Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 3

Additional problems
editprotected

I'm attempting to update several infoboxes, examples are here. I've noticed that for Governor Mike Rounds, there is an error in attempting to add his prior term as a state senator and state senate majority leader. The dates of his service as senator and majority leader display properly, but the heading indicating he was majority leader does not. Also, I'm updating Senator Johnson's infobox to include his U.S. House and South Dakota legislative service. The "preceeded" information is not displaying properly. Could someone take a look at my examples to see if it is something I'm doing wrong or if there is a problem with the code?Dcmacnut 16:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I've also noticed problems using the "state_legislature" option under Infobox State Representative (i.e. for the Nebraska Unicameral Legislature). It erroneously addes a "member of the U.S. House of Representatives" header immediately after "member of the Nebraska Legislature" as seen in this example for Mike Flood, current Speaker of the Legislature. Could someone please make the appropriate fix? Also, since these unicameral members are referred to as "state senator", I think it would be more appropriate to have the "state_legislature" template listed under Infobox State Senator instead.Dcmacnut 22:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Thanks. I’ve noticed a new addition needed. Maryland, Viriginia, and West Virginia all have a House of Delegates rather than a House of Representatives or Assembly. Is there room for a new field for “state_delegate”? Also, we address some of the leadership offices under “State Senator,” but some positions are not included are are also used by other legislative bodies. Do we need to add the following fields for completeness? These are just a few added thoughts of mine. When you deal with 50 different state governments and 6 territorial governments in the U.S., it is hard to standardize a template when each legislature has its own exceptions to the rule.Dcmacnut 13:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's the code to fix it. --Philip Stevens 06:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Majority/Minority Leader of the House (U.S. Congress and State House/Assembly/Legislature/Delegates)
 * President of the Senate (State Senator – in 25 U.S. states, this post is filled by an elected state senator, and not the Lieutenant Governor)
 * Speaker Pro Tempore (State Representative)
 * President Pro Tempore (Senator and State Senator)
 * Speaker of the Senate (Only used by Tennessee, so this probably could be displayed using a generic “office” field)
 * Vice President of the Senate (Only used by Wyoming and Puerto Rico. Again, probably could use a generic “office” field to display the information
 * I've added a field for state delegates see the top of this page. I've also fixed the problem with state_legislature. --Philip Stevens 15:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done --MZMcBride 05:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Nationality or citizenship?
This template uses the highly ambiguous word "nationality", an attribute of a nation; however, in practice, it is often being used to denote citizenship rather than nationality. If we aim to be a proper encyclopedia we must avoid sloppy, ambiguous and POV terms. If we mean "citizenship" then we must use the word "citizenship". --Mais oui! 17:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

add "Governor-General"
edit protected There is a field for the "Monarch", however for countries like Australia, New Zealand, Canada etc, there also should be fields for "Governor-General". Could that please be added as an option. When added, it should be directly below the "Monarch" field. Brian | (Talk) 06:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is the code that will do the above. Cut and paste the code into the template. --Philip Stevens 11:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 16:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Philip Stevens & MZMcBride Brian | (Talk) 22:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Good addition to the template, however there was already a field for "Governor General" (without the hyphen -) that covers the same offices. There are more than 50 articles, such as John Kerr associated with . Governor-General (with the hyphen) is the correct spelling, but there are only two articles, such as Michael Jeffery associated with . We should strive to correct all Governor-General infoboxes to ensure they include the hyphen where appropriate.Dcmacnut 13:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In Canada it's spelt Governor General, see Governor General of Canada. --Philip Stevens 16:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The point of this addition was for use on on the infoboxes, for example Prime Ministers. If you look at Tony Blair the Monarch is listed, (in other countries the President is listed) thus for the Commonwealth Realms their Governor-General, by default should be listed imo. Canada is the only place that spells it with out the hyphen -. I suggest we correct all of the ones except the Canada ones, keep there local spelling. Brian | (Talk) 19:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know that about Canadian spelling. Thanks. I agree with including governors-general in commonwealth country infoboxes.Dcmacnut 00:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ambassador issue
How can I get Kingdom of Hawaii to work with the ambassador template, see James McBride (politician) for how it currently is working. Thanks. Aboutmovies 02:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed, I just redirected the Template:Country data Kingdom of Hawaii to Template:Country data Hawaii. Do the equivalent if it happens again. --Philip Stevens 06:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Aboutmovies 07:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Fix needed for Iowa Senate
editprotected This template needs to be made so that when set for the Iowa Senate, it will display "Member of the Iowa Senate from the nth district", rather than what it currently displays ("Member of the Iowa State Senate from the nth district"). The link also needs to be changed so that it links to the Iowa Senate rather than to the non-existent Iowa State Senate. Thanks --Tim4christ17 talk 22:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is the code to fix the problem. I've also added some updates and allowed for two more offices. --Philip Stevens 10:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * New code installed. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 20:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys. --Tim4christ17 talk 08:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Constituency problems
editprotected

