect and definitely not supported by MOS:JOBTITLES, Option A is currently the standard for virtually all employment designations in infoboxes, and since this is an infobox and not prose, I see nothing wrong with leaving it as it is. The second option would only be tenable if there was consensus to change infobox capitalization for all job titles that don't precede a proper name. Two quick examples of infobox changes that would need to ensue: "Vice President of the United States" would be written as "Vice president of the United States" in infoboxes, and "First Lady of the United States" would be written as "First lady of the United States" in infoboxes. Personally speaking, I think that looks pretty bad in both cases, and I can't imagine many people supporting this wide-scale change; but regardless of the outcome, this has to be an all or nothing decision. It plainly wouldn't make any sense to narrowly change "United States Senator" to "United States senator" in infoboxes while leaving all other infobox job titles alone. --Drevolt (talk) 02:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Option A I'm okay with using lowercase in prose (I think it usually makes sense that way), but displaying the job title as a standalone phrase in the infobox feels like capital letters are more appropriate. --Woko Sapien (talk) 14:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Option A It's a proper noun with an official name not a generic job. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Option B. There is no magical "except in infoboxes I like a lot" exception to MOS:JOBTITLES.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * option b. fans of capitalization may prefer to edit the german wikipedia. --Bsherr (talk) 03:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Option B. We have MOS guidance about this in MOS:JOBTITLES and there's no compelling reason to avoid it here. There's no point litigating whether or not you like MOS:JOBTITLES here: that's the clearest guidance we have about it. This is one of the cases where MOS:JOBTITLES applies, and complying with it brings Wikipedia more closely in line with style used by other high-quality encyclopedias such as Britannica. Ralbegen (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - IMHO, WP:JOBTITLES has morphed into a sledge hammer. It's being used to force de-capitalisation across Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Source parameter
I've noticed that some infoboxes use the source parameter, however, I find no documentation about it here on the template page. I think it would be nice with some sort of explanation of it. FreeToDisagree (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Religion
I know relgion has been removed by consensus, but this is an another case. In Lebanon, Parliamant seats are distributed based on the (confession/sect/religion/religious community- you can call it what you want) the same it's distributed on electoral areas. So Gebran Gergi Bassil per example, is a Member of Parliament/Deputy of Batroun District/NORTH 3 and also of Maronites. As I said, I think this choice should be added in the infobox. Check Parliament of Lebanon for more info. --Maudslayer (talk) 08:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I support Maudslayer's proposal. It makes a lot of sense, especially in Lebanon's context.
 * Side note. Every time is good for me to challenge the consensus that led to the removal of the "religion" parameter. Religion is a important feature of a politician personality, definitely more than his alma mater, signature and other infos we currently have in the infobox. --Checco (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the sort of detail that can go in the main text if it's important. It's not mentioned in the Gebran Bassil article, so I conclude that it's not very important. If we could have one template for officeholders in Lebanon, then having religion in it might be a good idea, but the universal officeholder infobox has too many negatives associated with having the religion parameter (hence the current consensus). EddieHugh (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur with EddieHugh; bringing it back for the universal officeholder infobox would do more bad than good, and any important details on religion can adequately be covered within article prose. Not sure how creating a template specifically for those in Lebanon would work out. SNUGGUMS (talk / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 22:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to rename a field
Euphemisms like "resting place" do not belong in (what's supposed to be) a professional encyclopedia. I believe we should just call it "burial" or "burial place" instead. Let's not sugarcoat the fact that countless dead bodies have been buried. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 22:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * SNUGGUMS, I'm sympathetic to this view, but what would you label the parameter in cases where the disposition was other than burial (eg inurnment)? (There have been several discussions relating to this point, eg Template_talk:Infobox_person/Archive_31. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't apply to people who were cremated because those corpses didn't get placed within the ground. For them, no "resting" place would be used. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 02:20, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Prime Minister, Governor General, and Vice President
