Template talk:Infobox officeholder

secret service codename

Any opinions on adding a field for the secret service codename for US presidents (or any other countries that have similar practices)? They are well documented in reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtphokie (talk • contribs)

I think that they'd be an unnecessary inclusion, there is plenty of space for that in the text.--[[User: Duffy2032|Duffy2032]] (talk) 06:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Religion: Atheism

Something that surely has been discussed before, but isn't it false to add "Religion: Atheism" to the template? Atheism does not fit the definition of religion in any way, but rather the lack of it. Except when it is used to indicate a religion with no gods but something else spiritual. Therefore, many cases of atheist would be either better with irreligious.

Better choice for the template would be either

• Religion: none (Atheist)
• Religion: Irreligious

The current way of speaking "His religion is Atheism" is quite unsatisfactory and new guideline should be added to this template or WP:BIO. --Pudeo⺮ 16:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Jogurney (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

As a follow on from this, I've just removed some information from the Chloe Smith article (see here) as it didn't look right. Irreligion and atheism are not religions, but religious stances. Surely it would make more sense to either change the title in the infobox to religious stance or add another header tor religious stance. I notice with {{Infobox Scientist}} religion appears as religious stance rather than religion. ANy thoughts? TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I reverted you there. The initial contribution makes sense, and Cloe Smith was in conformity with it. If you want it to read "Irreligious", that's fine, but simply having a blank is not the right way to do it. -Rrius (talk) 20:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I agree that something should go there. Just seems a bit of a strange one. I suppose we could link Irreligion, although it's not a very long article. Thanks for responding anyway. TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought it looked a bit odd, too, so I changed it to "none (atheist)". -Rrius (talk) 02:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I think none (atheist) is probably the best way to deal with this. I will use it whenever I encounter this issue again in future. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I would change the title to "Religious beliefs". Then "Atheist" would work. --Tango (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

List MPs

{{editprotect}} Can there be a paramenter for list MPs, like constituency MPs? I propose this model:

Parameters:

|list_party = Party name in full without brackets
|parliament = parliament name (just like constituency MP)
|term_start = just like constituency MP
|term_end   = just like constituency MP

which would show:

Member of [[{{{parliament}}} Parliament]] for [[{{{list_party}}}|{{{{{list_party}}}/meta/shortname}}]] party list

(then term start and end)

(See {{Election box candidate with party link}} for information on what the shortname stuff is)

Example:

{{Infobox MP
|name        = Joe Bloggs
....
|list_party  = New Zealand Labour Party
|parliament  = New Zealand
|term_start  = this date
|term_end    = that date
.....

which would show:

Joe Bloggs
Member of the New Zealand Parliament for Labour party list
In office this date – that date

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Adabow (talk • contribs)

Why not just do what you did to spawn the infobox above? -Rrius (talk) 05:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not use constituency_MP as you have shown? --Philip Stevens (talk) 06:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Because I think it is better to have a uniformed style.Adabow (talk) 05:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems more complicated to change the code to add a new parameter than it would be to add a note on the documentation saying something like, "Type 'X list' (where 'X' is the name of the party) for MMP jurisdictions such as New Zealand and Germany." -Rrius (talk) 07:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Unless you want it to display differently (e.g., "Member of the New Zealand Parliament on the Labour Party list" instead of "for"). -Rrius (talk) 07:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

 Not done Waiting for response to alternative methods, feel free to re-enable when consensus has been reached. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Nationality + Ethnicity/Citizenship

The infobox presently only has a "nationality" parameter, but should also include "ethnicity" and "citizenship" parameters, just like {{Infobox person}} now does. Gabbe (talk) 10:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done per several days with lack of objections. Gabbe (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Error in template:Infobox officeholder/Personal data

{{editprotected}} There is a duplicated <includeonly> tag in that subpage. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 01:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. — RockMFR 03:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Width of infobox

Guys, is there any way of forcing the width of this infobox? I ask because in the MilHist project I'm used to dealing with the Military Person Infobox which is wide enough to accomodate most items on a single line but when I come to add the military career section for soldiers-turned-politicians using this infobox everything's more narrow, forcing abbreviations for unit names and so on to avoid lots of multi-line entries. If we're stuck with the width then I'll use abbreviations but thought I'd ask before doing that... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the real answer to your question, but you could force an image to any given width. If you don't have an image, perhaps you could make one that is only a pixel tall and transparent. -Rrius (talk) 02:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You can use {{nowrap begin}} and {{nowrap end}} to force the text onto one line (use templates before and after text you one to keep on one line before and after the text respectively.