The constituency field does not seem to be working on many articles look at Tony Blair only the Incumbent banner is showing. -- Barryob   Vigeur de dessus  01:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is the code to fix the problem. --Philip Stevens 06:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done --ais523 13:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-numerical districts
Is there a way we can change the way districts show? The current way is wonderful for someone from a numbered district, however, some people (such as Jack Kibbie) have apparently served in a non-numbered district. In this case, his infobox should read "Member of the Iowa House of Representatives from Palo Alto County". The closest we can come to that with the current code is "Member of the Iowa House of Representatives from the Palo Alto County District". --Tim4christ17 talk 11:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's possible to have it without the word 'district' on the end as the field name depends on the word. The best option is to simply put "Member of the Iowa House of Representatives from Palo Alto County" into the office field. --Philip Stevens 12:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Code
What is the original code/source for this template? Nat Tang ta 21:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is the original code for this template, if that's what you mean. It's changed considerably since then though. --Philip Stevens 12:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Code for Latin Version
I need a copy of the current code so that I may adapt it for the Latin version of this encyclopedia, which is woefully lacking with regards to infoboxes in general. I in no way wish to commit vandalism and I hope that someone can email me this code at: andy85719@gmail.com. It would be most appreciated. Andy85719 22:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is the code. I should point out that the code is very complex due to the fact that it was designed to replace several templates that all worked slightly differently. --Philip Stevens 11:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit Requested: "Occupation" >> "Career"
This change was (sort of) originally suggested by Faithlessthewonderboy here.

I request that "Occupation" be changed to "Career" or something similar. Many of the Officeholder pages describe individuals who are exclusively office holders by occupation. "Occupation" in these cases has been (for most presidents, at least) interpreted broadly by the editing community to mean "occupation prior to office." This is misleading to readers, since absent qualifications "Occupation" is taken to imply present position. "Career" escapes the issue, since it doesn't have the same present focus. --XDanielx 06:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would agree with that proposal for federal office holders, however many state legislators (which are covered by the same templates) only serve part-time, so "occupation" is the more appropriate term to use for them. They still work at their "day jobs" while serving part of the year as legislators. "Career" doesn't quite capture the fact that they are still employeed in their regular profession. I would recommend leaving "Occupation" as an option for state legislators and adding "Profession" for federal office holders. Many directories list "previous profession" to idenfity past employment, rather than "Career." Dcmacnut 15:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This template is incredibly visible, so I've disabled the editprotected request while discussion continues. When there's a consensus, or if further comments indicate ambivalence to the change, please feel free to re-enable the editprotected request. Cheers. --MZMcBride 13:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks MZMcBride. I didn't forget about this request, I just don't have a strong opinion. I loosely agree with Dcmacnut; although I think "career" would be reasonably fitting for a part-time office holder I suppose "occupation" is slightly more specific (though it still leaves the question of part-time vs. full-time ambiguous, but what they hay). Dcmacnut's proposal of keeping "Occupation" intact would probably be a good idea for easing the transition as well, as removing "Occupation" would result in a temporary data loss that might go unnoticed on some pages. So I suppose I am in favor of keeping "Occupation" and adding "Career" in addition to it. "Profession" would be fine too; I'd prefer "Career" because I think it has a slightly strong implication of pre-office work rather than current work. (I must emphasize "slight implication"; I realize that neither "career" nor "profession" strictly mandates a certain relative time period.) But given the obvious similarity, I really don't have a strong preference between the two. --xDanielxTalk 06:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Re-enabling editprotected template since discussion is likely ended, but issue remains unresolved. — xDanielx T/C 18:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't commented in a while because I thought the issue had gone away. There is now a "Profession" field in the personal data, which can be used when "Occupation" isn't appropriate. Career is too general, and is not accurate enough for part-time officeholders. It is generally understood by readers that an officeholder's current "job" is that of an officeholder/politician/senator/congressman/etc, so any mention of a profession or occupation would then be viewed as what that person "does" when he or she is not in office. Rather than replacing "Occupation" with "Career", how about creating a separate "Career" field, so editors have the option of using the term that best fits the situation, rather than making a single that could potentially affect hundreds of infoboxes?Dcmacnut 19:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hm, sounds good to me. I'll re-disable the immediate edit request in case discussion develops further, but if an admin stumbles across this feel free to be bold exercise discretion. I guess I agree with Dcmacnut about creating a separate field, but again, no strong opinion from me. — xDanielx T/C 00:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Parameters for dead people
editprotected The templates Infobox person and Infobox actor now have parameters for  and   (see Marylin Monroe for an example using both). I think we should add them to this template. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 22:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Above is the code to be placed under the 'date of death' field. --Philip Stevens 17:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * done. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 22:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