The capitalization of these parameters (which are not proper names) contravenes virtually every English-language style guide, including Wikipedia's own. It makes no sense for these parameters to be in title case while all others are in sentence case. There is no reason to have "Vice President" but not "Political Party" or "Domestic Partner". Can we have them all one way, please? Preferably sentence case. Surtsicna (talk) 10:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's leave the infoboxes alone. This crusade by those who are pro-decapitalisers, has gone overboard. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, let's not leave anything incorrect. Surtsicna (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. I also think you'll need an RfC with wide participation. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh. Then how can we convert this into an RfC? Surtsicna (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Best to start fresh rather than convert a non-RfC discussion to an RfC. Refer to WP:RFC and I think the RfC already on this page is a good example (I would, since I created it). &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So there would be two RfCs going on at the same time. It's absurd that orthography corrections require RfCs. MOS:JOBTITLES has been scrutinized more than enough and upheld every time. Surtsicna (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's the pushing of the MOS as though it were policy, that creates tension among the community. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's orthography. There is no dissenting authority here. Surtsicna (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Do as you see fit. Knowing the history of JOBTITLES, many editors' emotional attachments to anything connected to politics, many editors' negative opinions about MoS in general (see preceding comment), and general resistance to change of any kind, I don't think anything short of an RfC is likely to be productive. Things can be simultaneously absurd and true, especially in Wikipedia editing. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Clarify: Are you suggesting that we decapitalise names in an infobox heading? Would like to see an example here (or at an RFC) of what you're proposing. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Don't have extremely strong feelings about it, but my impulse would be to use an MOS title case for all two-word fields, because I see them more as section headers. I read JOBTITLES as governing sentence case, which I wouldn't personally apply here. Just my two cents, but not much of a stake beyond it. Since this is more about style than content, I also don't think an RFC is particularly necessary. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hadn't carefully read Surtsicna's original post and seeing they pretty much raised the same points with a differing opinion. Basically, I agree with them that we should be consistent within the fields and lean toward title case rather than sentence case. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So you would prefer to also have "Political Party", "Domestic Partner", etc? I must admit that I did not foresee that. Surtsicna (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes lol Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I'd still like to see a visual example of what is proposing. GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It would say Vice president: Kamala Harris instead of Vice President: Kamala Harris. Surtsicna (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * But where? The infobox title? Give a visual example, please. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , they'd have to edit the template to make it visual to you, so I've removed. Thought it was pretty clear we're talking about the fields. Let's look at Paul Martin's box. They're saying the inconsistency between capital "Prime Minister" and "Governor General" but lowercase "Political party" should be clarified. They think it should be in sentence case per JOBTITLES, I think it's akin to a section header and should be in title case. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you telling me that wants to have Prime minister of Canada in Trudeau infobox, Governor general of Canada in Payette's infobox & Vice president of the United States in Pence's infobox? GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No. It's as I said above. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Now I'm begging. Would somebody PLEASE show me a visual example of what Surtsicna is proposing? GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Honestly this reads as you being purposefully obtuse... Read what I wrote above again (this one), pertaining to these specific fields. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * (looking at example) If that's what Surtsicna's is proposing? then it's not as bad as I feared. Though ignoring the difference between an office & a non-office, isn't a great idea. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Creation of successor_elect parameter
