Template talk:Infobox officeholder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This template is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject U.S. Congress (Rated Template-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 High  This template has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
This template is about one (or many) Person(s).
WikiProject United States / Government (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.
WikiProject Politics (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Guidelines for when to include each parameter[edit]

Some guidelines as to when to use each parameter might be helpful. There is currently a disagreement (Talk:Julia Gillard#Inclusion of monarch and governor-general in infobox) about whether the monarch and governor-general should be included in {{infobox prime minister}}.

Chronological order of offices[edit]

Should the chronology run with the most recent office at the top or the most recent office at the bottom? I just looked at 10 people and they were about equal in the way the chronology was displayed, as well as one that was not in chronological order, but had the most important one at the top. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

This is my question as well. Look at Charles de Gaulle. First listed is president of France (1960s), then leader of the French forces (WW2), then other offices ending with prime minister (just before becoming president). I think that we should either adopt a policy to order by significance (as seems to be the case with de Gaulle) or a reverse chronological order (most recent at top, which in most cases will be the most significant office). --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 02:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Wikipedia mavens. I am wondering how hard it would be to make one new field available for most elected officials, an "Eligible For Re-election" field with month and year and a bold header similar to "Assumed Office." This field could have a profound impact on how users digest Wikipedia information for elected officials. Right now, if a user researches for Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, for example, he/she discovers he came to office in 1997. They might assume 1996 was an election year for his office (He could also have been appointed in the wake of a death/resignation). Then the reader must either Google for when Sessions is up for re-election or else do mental acrobatics to decide when Jeff Sessions is up again for reelection. They might try to calculate in their head following election years => 2002, 2008, and 2014. This is an awful lot of mental gyration for most readers simply trying to quickly distill the most important data for Senator Jeff Sessions. In a day and age when most Americans probably think 6-year terms are too long and elected officials should be subject to term limits, seems like a field like this would be very valuable to voters, writers, teachers, etc; but I would not be sure where to create the field in the template for general use. I would gladly volunteer to go in and add this field to pages for all 50 US Senators. I understand how to use the fields once they're part of a template; but I don't know how to integrate the initial coding. --KWSager (talk) 01:26, 21 10 June 2014 (EST)

I think what you want should be called |current_term_expires= for countries like the United States with fixed-length periods between elections and |current_term_expires_no_later_than= for countries like Great Britain where there is a maximum period before the next elections but "snap elections" may be called before that date. It should be written to include behind-the-scenes code similar to {{update after}}, so that when the term expires the article is put into an "out of date article" maintenance category. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

"Lieutenant Governor" field[edit]

Seems to me that the "Lieutenant governor" field messes with the alignment of the infomation column on templated that use this eg. Alison Redford, Alexander Edmund Batson Davie, John Robson, etc., in that it compresses it and makes unnecessary line breaks... is there any way a linebreak can be put between the words "Lieutenant Governor" on the box? Thanks. – Connormah (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

@Connormah: I've taken the {{nowrap}} off the label. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Connormah (talk) 05:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Why not abbreviate, "Lt. Governor" or "Lieut. Governor"? Activist (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


Currently, there isn't enough contrast, in size and/or colour, between the font used for the honorifics and post-nominal letters and that used for the subject's name. The subject's name, which should obviously be the most prominent textual element, becomes camouflaged among a jumble of words and letters. Can the sizing and colours/tones be adjusted to remedy this legibility issue? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

This relates to discussion at Talk:Michaëlle Jean#Text formatting. There is also a related RfC there on the use of {{plainlist}} in an instance of this template, where editors may wish to comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy;Andy's edits 17:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Here is how the default styling of {{Infobox officeholder}} would render the section if it were allowed (what Miesianiacal calls "camouflaged among a jumble of words and letters"):
The Right Honourable
Michaëlle Jean

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

I would suggest, as a compromise, that the infobox could be amended to slightly reduce the default font size and weight of the honorific and post-nominals as I have done in the sandbox. this would be the result (and that's pretty much at the limit of what I can comfortably focus):
The Right Honourable
Michaëlle Jean
What do others think? --RexxS (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