How about diplomatic Ministers?
Can a change be made to the code that will allow for a proper title for a diplomatic Minister? Jacob B. Blair actually served as U.S. Minister (rather than Ambassador) to Costa Rica. Preferably the link could be United States Minister to Costa Rica. Thanks — Bellhalla 23:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything wrong with that, but the code needs to be written and tested before an admin can come and copy it in. If you need help with the code, you can see if someone else responds here, or go to Requested templates. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 00:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I would contact . He's the main maintainer of this template (and he does a great job : - ) ). --MZMcBride 00:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is the code to allow for this. Once implemented, changed the field name from  to   for the field to work. --Philip Stevens 12:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 23:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hiding placeholder images with CSS
I plan to add span tags around the image like on User:Patrick/Infobox Officeholder‎, see Wikipedia_talk:Fromowner.--Patrick 01:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Addition of Spoken Languages Field
Could a field for "languages spoken" (or some variation thereof) please be added? Or, alternatively, another easy way to work in a link to the page Linguistic capabilities of modern world leaders, it's been tagged as an orphan for quite awhile... Thanks! Moogle10000 01:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't quite ready for an editprotected request. This has been brought up before and will require discussion before being implemented. Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Adding premier
Could someone add Premier as one of the alternatives to Prime Minister? I myself could technically change it, but I'm afraid I might screw up the code somewhere. nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 16:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Drop a note on User talk:Philip Stevens and ask him nicely to write the code. --MZMcBride 01:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is the code. --Philip Stevens 05:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 06:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

'Religion'
What would an atheist have for this field, assuming his atheism were notable? 'Atheism'? Can't, it's not a religion. 'None'? Better, but ignores the diversity across nonbelievers (similar to replacing all instances of 'Catholic' with 'Theist'). The field needs to be renamed. 'Religious beliefs' is more inclusive, but excludes weak atheism. How about 'Religious stance'? It's a little long, but I can't think of anything shorter that has an appropriate meaning. Ilkali 12:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You're taking this too literally. The fields in the infobox are supposed to be short, not fully descriptive.  It would be fine to put down "atheist" in the religion box, just like how it would be OK to list someone as "Catholic" even if their "true" belief is "...well, I'm Catholic, but I only go to church on Easter, etc...."  If a person's religion is relevant and needs a detailed explanation, put it in the body of the article.  --M @ r ē ino 14:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"font-size:small;" on honorifics
I suggest adding "font-size:small;" for the display of  and. I find the current display a bit overwhelming, see comparison at right. (It's hardcoded with the current HTML so as to stay relevant even if the template changes.)

The demonstrated code change would be straigthforward, to replace:  [...] 

with:

 [...] 

