Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 26

John Politician
John Politician
Representative Example
Criminal charge	doing crime
Penalty	wrist slapping

This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Infobox officeholder. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Residence

WP:BLPPRIVACY says that "articles should not include postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, although links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted" and later "If you see personal information such as phone numbers, addresses, account numbers, etc. in a BLP or anywhere on Wikipedia, edit the page to remove it and contact the oversight team so that they can evaluate it and possibly remove it from the page history." With this policy language, should "residence" remain a parameter in this template? My sense is that it should be deleted from the template to discourage editors from entering information that would violate BLPPRIVACY. --Enos733 (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with residence as long as it is only used for residences which come with the office held: it is reasonable to record that Joe Biden is resident at the White House. But it should not be used for any private residences: so at the Rishi Sunak page we should only list 10 Downing Street and Chequers and should remove the curent reference to Kirby Sigston Manor which is a purely private house. Perhaps the parameter should be changed to "official residence" or similar? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Note also that this parameter was removed from the main person template following this discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm wondering if it might actually belong here, but with some guidance on what is appropriate. When it comes to electoral districts or constituencies, the town/city in which a representative lives might be a germane use of this kind of parameter. I'm not necessarily arguing this is the case, but it is certainly a perspective worth considering. I don't think that would really fall under BLP concerns, and official residences are of course well-suited to such a parameter. Van Isaac, GHTV^cont_WpWS 17:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Template not displaying correctly on Charles Harper (politician)

I recently made changes to Charles Harper (politician) to include all of their offices, but have noticed that under the first office ("2nd Speaker of the Western Australian Legislative Assembly") the predecessor and successor are not showing. I have checked all of the parameters and can't find any errors. Both fields were showing at multiple points when I was previewing the changes I was making but in the final published edit the information isn't displaying. Can someone please tell me what I've done wrong and how to correct it? Adam Black ^{talk • contributions} 20:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I have managed to fix this myself by appending "1" to each of the parameters for that office, but I'm going to leave this discussion here as it does seem like there is an issue with the template. For the edit I was referring to above, see here. Adam Black ^{talk • contributions} 20:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Add criminal fields

Because there is a growing list of politicians turned criminals, I propose that we add fields (criminal_charge, convinction_penalty, and conviction_status) from Template:Infobox criminal to Template:Infobox officeholder in the same way that they have been made available in Template:Infobox person.

Currently, there is a dispute about adding an instance of Template:Infobox criminal to the page of Donald Trump following his criminal conviction. Given that some argue that the use of Template:Infobox criminal is too strong, the amendment of Template:Infobox officeholder as previously mentioned could provide a compromise. Bgregz (talk) 00:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Criminal-related parameters can already be available via module - see example right. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I was not aware of this, thank you! Bgregz (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

What was the rationale for incorporating those parameters into {{infobox person}} rather than using that infobox's |module= parameter? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

It appears that the criminal parameters there predate the implementation of |module=. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Issue with spouse param

The spouse parameter is causing issues on articles eg. Rishi Sunak, Donald Trump 93.37.105.221 (talk) 11:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

That seems to have been fixed. It was caused by changes at Template:If both. Toadspike [Talk] 12:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Template rendering messed up

The rendering is completely messed up on the wiki of many politicians. It is displaying an "ambassador to" field below all tables.

Eg: Narendra Modi, Rishi Sunak

am not able to add screenshots Skratata69 (talk) 11:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

yes, somebody fucked up Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes RWILD ✉ 11:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Yep! The last edits to the template were by User:Jdlrobson on 5 April 2024‎. I don't know if this is the cause or if something else has happened. It looks very unprofessional at the moment. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 12:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I came here to report the same problem. I noticed it on the page Pete Buttigieg. Gottagotospace (talk) 12:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I just posted on the Talk page of the user who last edited the template. Hopefully they can help! Gottagotospace (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

This has now been fixed. Not sure how or why. Toadspike [Talk] 12:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

It's still showing up incorrectly on some pages. Maybe it needs time to "refresh" everywhere? Gottagotospace (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, likely cache issues.