The Right Honourable
Michaëlle Jean

Another alternative is to keep the honorifcs as at present, but make the name bigger. I've mocked that up here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I considered that, Andy, but infoboxes have a limited width, so keeping the name at 110% and reducing the size of the honorifics (as in the sandbox) allows longer names, etc. without undue wrapping, and seems more to match the spirit of what Miesianiacal is trying to do. Setting the name at 126% as in your mockup would make it significantly larger than names in other biographical infoboxes. Additionally, per MOS:BOLD, there's no reason to have the honorifics at more than normal font weight, and whatever solution is found ought to at least remove the bolding from them. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
The accessibility and legibility topics are a subset of the Text formatting discussion on the Talk:Michaëlle Jean page. Can we terminate/consolidate this discussion and keep everything in one place because decisions in both threads will affect infobox officeholder. --Karl Stephens ( talk | contribs ) 17:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
or terminate/consolidate Talk:Michaëlle Jean and continue discussion on this page so long as we're not discussing the same point in two pages. --Karl Stephens ( talk | contribs ) 17:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
As the styling for text in an infobox ought to be part of the infobox, I believe this is the right place to have any fruitful discussion. The debate at Talk:Michaëlle Jean #Text formatting stopped on the same day that it was raised here. As there are no other suggestions to answer Miesianiacal's question (and assuming no further discussion ensues here), tomorrow I propose to boldly make the changes to this template that are in the sandbox. I'll clean up the articles that transclude Infobox governor general or Infobox Governor General and have inline styling of the honorifics. --RexxS (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
The sandbox version looks liked a good compromise that meets policy especially for accessibility. --Karl Stephens ( talk | contribs ) 02:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, it certainly is looking better. The contrast in font works well. My only critique at the moment would be that the subject's name is still a little too small, but, I did note the comment above about the want to avoid wrapping. If there's no way to make the subject's name bigger vis-à-vis the honorifics/post-noms without making the latter smaller than 85% or the former so big that it will cause wrapping more often than is reasonable, then, I guess this should do. Is there a way to make the font of the subject's name more bold? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't recommend trying to make the title extra-bold because some browsers handle that badly (it's already bold because it's in a row header (<td>...</td>). I've tweaked the sandbox to make the title 5% bigger. You can edit the sandbox as well, if you want to try bigger sizes, because it's not protected like the main template is. You may need to purge the sandbox page to make any changes visible. Unfortunately, the 'preview' box at the bottom of the sandbox version doesn't work because of the redirect. Would Freeman Freeman-Thomas, 1st Marquess of Willingdon have the longest title ("the Marquess of Willingdon") that you're aware of? --RexxS (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
The Right Honourable
Michaëlle Jean
Major the Most Honourable
the Marquess of Willingdon

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

RfC on successor/predecessor where a district is not reasonably viewed as the same after redistricting[edit]

Consensus is reasonably clear that successor or predecessor should not be used in infoboxes where significant redistricting has taken place. Useitorloseit did raise a valid concerns about POV over what level of redistricting is needed to render these parameters unusable, so davidwr's suggestion that this is decided on a case-by-case basis is sensible. Number 57 21:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

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.

Where the use of "same district number" is used for determining "predecessor" and "successor" n any office, but where the area is so altered as to make such a "predecessor" or "successor" of little or no biographical value, should the infobox be deprecated for such redistricting changes? 19:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


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

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

My inclination is to say its the same, but could you give an example of the type of office you are thinking of? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Very likely also true. Where the term "successor" and "predecessor" have no actual biographical value but exist only for an artificial "continuity" then it is likely the use is "useless." While not covered in the RfC, this would also be a solution to "predecessor" and "successor" for Popes, monarchs etc. where "simultaneous officeholders" existed. And I still can not find any substantial discussion in the past about this -- since very rarely do "complete non-overlaps" seem to occur. When they do, they are a doozy. Collect (talk) 20:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Hrm, in the case of Popes or Monarchs where there is a schism or dispute, unless there is a reliable WP:RS/AC saying who the actual successor was -I think the succession box should likely list both, and perhaps provide a link to the article/section about the schism. Certainly in the case of Scisms both branches claim to be the legitimate successor. However, these things usually ended with a de-facto winner (although sometimes a few generations later) so we could just go with whichever "genealogy" "won" as the true successor.