&mdash; Komusou talk @ 09:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. Pascal.Tesson 22:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Lieutenant Governors
Could someone please add a section for lieutenant governors, which are necessary for the infoboxes on the articles about present and previous premiers of the Canadian provinces. Thanks. --G2bambino 23:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ --nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 00:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Cheers. --G2bambino 00:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Infobox CanadianMP
editprotected This code will allow for Infobox CanadianMP to be redirected here. --Philip Stevens 18:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I made the change here and redirected the other template. I made a cursory check nothing was broken. The instructions here still need to be updated. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 01:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

What information to include
I note that on most articles on prime ministers, the infobox includes the head of state (monarchical or presidential) whom the prime minister ministered. However, one editor is vehemently opposed to including this information on articles on Canadian prime ministers; his only argument against is that the head of state is "unimportant," though no reasoning as to why this is so. A discussion was opened at Talk:Stephen Harper on the matter, in which only three people participated; two were in support of including the information, one was opposed. After more than one week no other input was offered; however, the same opposing editor still insists the information not be included and has continued to edit war over the matter.

I am under the impression that there are "monarch" and "president" sections in this template specifically for mention of the monarch or president on a given minister's infobox. Is this indeed the case? And, further, is there some guideline which sets down that these persons should be mentioned in an infobox for a prime minister/chancellor? --G2bambino 00:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the person who appoints the officeholder is of importance and should be included in the infobox. This happens with all UK and US cabinet officials (example David Milliband, Condoleezza Rice) and all UK Prime Ministers (example Winston Churchill). I see no reason why it should be any different for Canadian PMs. --Hera1187 13:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Hera. G2bambino (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The only slight problem is who exactly appoints them. Technically for a UK Cabinet Minister it's the monarch, but in practice it's the PM - hence Hilary Benn's boxes list Brown and Blair, but not Elizabeth II. Who is heading the government that the minister is a member of is something different from who is appointing the head of government. -- Timrollpickering (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's wrong, then, to claim the PM appoined another cabinet minister. The PM may advice the monarch on whom to appoint, and the monarchy may not ever question this, but it's still clearly the monarch who appoints his or her ministers. G2bambino (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Viceprimeminister parameter
When the office parameter value is wikilinked, the viceprimeminister parameter cannot be used. – Ilse@ 20:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Try using the order field instead of the office field. --Philip Stevens 17:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Children
Should there be a spot to include the names of the person's children? Morhange (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The field is already there under Personal Data. Dcmacnut (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Usefulness/uselessness of Religion field
I think the religion field should be removed from here. As I experienced in a few articles about Italian politicians, this field has been used and (more often) abused by wise editors, with no source at all. In addition, I think the infobox should cover solely those information which are strictly relevant to the subject's political office (and surely religion is not one of these). Thoughts? --Angelo (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This issue was discussed extensively earlier this year, and no consensus was reached. Generally, a lot of editors support leaving the religion parameter in place, since many official bios and other listings of elected officials include their religion or denomination. Many candidates also highlight their religion during their campaigns and political life. One could say that if religion is not "relevant to the subject's political office," the same could be said for spouse, children, education, and profession, which are also personal data included in many boxes.
 * If editors are using the religion parameter to conduct edit wars or to defame a particular candidate, that information can and should be deleted. WP:BLP requires verifiable, reliable sources for information regarding living persons, so if someone is adding false or misleading religion data in an officeholders infobox, it should be deleted immediately.Dcmacnut (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If editors are using the religion parameter to conduct edit wars or to defame a particular candidate, that information can and should be deleted. WP:BLP requires verifiable, reliable sources for information regarding living persons, so if someone is adding false or misleading religion data in an officeholders infobox, it should be deleted immediately.Dcmacnut (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Dcmacnut (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As I've said elsewhere, for those politicians and others who have made their religious beliefs an important part of their lives, the addition of the "religion" field is appropriate. For example, George Bush, Tony Blair and current Prime Minister of Australia Kevin Rudd are all people who have made their religious beliefs very public and well-known. For these people, the addition of religion is appropriate. For someone where it is not widely known or publicised, then it's not appropriate. Simple. I think the WikiSecularists are quite wrong on this. JRG (talk) 10:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with JRG. Where relevance and context are satisfied, the inclusion is appropriate. --Brendan [ contribs ] 15:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)