Just noting that I've made this a subsection of the one above - the issue was with an embedded template, which has now been fixed. Primefac (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 June 2024

This edit request to Template:Infobox officeholder has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Clean ndivs; implement my edit today in this template's sandbox page. Santiago Claudio (talk) 06:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@Santiago Claudio: I have no idea what "ndivs" means. What is the purpose of your edit? SilverLocust 💬 07:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Align with edit by administrator Izno to Template:Infobox person last April with a summary of "clean ndivs." Santiago Claudio (talk) 08:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@Izno: Could you clarify what "clean ndivs" means (and/or comment on this requested edit here)? SilverLocust 💬 09:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

No idea where the n came from, but basically the gist is that all the blocks in that template didn't need to be in the br-separated entries, they could just use divs normally. Izno (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Not done: I already made this change here a while ago. Izno (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Caliph

Can you add a caliph= parameter ? A lot articles about Islamic governors/generals use monarch= which is wrong. I know its possible to add it with xblanknamey but thats too much hassle AlexBobCharles (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Age and Deceased status

It seems important to have the age and status of whether a given politician is deceased in a fairly obvious place in the infobox for officeholders. The current state is that there can optionally be a personal information section which contains this below the entire list of political positions, so that instead of being listed clerly, most politician's infoboxes omit the entire "Personal data" section - this seems much worse than having the living status / age highlighted at the top. Davidmanheim (talk) 06:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

That's certainly a valid perspective on things, but the way to do it is to embed in an infobox that makes birth and death more prominent, such as {{Infobox person|module={{Infobox officeholder|embed=yes}}}}. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanisaac (talk • contribs) 06:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the issue here. Most politician articles are of deceased persons. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Edit request 10 August 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Description of suggested change: Nobold in parameter "native name". Diff:

MykolaHK (talk) 18:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. I don't think the proposed code will work correctly, but it should be easy to find out in the sandbox. Do you have consensus for this formatting change? – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Education vs Alma mater

What's the difference between those two fields? Should academic degrees go into the education field? Or is the education field for schools / universities that a subject enrolled in but not graduate from so that they are part of the subject's education but are not an alma mater for them? Or is the education field for non-academic education, i.e. elementary school, middle school, high school (and vocational school?)? Nakonana (talk) 12:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I apply the instructions from {{infobox person}}.

The |education= field is for Education, e.g., degree, institution and graduation year, if relevant. If very little information is available or relevant, the |alma_mater= parameter may be more appropriate.

The |alma_mater= parameter is a more concise alternative to (not addition to) |education=, and will often consist of the linked name of the last-attended institution of higher education (not secondary schools). It is usually not relevant to include either parameter for non-graduates, but article talk page consensus may conclude otherwise, as perhaps at Bill Gates. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

That helps, thanks :) Nakonana (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 July 2024

This edit request to Template:Infobox officeholder has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

To any administrator, apply these, my previous edits to this infobox's sandbox:

Santiago Claudio (talk) 02:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Above at #Edit request on 18 June 2024, I asked for an explanation of the purpose of this edit. The explanation given (Align with edit by administrator Izno to Template:Infobox person last April with a summary of "clean ndivs.") did not make it any clearer. SilverLocust 💬 10:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Not done pending an explanation * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

This request is for alignment with |abovestyle= and |above= in {{Infobox person}}. Santiago Claudio (talk) 02:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Which test case contains a test of |abovestyle= and other new parameters? Why have useful HTML comment tags been removed? Why has the color been removed from headerstyle? Why has |class=skin-invert been removed? This proposed change does not look valid to me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Harry Truman. On the contrary, comment tags were added and there's still header background color; no new parameters. |class=skin-invert was already omitted when the sandbox was created. Santiago Claudio (talk) 01:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The Harry Truman test case does not contain |abovestyle= or |post-nominals=. Here's a diff link comparing the current live template with the sandbox. You should be able to see that there are more differences there than the one you are requesting. Please sync the sandbox with the live template before making proposed edits. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Auxiliaries are not "Military Service"

Thanks to this template, Dan Cox is listed as having military service because of having been in the Civil Air Patrol, even though CAP isn't one of the uniformed services and those who join it aren't subject to military discipline. Is there a way this template could be make to accommodate this difference, or would it be necessary to just remove it from the info box in the article itself and just refer to that membership in the article text? Thanks! --Steve Foerster (talk) 14:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@SteveFoerster, great catch! In my opinion, it should be removed from the infobox within that article on Dan Cox followed by an announcement on Talk:Dan Cox clarifying why it was removed. I can’t believe the infobox /doc needs clarification. But if you think that would help, it might be a good idea. — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 17:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Military Rank

What is the common practice when using the |rank= parameter if the officeholder held a higher rank than the one with which they separated military service?