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

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


  • Support As being least misleading to Wikipedia readers overall. It will not affect a great many districts, but the few it does affect may result in laughter among folks who look at such matters. No laws require states to maintain the same numbers from one redistricting to the next, so, in theory, a Congressperson from "Drarg's" (arbitrary state) second district" may be from "North Drarg", and the new "second district" may be at the other end of "Drarg." For successor, the quickest solution is to use "redistricted" for either "successor" or "predecessor" as needed. Collect (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • 'Support (agree)' Activist (talk) 05:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This is analagous to how we deal with succession in the British Peerage, for recreations of titles. For example Earl_of_March was created 3 times, and our succession boxes do not link continuously between them (Roger_Mortimer,_1st_Earl_of_March#External_links and Esmé_Stewart,_3rd_Duke_of_Lennox for example both say "New title"). Where a single geographical area is redistricted, and we can identify the new district, or someone managed to survive redistricting, we can link to the new district with a note, rather than making a nonsense "succession" based on nothing other than name of the district. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, per above posts. Anything else is simply misleading. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Provisional oppose pending researching the matter. We need to find out how "the outside world" treats such things and follow that. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC) Updated: See new comment below. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  • [1] mirrors the proposed change, saying "New York's 11th Congressional District (formerly the 13th) is based in Staten Island....". However, more research is needed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The New York Times uses the logical progression considering the actual location of the district and not the "district number." (specifically, it in no way implies that Rangel is Grimm's "successor" in Congress) Collect (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Rangel's own page seems to treat it per the suggestion , saying "The district that represents harlem", and specifically discussing the redistricting. [2]

as does the NY Times [3], where his predecessor is Adam Clayton Powell, Jr.. Rangel's infobox is basically nonsense, saying he has 4 different predecessors, when he has continuously held the Harlem seat for decades. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Support pending some examples of how some real life sources deal with this. per examples above --John (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, per examples above by Gaijin42 and others. Jonathunder (talk) 23:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support In an electoral contest for someone to succeed another implies that the new rep beat the former rep at an election (or might have if the former rep hadn't died or retired). If the boundaries are all redrawn from scratch it just doesn't make sense. A person might be described as moving constituency even though they continued to represent the same place. To count as the same constituency the territory covered by the new constituency should be substantially the same as the old constituency, and treated by most sources as such. For example: Ed Balls is listed as having represented two constituencies even though there was some overlap between the new and old ones. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 23:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support obvious improvement and de-cluttering of infobox. --ELEKHHT 09:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Michael Grimm did not "succeed" Charlie Rangel in any sense other than the numbered districts getting moved around. Decluttering is a bonus. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Subject to some clarification of how to deal with messy situations such as a redistricting in which 10% of the district (by area) and 40% of the district (by poppulation) is in overlap, but the reminader is from a different district. While far from an expert on such matters, I think such siutaions can occur.S Philbrick(Talk) 20:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The clarification is "of little or no biographical value" - if the district is so changed as to make the information of little or no value to the reader, we ought not to provide it to the reader. In short - a 95% "same district" would likely not be confusing, while a "under 25% district" would almost certainly be confusing. We do not need to define an exact percentage here -- just say that if the information is not actually useful, it should not be given. Collect (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Changed from "provisional oppose" to Support in the instant case being discussed per the discussion above, Recommend case-by-case discussions with the burden of demonstrating that the "outside world" disregards the seat number when making any future changes to mentions of predecessors or successors and making a strong recommendation that the predecessor/successor connections be kept consistent. In other words, if John Doe (8th district) becomes Amy Smith (10th district) after a redistricting and either a retirement or losing an election, the articles about John Doe, Amy Smith, and the article about both districts should be consistent in their use of "successor" and "predecessor." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
    • In the Rangel case where he now has multiple predecessors, I think you mean "only the logical actual predecessor and successor" should be used, rather than specifically citing "all predecessors and successors for prior and later uses of that district number"? Or do you mean "the Rangel current use is optimal for consistency"? (shown below) Thanks. Collect (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose- I'll add the counter-argument for the sake of it. Though U.S. Congress biographies make 0 reference to redistricting (I've yet to see one among hundreds), almanacs and state blue book-type gazetteer sources list them only year to year, making following one individual's electoral history a matter of having to review every district. Though unreferenced, List of United States Representatives from Florida addresses it the best I remember in the introduction, but suddenly removing navigateability from thousands of articles does the readers a disservice (disregarding the 7 single states, 428 x 5 is 2140 references needed just for the last 5 decades, the majority of which boil down to 'minor change'; there are 7,390 state legislators); while it could be done solely with succession boxes at the bottom, not all those have been done. Dru of Id (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
    • The official Congressional biographies do not use "district number" as the qualification for asserting much at all -- the person is called "the Distinguished Member from(State)" in the record. [4] does not make any reference at all to "district number." As it does not use "district number" in the first place, there is obviously no need for it to refer to redistricting changing a district number. Congress does not use "district numbers" for anything biographical at all. And the argument this is too big a task" Lo alecha hamlacha ligmor applies. We must recognize the task, though we be unable to finish it. And the "successor" and "predecessor" usages are individual to each article - we need not worry about breaking anything at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
      • I stipulated I hadn't seen one even mention it so it would be a non-issue. I don't think the task is too large, or cannot be completed; as with anything else, its a matter of volume, time, and attention. I don't think very many editors understand the difficulties the disabled have navigating. Feel free to remove a useful navigation tool anyway. Dru of Id (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
        • Reading the sample below- can you tell me exactly who was Rangel's actual predecessor and actual successor in Congress? If not, then the current system is not "disabled friendly" at all, and are not a "useful navigation tool". Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose While I see the argument, I think it's POV to try to determine when there's a true successor and when there isn't. Even though there may be a case when there's no overlap, that still opens it up to arguments about how much is an overlap, etc. Better to have a blanket rule that if the number is the same, then list the predecessor/successor. Doing so will also convey the fact that the numbers and districts change a lot and don't mean that much, which will be lost if there's no links to the previous occupant. Useitorloseit (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – Per Collect's suggestion, using redistricted is going to be the logical choice as a predecessor or successor in many cases (see my comments above), just the same as with using at-large in certain cases. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 09:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Talkeetna, Alaska#Legislative representation is still a work in progress, but may be helpful to this discussion. The Talkeetna voting precinct, upon which this list was based, has seen boundary changes from time to time, but nothing really of consequence. The important consideration would be in noting how many times the district letters and numbers for this one precinct have changed over the years, and compare that with the maps of those districts. The most substantial changes are to the lettering/numbering scheme, not to anything based on geography, as Talkeetna has been aligned with other portions of the Matanuska-Susitna Valley throughout Alaska's history as a state. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 11:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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.