Given the current discussion about the interim use of the successor parameter, I propose the creation of successor_elect which would be used between the election and the succession This would be particularly beneficial in the United States, where there is a transition period that is months long. This has been proposed above also by. Could also be called successor_designate. It would avoid the debate of using successor before the transition, and it would be simple to just remove the _elect upon the succession happening. Some may say this is useless since the succession could not take place, for example, given the death of the successor elect. This is exceedingly rare and unusual, making this argument not very relevant. And in such an occurrence does happen, then it would be quickly fixed by removing the parameter. Before such hypothetical death, the information on Wikipedia would not be inaccurate, since that individual was indeed the successor elect while in life. Hence, I see no downside to having the successor_elect parameter, and the upside of avoiding this discussion every election cycle and also adding accurate information without having to use semi-improperly the from Alabama's 1st district" and I don't see you nor anyone else complaining about this, which is the current Wikipedia standard. Hence,  parameter. A republican equivalent of the heir_apparent. Eccekevin (talk) 01:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Don't think we need to deviate into a separate discussion while one is still in process right about it, but within my paragraphs rants above, I suggest we just used neutral nouns instead of some verb tense, which is exactly what they are when we edit them in code. Meaning that instead of displaying "preceded/succeeded by" we just use "predecessor/successor" and we can continue to use "succeeding" when it needs to be made clear the incoming person has not yet entered office. Therequiembellishere (talk) 15:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am sympathetic to your point of view, but it's just gonna cause endless discussions and edit warring every election cycle. As you see above your position (which was mine too) is the losing one. Having a separate parameter solves all that, while giving us the option to put the successor before succession happens.Eccekevin (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You have misread existing discussion. That the label is unclear or ambiguous is hardly the only objection to putting the successor-elect in the infobox before they have taken office. Therefore, creating a new label is not a solution.If there is a consensus in the above RfC, regardless of what it is, it will prevent endless discussions and edit warring every election cycle, which is the whole point of having the RfC. Any editor who knowingly and repeatedly edits against such a consensus will be subject to sanction for WP:DE. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There still will be disagreement since there is not unanimity (as seldom there is). And since there still are those who believe it is a disservice to the reader not to include a successor during the succession period, this will fix that. This is not a compromise, this is a different discussion.Eccekevin (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Apparently you failed to understand my previous comment, specifically the second and third sentences of it. It "fixes" nothing to satisfy those editors while dissatisfying the rest. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a separate argument. It is in the interest of the reader to know who the successor to a post will be. For example: in the 2 months between the election and the succession taking place on January 3rd, it is of importance to the reader to know that Bradley Byrne will be succeeded by Jerry Carl, whose election has been certified. Now, this succession will take place. The chances of it not happening are minimal. Hence, it is non-sensical to not provide this information to the readers of Wikipedia. It is a disservice to not include it. As discussed above, using the successor field can be seen as inaccurate, hence the need for a new field. To the argument that "Jerry Carl might die or something so he might no succeed him" the answer is simple: in the unlikely event of this happening, the field would simply go back to being blank. Wikipedia will not have been inaccurate at any time, since given his election certification Jerry Carl was indeed the elected-successor of Bradley Byrne and the successor_elect parameter was accurate. Indeed, if you go on Jerry Carl's page right now, he is listed as "Member-elect of the U.S. House of Representatives. from Alabama's 1st district" and I don't see you nor anyone else complaining about this, which is the current Wikipedia standard. If he happens to die or something, this can simply be removed. Hence, using this parameter 1) Wikipedia will provide the reader with valuable information on who will succeed a given seat and 2) Wikipedia will not be inaccurate as it would not be using the successor field. if you disagree that Jerry Carl should not be referenced as the successor-elect, then you'd also have to disagree on the use of "Member-elect of the U.S. House of Representatives. from Alabama's 1st district" on his own page.Eccekevin (talk) 01:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - This is workable. GoodDay (talk) 01:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Another quick point: The infobox currently has the predecessor and successor for after the succession, and has the parameter succeeding which is used for members-elect, which is the respective pre-succession parameter of predecessor. What it lacks is the respective pre-succession parameter of successor used for members-elect. This would complete the simmetry and make this infobox more complete. So you'd have succeeding/successor_elect before inaguration and predecessor/successor after the inaguration.Eccekevin (talk) 01:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)Eccekevin (talk) 01:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * No, but appreciate the effort to compromise. I see multiple problems with any compromise on this issue of adding any form of "elected successor" or "successor-elect" or etc to the infobox. For one, an heir apparent is very different from a "elected successor who hasn't yet assumed the office" - they