Adabow (talk) 07:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Appointed U.S. Senators

{{editprotected}} Appointed United States Senators present a unique problem. Generally, their terms start on the day they are appointed. However, using |jr/sr and setting |term_start equal to the date of appointment before the terms starts is misleading and uninformative. On the other hand, using |office=[[United States Senate|United States Senator]]-designate from [[Texas]] with |successor and |term_start equal to the appointment date is also deceptive because it is incorrect about when the term begins and helps create controversy as to what term_start should be after the senator takes the oath. As a result, I propose the three new parameters. They would display the office as "United States Senator-designate / from State", and the term as "Appointed / date / Takes oath of office / date" where "/" is a line break. I'm not married to the wording "Takes oath of office". If other think "To be sworn in" or something else is better, I'm fine with that.

In the Office section of Template:Infobox Officeholder/Office, just after |jr/sr we should add a new |jr/sr_designate:

 {{#if:{{{jr/sr_designate{{{1}}}|}}}|
{{!}}colspan="2" style="text-align:center; font-size:110%;"{{!}}<hr/><div style="background:lavender; font-weight:bold;">[[United States Senate|United States Senator]]-designate<br />from {{{state{{{1}}}}}}</div>
{{!}}-
}}

To the Term section of the same subpage we should add new |appointed and |oath_date parameters after |succeeding:

 {{#if:{{{appointed{{{1}}}|}}}|
{{!}}colspan="2" style="border-bottom:none; text-align:center;"{{!}}'''Appointed'''<br />{{{appointed{{{1}}}|}}}
{{#if:{{{oath_date{{{1}}}|}}}|
{{!}}colspan="2" style="border-bottom:none; text-align:center;"{{!}}'''Takes oath of office'''<br />{{{oath_date{{{1}}}|}}}
{{!}}-
}}

I think I have the code right, but I'm sure anyone implementing this would have the expertise to correct any errors I've made. -Rrius (talk) 22:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I've disabled your request for the moment because it could probably use some scrutiny and discussion. Feel free to replace when you have a consensus on this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree with the premise. It's excessive and unnecessary. A blank-designate is not an office, it's just the anticipation (no matter how likely) of being an office in the future. An oath date has little-to-no legal standing or factual relevance. Once someone starts the new job, then put it in the infobox; until then, leave it alone.—Markles 12:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but that is just not correct. Once a person receives a certificate of appointment and that appointment becomes effective, the person's term as a United States Senator has began and the person has an absolute right to present that certificate to the Senate, which will judge whether the person is qualified and was duly appointed. It cannot be revoked by the governor, and the governor cannot appoint anyone else. Similarly, a Senator-elect or Representative-elect presents his or her certificate of election to the Senate, which will judge whether the person is qualified and was duly elected. We already have "U.S. Representative-elect" and "United States Senator-elect" in the infobox, so I don't see the grounds for objection here. Further more, the practice has been to use the "office" parameter to insert "United States Senator-designate from [State]" into the infobox. -Rrius (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree with Rrius. We're not talking about a governor announcing he'll appoint someone in the future (i.e. announcing before the vacancy occurs). This is the actual appointment. Once the governor appoints, that person is a senator as of that date. However, due to Senate rules, they must present their credentials and be sworn. Vacancies are infrequent, but happen often enough that it would be good to have a field. I don't know if we need a separate "took the oath of office" box, but it would potentially help ease confusion many folks have about appointed senators. The oath doesn't make them a senator, the appointment does. However, when they take the oath can and will affect seniority, particularly in the case of Roland Burris. DCmacnut<> 02:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Co-leader

{{editprotected}} Can there be a |co-leader parameter, similar to the |alongside one, but instead of saying "Serving with (name)" it says "Co-leading with (name)"? See Rod Donald an example of why alongside doesn't fit too well.