Relations field[edit]

"Relations" is rather ambiguous. Wouldn't "relatives" be better? Zerotalk 11:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

We should maintain consistency between the parameter name in this and other biographical templates, not least {{Infobox person}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree, but the parameter name listed at Template:Infobox person is "relatives", not "relations". Zerotalk 12:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Birth name[edit]

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

While on the subject of missing parameters[edit]

What about |origin=? It probably wouldn't take me long at all to compile a rather lengthy list of persons whose birthplace is significantly different from the family's place of residence at the time of their birth. As myself and others have pointed out in numerous past discussions, we shouldn't be giving undue weight to a person's birthplace when it's strictly incidental to their overall story. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 11:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I know what you mean. But it is strictly accurate. Not giving the real birthplace seems like we are fudging facts. Never mind that the person "lived" in his birthplace for the first few days of his/her life only! Omitting birthplace seems "funny." Lord knows with the Birther Theorists still abounding, it definitely seems like we're trying to hide something! Student7 (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Birthplace is significant for a number of reasons, even if the person did not live there for long. It can be a starting point for anyone looking for a registration-of-birth certificate. It can also affect nationality/ citizenship status. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Add a new item called 'Votes'[edit]

In the article on Rory Stewart, in the info box, it mentions that he had:

Majority 11,241 (24.9%)

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

Votes 11,241 (24.9%)

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

A reminder: Custom fields exist[edit]

I'm seeing some calls to add additional fields in earlier discussions.

Just a reminder: |blank1= and |data1= and so on exist so you can use custom fields. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed they do, but they're less useful than specific fields for two reasons. Firstly, They're not predictable, so it's much harder to programatically analyse or reuse them. Secondly, they can't be reordered so, in the case of a full name, for example, they don't appear alongside related name fields. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Height again![edit]

Could you please add height under personal details!!!!!???? Heightism has been shown to be a factor in deciding elections and it does no harm to add it! Please??? Nick B 1993 (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

It is rare that this information will be encyclopedic enough to put into the template. Should we add "Looks good on television" and (for Japanese officeholders) "blood type"? I think not. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