have the title currently, they have duties associated with that title (usually), they are instantly replaced if they die, pass away, or abdicate, and the biggest one is that they instantly replace the person they are heir to upon that person's death/abdication. A "successor-elect" on the other hand does not instantly replace the person they are succeeding until a specific time - this is the main difference. Wikipedia does not have any need to assume or say who their expected successor is - and that's not what heir apparent fields do - heir apparent fields are there to state "if this person dies or abdicates they will be succeeded by this other person, who in the mean time has duties as that heir apparent". Unfortunately, I think it's comparing apples to oranges here simply because the similarity in the names. On another note, there is absolutely no encyclopedic value in saying "it's possibly likely that this person may succeed this person at some point in the future, but that person currently holds no duties related to the office which they may assume at some point" - which is what this parameter would be if added. It's also quite misleading - as if, say, Donald Trump were to pass away or resign within the next two months (well, minus a day or so), he would not be succeeded by Biden as President#46, but by Mike Pence as 46, then by Joe Biden as 47 some short time later. Again, there is no rush to add in information like this in an infobox - and I guarantee you that anyone who actually cares about a specific race/position will be more than capable of editing it within a reasonable amount of time when the succession actually takes place. An infobox is intended to be a brief (yeah, they aren't for the most part, but meh) summary of important information - who, what, why, when, where, how, and some overarching/important details about the person/position. Their expected successor or someone being elected to succeed them but not yet assumed office does not merit being in the infobox, to begin with. For all of these reasons, I cannot support this addition or the use of this parameter. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * But Wikipedia currently does recognize the successor-elect such as in having the succeeding and having member-elect on infoboxes. So the issue isn't whether Wikipedia recognizes the -elect as a category, but whether how it communicates it. If you go on Jerry Carl's page right now, he is listed as "Member-elect of the U.S. House of Representatives. from Alabama's 1st district". According to your reasoning, you should oppose that. But if the consensus allows member-elect status on infoboxes with a succeeding, then this should be reflected in the predecessor's infobox too, else it is internal inconsistency. Eccekevin (talk) 03:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your internal consistency argument can go either way, and I doubt that "member-elect" usage has received much scrutiny, either. Like others on this page, you are assuming that what already exists is inherently best practice, simply because it exists. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you proposing getting rid of the succeeding? Because if that remains, it only is logical to add its complement.Eccekevin (talk) 03:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am proposing that we refrain from creating linkages to existing practice that has not been thoroughly examined. Let the above RfC play out; then, if the consensus is "Wait" and you are concerned about internal consistency, you may (1) start a discussion about succeeding usage, referring to this consensus, or (2) just try some BOLD edits to succeeding, referring to this consensus and arguing internal consistency, and see what happens. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This discussion is independent of the above survey. The current template lacks a proper equivalent to succeeding. Neither succeeding not the recognition of member-elect positions have been put in the discussion, nor do I wish so. I am proposing simply to bring the template to its logical extension.Eccekevin (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree and we are at an impasse, so it would be counterproductive to continue. I oppose the creation of this parameter. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd support removing "Member-elect". This infobox is for officeholders. "Member-elect of ..." isn't an office. EddieHugh (talk) 11:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh no. Let's not go there. GoodDay (talk) 14:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Changing infobox to show "Assuming Office" instead of "Assumed Office"
Hi there - I copied Kate Bedingfield's infobox to Pili Tobar's page and basically rehashed it to fit Tobar's article. However, it is still showing "assumed office" versus "assuming office" - the latter which is reflected on Bedingfield's article. What am I doing wrong? How do I fix that? Thanks. Missvain (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * cc: ‎BeŻet since they were concerned about this, too. I also cross posted this on Tobar's talk page.Missvain (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Both are showing Assuming office, so what's the problem? GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Strange, I guess I just spaced out about refreshing my cache. I appreciate you bringing this to my attention and my apologies for wasting anyone's time. Missvain (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Now that it says assuming office and president elect, everything is in order. Appreciate your help! BeŻet (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)