Adabow (talk) 07:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

This would make more sense for Green parties and the like than "alongside". -Rrius (talk) 01:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

 Not done. Please give a complete and specific description of the changes needed; you can use a sandbox to do so if you like.  Skomorokh, barbarian  07:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I should have thought his explanation was quite clear. Add a new parameter that is identical to "alongside" except that it is called "co-leader" and that the display text would be "Co-leading with" instead of "Serving with". -Rrius (talk) 07:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Sorry I can't make a sandbox one–I'm not too good with coding–but all I would like is a co-leader parameter. The alongside parameter returns "Serving with....", and I would like a co-leader parameter returning "Co-leading with....". How much more specific can I be? Adabow (talk) 08:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that it's not a trivial change. If you search for alongside in the template, you get dozens of places where it appears. The actual text appears in a subtemplate Template:Infobox_officeholder/Office. I could have a look, but I don't have time at the moment. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is the code for {{Infobox officeholder}} and here is the code for {{Infobox officeholder/Office}}. --Philip Stevens (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

OK, can an administrator copy and paste this in then, please?

Adabow (talk) 06:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Philip Stevens, thanks for the code. Can you just confirm that you have tested it and that the current functionality is not affected? Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I have and it does work. --Philip Stevens (talk) 05:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for finally doing something about my request! :) Adabow (talk) 09:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is it not working at Rod Donald? Adabow (talk) 09:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It hasn't been implemented yet. --Philip Stevens (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Well, can someone implement it, please?

 Done —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you TheDJ, but wouldn't "Co-leading with.." make more sense than "Co-leader with"?Adabow (talk) 07:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done. This change is also consistent with the way we refer to U.S. Senators "serving with" other Senators. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Request

{{editprotected}} Please remove the protection template from here. I have placed it on the documentation page, where it should have been. Please also add a documentation page to {{Infobox Officeholder/Office}}, redirecting here, and remove the protection template there too. Use {{Documentation|Template:Infobox officeholder/doc}} for this. Debresser (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is that necessary, or even a good idea? People navigating to {{Infobox Officeholder/Office}} are either viewing or editing the source code. -Rrius (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes? Either I don't understand you, or you don't understand me. What is the problem here? Debresser (talk) 18:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Why would /Office need a documentation page, and why should the protection templates be transcluded from the documentation? -Rrius (talk) 00:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Why would any intricate template need documentation? Note that I proposed the documentation should be the same as of {{Infobox officeholder}}, by using {{Documentation|Template:Infobox officeholder/doc}}. To have the protection templates in the documentation pages (safely in <includeonly>...</includeonly> tags), would have the advantage that when people work on these templates in their user subpages and copy them there, said subpages won't receive an error message for being incorrectly labeled with a protection tag. Debresser (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The /Office page has a link to the main template, which in turn has the documentation. If any documentation is needed at /Office at all, it is documentation on how /Office is organized. I find it hard to believe that anyone goes to /Office trying to figure out how to add the infobox to an article. If you think someone would, would you explain why you do? -Rrius (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The typical setup is to have pp-template on the template itself. Nearly all protected templates are set up like this. — RockMFR 21:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I work on maintenance templates daily, and we have most protection tags on the documentation. Debresser (talk) 00:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Please get consensus before requesting edits.  Skomorokh, barbarian  03:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

code tweaks

{{editprotected}} Requesting sync with the sandbox; minor code tweaks for future maintenance, no upheaval to current deployments. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Members of the House of Lords