What an utterly fallacious rebuttal. An argument a hugely ignorant person would give. "Looks good on television" is not an infobox parameter on any page on Wikipedia but height is. Blood type is only significant in certain countries' elections and thus not a universal factor in deciding elections but every election contester in every country has a height which significantly influences someone's vote in any election believe it or not. The reasons used for omitting "blood type" and 'Looks good on television' from infoboxes can not be used to justify the omission of the height parameter. I wouldn't of minded if a decent argument had been presented but instead I get some jocular comment as a response which is supposed to shut me up. Highly insolent! Who are you to state what's encyclopaedic anyway and how can you even begin to take the line of argument that blood type and looks are as significant and as objective as height is? No one is objectively seen as 'looking good on telly' as there is always disparity in views on the way someone looks and blood type is objective but is only a significant influence in elections in certain geographical locations. Height however is OBJECTIVE and SIGNIFICANT EVERYWHERE!! Statistics, History and the gait, stance and actions of contemporary political leaders worldwide when in the public eye PROVE IT! I am highly offended that that reply was used in response to my request. I was polite and unassuming and my request was met with malevolence, ignorance, contempt and pretence and that is out of order. I would've preferred you just to have said without the reasons that it's not going to be done. I would've accepted that but as it is I'm shutting up and I'm deeply offended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick B 1993 (talkcontribs) 02:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I admit that I was being cheeky with the "looks good on television." However, I did so because I believe that, like blood type, height is not a universal influence on elections, any more than eye color or race. Yes, eye color and race, like blood type, height, and body build are significant election factors in some cultures, but barring a worldwide scientific survey indicating otherwise, we should not presume each of these is a significant election factor in all cultures. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Height has a pretty clear influence in some cultures, as does voice timbre, accent, etc., but it's just not infobox-worthy. Every athletic biography mentions height; very few political biographies mention it unless it's particular to a politician's image. It doesn't compare to something like alma mater or birthplace, which are universal biographical bullet-points. We need to keep infoboxes reasonable and short. They're not a catalogue of all conceivable data. —Designate (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Height is also subject to change (people shrink after age 55-70, or after spinal surgery), so even if it were important, it would also be misleading. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
It's also, for many politicians, not reliably sourceable at all. And while I'll admit that height can be a factor in political success, it's far from a determinative one — as noted below, being tall didn't help Bruce Weyhrauch at all, and being short hasn't hurt Steve Novick. It's at best a subconscious influence on some voters in some elections — and any analysis of the impact that it has is largely anecdotal, rather than being something that reliable sources really discuss in any depth. Bearcat (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Template-protected edit requests on 20 June 2014[edit]

To amend the instructions for "predecessor" and "successor" per apparent consensus at the RfC:

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

Collect (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. First, you will need to prepare your requested changes in the template's sandbox, then, when you reactive this edit template protected request, please make sure to include a link to the consensus and a clear "Please change "X" to "Y"." format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 22:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Second edit request[edit]

Paragraph 4 under "Usage" currently has:

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

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

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

This is in accord with the RfC above, and there is no reason to have it in a sandbox first as it makes absolutely no change to the template itself. The underline is to make absolutely clear what is to be added, and the strikeout is to indicate a sentence which would be quite unclear in application with the new sentence. The use of "succession boxes" at the end of the article is not actually a part of this template. Collect (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Padlock-silver-slash2.svg Not done: {{edit template-protected}} is usually not required for edits to the documentation, categories, or interlanguage links of templates using a documentation subpage. Use the 'edit' link at the top of the green "Template documentation" box to edit the documentation subpage. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Third edit request[edit]

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

Collect (talk) 23:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

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

denomination/ethnicity/race/other grouping[edit]

I'm not sure what would be a proper English term for this, but this field would be very relevant for infoboxes about people from countries with tribal/denomination/ethnicity/religion (yet not only religion; as religion is obviously not enough to show significance in contexts where other denominations are the prevalent), that would include for example tutsi and hutu in context such as Rwanda or Burundi; kurds (Sunni Kurd, shei Kurd) in Iraq and Syria, arab (christian arab , druze arab) or beduin in Israel, circassian in jordan, Bedouin (Sinai Bedouin or eastern desert or western desert), Nubian, saidi, Bahari's (lower egypt) and Upper Egyptians, tribal power relations and affiliations ...etc. -- (talk) 00:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Please have a look at the equivalent parameters in {{infobox person}}, and let us know whether you think they would meet this need. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I guess it would be ethnicity, I would prefer denomination but I guess in english it has a strong connotation with religion and sect. -- (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)