As a case in point, Tim Walz held the rank of Command Sergeant Major (provisional), but retired as Master Sergeant, a lower rank. Should this parameter be highest rank, or last rank held? — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 03:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

This is already being discussed extensively at Talk:Tim Walz, so a new discussion about that person should not be started here. I think you'll have better results if you post a query at Template talk:Infobox military person asking people to visit that article's discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, @Jonesey95, but I was hoping a different discussion here could help others when editing other articles. The /doc page is not at all clear on expected use of this attribute. Another editor could easily decide Chief Bottle Washer is an acceptable value, although common sense might rule otherwise. I’m just expecting a more public discussion here might help establish a best common practice. I still feel my question (with that aim) belongs here. The Tim Walz article is but one example. — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 18:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Clashing spouse parameter instructions

Following discussion with @Wozal: here and here, I want to seek consensus on removing the comment "Spouse(s), if notable" here: Template:Infobox officeholder § TemplateData (click show). This note shows up on visual editor for some editors. The template page itself does not have this note if you ctrl+f for "spouse" (it is currently only hidden under TemplateData), so, in my opinion, these instructions clash. Also, I've found the vast majority of pages follow the guidance that a spouse's name is included in the infobox, even if the spouse(s) are not notable enough to have a page in the encyclopedia; e.g., Stephen A. Douglas, Elizabeth Warren, J. B. Pritzker, Tina Kotek, Steve Womack, etc., etc. Also, if one spouse was notable and a second spouse was not, would we say "2, including Martha". I think the expectation that only notable spouses should be added is odd guidance, if you want a quick and full view of a subject's life, which is the goal of infobox, as far as I understand. --Engineerchange (talk) 14:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

If details of the non-notable spouse are known, such as if they died, divorced or the dates of the marriage, {{marriage}} can be used. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Neveselbert: Yup, I'm aware of the marriage template. My comment is on the TemplateData instruction insisting only notable spouses should be included in the infobox when the parameter is widely used for all spouses (notable and non-notable) of the subject. The absence of any instruction under Template:Infobox officeholder#Usage for the spouse parameter conflicts with the TemplateData instruction. --Engineerchange (talk) 04:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

If the guidance in the TemplateData programming code conflicts with the actual template documentation as established either by practice or consensus, the TemplateData guidance should be fixed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Just a dumb question but, when is a spouse “not notable”? — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 18:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

If they lack an article of their own. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Precedent across WP doesn’t seem to support that. I’ve seen many articles to the contrary. — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 18:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how we measure precedent here, but looking at this category of FA articles, feels like a fair start. From poking around, I feel like the lion's share follow my comment of non-notable and notable spouses added alike. Most articles are of dignitaries, royalty, or world leaders that have only notable spouses. A select handful do not list any spouse at all in the infobox, despite them being mentioned in the article (e.g., Hugh Beadle and Louis H. Bean); refuting my point. Some examples of the lion's share of articles in this category that do meet the criteria I mentioned, which one would imagine have been largely scrutinized since they are FA: James G. Blaine, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Adams, David Lewis (Canadian politician), Li Rui, Norodom Ranariddh, Nikita Khrushchev, Emma Goldman. Also, I wanted to comment that the note for the spouse parameter for Infobox military person () may be a more appropriate change than just keeping the spouse parameter blank, as it is now for this template? Hope these comments help move the conversation forward. Cheers, --Engineerchange (talk) 03:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment The description was added in 2019 by Daviddwd.[1]—Bagumba (talk) 04:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment Reading the comments above, I think, so far, @Jonesey95: is also in concurrence with the removal of the comment from TemplateData for the spouse parameter on this template. --Engineerchange (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 14 September 2024

This edit request to Template:Infobox officeholder has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hi. I want you to add "Major donors" to the officeholder template so people can easily see who is behind the person's funding. Thanks! DivineReality (talk) 07:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC) DivineReality (talk) 07:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 10:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Position of the party field

The party field currently goes to personal details, In this version of Isaac Newton It seems disconnected from his political office. I did this to bypass the template default. Can we change it so the "party" label puts it in personal details and "party1" label puts in the office section? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. Political officials have a responsibility to serve their entire constituency. While political affiliation guides decision-making, and is a personal decision that could be subject to change (over the time in a specific office or over the subject's life. So, in the specific case, Newton was a Whig while in Parliament, and presumably was a Whig for (all of) most of his life, so it is better to put affiliation under personal details. And, as members of parliament represent their constituency, not their party, adding political party labels in the information about the office clutters the office section and implies incorrect information about the nature of the office. - Enos733 (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)