Would it be possible for someone to add in fields for members of the House of Lords ie what type of Peerage the have and their territorial designation ?--Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 13:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you want for those of us who aren't really familiar with the House of Lords? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 17:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you also clarify for those of us who are familiar why you think this is necessary. I don't see the point. -Rrius (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The House of Lords is the upper house of the UK Parliament its members are the equivalent of MPs in the House of Commons, have a look at the Helene Hayman, Baroness Hayman article there are no fields for Members of the House of Lords at the moment and being members of the Peerage are the only thing that makes them unique.--Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 19:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

But they aren't the equivalent of MPs, and their life membership and membership in consequence of the peerage do make them unique. The only similar body I can think of, the Senate of Canada, has a specific number of seats and is appointed from a specific province or territory. The overwhelming majority of members of the Lords are life peers. They have no constituency, no term of office, and no successors. The mere fact of being life peers means they they are members for the rest of their lives, so there is no need to add something to the infobox. Their infobox would say,

The Rt Hon. The Lord X

Member of the House of Lords

Assumed office

30 June 2008

For almost all of them, that would be the sum total of their infobox. There is, admittedly, more information to convey about at least some hereditaries, i.e., those joining or rejoining through lists or by-election, but the information could easily be handled in the lead. What exactly, then, is the draw for having an entry? I'm not adamantly opposed to this, but It needs to be explained. Saying they are not unique is not enough because they manifestly are unique. -Rrius (talk) 08:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

But they are the equivalent to MP's the only difference being they do not face election, they are members of a chamber of parliament and AFAIK all other parliamentarians have info-boxes including as you mention Senators of Canada, and I said they are unique, hence why their peerage info should be included in the infobox as this it what entitles when to members of the lords. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 20:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

elected vs positions when elected

there still seems to be no distinction between dates and periods elected and time periods of positions/portfolios taken/appointed to once elected. i think some sub class of 'office' is what im looking for http://dbpedia.org/page/Brian_Cowen

Lostexpectation (talk) 00:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? -Rrius (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

everyone seems to be using in office for positions once elected rather then portfolio. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Cowen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_officeholder#Personal_data portfolio its in personal data ) which them makes impossible to distinguish when they were elected from when they changed position/portfolio while elected. Lostexpectation (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The template is intended to work on articles in various countries, so the fields do not always align precisely with how offices are treated in each country. Could you please explain what information you are wanting to present in the infobox? Once we know what you are trying to show we may be able to advise a solution or adapt the template to compensate. Road Wizard (talk) 02:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

i don't know how I can make it clearer, _most_ politicians are elected, and most politicians then get a portfolio(or shadow portfolio), but most infobox's list the date they get elected(assumed office) in the same way (office#, term_start#)as the date of which they are appointed to a cabinet position of minister for justice for example( ie a portfolio), see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dermot_Ahern, which means which i then cannot extract the dates they are elected as opposed to the dates when they change portfolio, during their continuing elected period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dermot_Ahern

| office5 = Teachta Dála
| constituency5 = Louth
| term_start5 = 17 February 1987

Dermot Ahern was first elected to parliament 17 February 1987 as Teachta Dála in the Dail (and re-elected on 24 May 2007 for a presumed 5 yr period)

| office = Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
| term_start = 7 May 2008
| term_end =

Around the 7 May 2008 there was cabinet reshuffle and as he was a elected Teachta Dála and a member of the governing party he was eligible to be appointed as cabinet member for the portfolio of minister for justice

getting elected and being appointed to a position only by virtue of being elected are two very different things. one is the subclass of the other

there are 166 'office'rs of the irish parliament there's only 1 minister for justice. they are not equivalent.

they are two very different things. the person is holding(occupying) the office and then in personal data they have a portfolio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_officeholder#Personal_data

I presume that this is what portfolio is for, i don't see it used often and im not going to go around changing things if there isn't consensus to do so. but i do see it as glaring error, how many editors am i going to have to convince?

im trying to extract the information for use in spreadsheets, freebase etc, via dbpedia, so trying do something quicker then editing the info one by one, wikipedia seems to be quite clunky and behind the tech if you can't bulk edit things.

Lostexpectation (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)