Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Non-valid parameters

|chair1= and |peerage2= are not valid but they are included in the TemplateData. Will update if i find more --Balyozxane (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

If those parameters are used in articles, they will generate a red error message on Preview, and the article will be placed in Category:Pages using infobox officeholder with unknown parameters. You are welcome to edit the TemplateData section of the documentation; it is not protected, even though it functions as programming code. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Changing "Assumed office" to "Assuming office"

I added Jason Williams (politician) new upcoming office. How do you change it to say assuming office? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I fixed it for ya. Just replaced predecessor, with succeeding. GoodDay (talk) 06:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to merge 2 parameters

Currently, the infobox template includes both |profession= and |occupation= parameters. These parameters are redundant, as they are essentially the same thing. It would be better if they were merged into one single parameter instead of the current 2. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

rfc on succession

I closed the RFC on when to list successors today [1] and it occurred to me that it might be helpful to add a hidden comment to the template about not filling in that field until they actually assume the office, but I looked at all that code in there and thought maybe I'd just float that idea here and let someone more comfortable with editing complex templates do it. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Such a hidden note would be helpful, indeed. GoodDay (talk) 04:49, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping.

A hidden comment within the template code? I don't see any benefit to that, since very few editors look at template code. There should be guidance about this in the description of the |successor= parameter, including a link to the RfC, and that can easily be done in Template:Infobox officeholder/doc. I'd be happy to do that, but I'd prefer to wait until the RfC is archived so I won't have to remember to come back and fix the link later. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I've just discovered that this template's doc does not have separate descriptions for each parameter like most templates do, so my comments here don't apply. The template's doc has had this at the end of its lead for some time, unsupported by community discussion, and the RfC consensus simply makes it official: "The infobox for an incumbent officeholder should not mention an elected or designated successor, or the end date of the term, until the transition actually takes place." I can add a link there, but we will still have the problem of awareness since editors generally won't read the entire lead of the template doc. I guess we'll have to rely mostly on word-of-mouth and call it the best we can do. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The RfC has now been archived, and I have modified the template doc to link to it. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Order parameter

The way this template currently handles |order=, as explained in the documentation, forcing a link if there's also |office= and not using {{ordinal}}, is pretty atrocious. Is there a way we could fix this up without breaking existing usages? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

What's your desired outcome? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Infobox officeholder/Archive 24
10 [[President of Pomona College]]

Nikkimaria, at G. Gabrielle Starr, the current wikicode is |office = 10th [[President of Pomona College|President]] of [[Pomona College]], which gets the desired display but is a bit hacky since it incorporates the order into the office. The cleaner way to do it for pages like that would be to use |office = [[President of Pomona College|President]] of [[Pomona College]] |order=10 to display the same result. Trying to do that, though, leads to the junk at right since there's no parsing of the ordinal or ability to refine the wikilinking. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 10:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Why is that display desirable, as opposed to just displaying "10th President of Pomona College" using |office=President of Pomona College and |order=10th? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I prefer the wikilinking as I did it; Pomona College seems like a pretty essential wikilink to have somewhere in the infobox, and there's no other spot for it I see. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 13:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox member of the Knesset

Template:Infobox member of the Knesset has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox officeholder. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Can somebody weigh in on possibility of merging Knesset parameters here, the way it's done with American and Ukrainian lawmakers? The discussion above is still open. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 3 January 2021

Please change the template to allow the "status" parameter to be applied together with "term" (rather than just "term_start" and "term_end"). As the template currently functions, there is no way to use both "term_label" and "status" together, since "term_label" only works with "term". I want to add a status to the infobox at Melania Trump, but can't do so without losing the "Assumed role" label. An alternative solution would be to allow "term_label" to work with "term_start" and "term_end", rather than just "term". ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

What do you want the Melania Trump infobox to look like (minus the assumed role)? Can you mock up in a sandbox so I can visualise what you're saying? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Predecessors and Successors

I put this originally on Talk:Deodoro da Fonseca. If a head of state has a different position than the succeeding head of state, shouldn't it just be Office established or Office abolished? For example, Deodoro da Fonseca was the 1st President of Brazil, but it says the predecessor was Pedro II of Brazil (Emperor). It would make sense if it was saying "Head of State of Brazil", but not of the role is the President. It doesn't make sense to have the "1st President" and have a predecessor, or have the "last monarch" and still have a successor either. FredModulars (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Automatic short descriptions

I'd like to propose making this template generate (overridable, of course) automatic short descriptions like many other infoboxes already do. Specifically, I'd simply reuse the office parameter, optionally preceded by order if it exists. On Joe Biden, for example, this would then yield the same description that is already manually set – "46th President of the United States". Thoughts? – Rummskartoffel (talk • contribs) 14:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, though you'd have to be rather careful about how it's implemented. For example, Donald Trump has his |office=President of the United States as well, so it's not likely to be a 1-to-1 pass. Primefac (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Looking at ten or so articles, this looks like it might work. Wikilinks would have to be stripped, and if people have put wikicode into |office=, that will have to be handled somehow. Also, some invocations of this infobox appear to use the undocumented |title= instead of |office=, as in Glenn T. Seaborg; I haven't looked at the code to see the difference. Rummskartoffel, would you like to try putting the code for this in the template's sandbox? You may be able to copy code from another infobox that does the same sort of text handling. See Category:Templates that generate short descriptions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll see what I can come up with. – Rummskartoffel (talk • contribs) 14:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

At least for some articles, this would be taken care of by |order= – notice how the current shortdesc at Donald Trump does not include "former", just "45th". If that parameter is not set – German chancellors like Angela Merkel seem to not use it, for example –, we can fall back to |term_start= and |term_end=. If the latter of those two is not set, either, then we're probably dealing with the current office holder and don't need to include an ordinal or the term boundaries. And if all else fails, the short description can always be manually overridden. – Rummskartoffel (talk • contribs) 14:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like it will require a subtemplate, like {{infobox school}} (though potentially not as complex as that), just to keep the IB itself a little cleaner. Primefac (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, probably. A basic working version wasn't too difficult to pull off, but there're a few things I can think of that'll need to be taken care of (and very probably more thing that I haven't thought of) that could quickly get out of hand in terms of size and complexity. I've gone ahead and created Template:Infobox officeholder/short description. – Rummskartoffel (talk • contribs) 16:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I've got four big projects coming up that are due this weekend, but if no one beats me to it I'll test out some of these early(ish) next week? Primefac (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a sense of in what percentage of cases this proposal would result in the most appropriate SD? For Biden it would, but for example at Michael Ignatieff the |office= field does not represent what he is known for. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I honestly hadn't considered that possibility, but there are of course going to be articles where the automatic short description will be suboptimal or even wrong. I can't really think of a good way to get a numeric figure for that, and I don't want to just blindly guess. From the bit of testing using the preview function I've done, though, I'm expecting most of the descriptions to be at least good enough, and in my opinion it'd in general be better to have an "OK" automatic SD that is then replaced by a custom one than not having one at all. And, of course, any particularly "important/big" article will likely have a custom SD already. – Rummskartoffel (talk • contribs) 21:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I would agree "big" articles like the US presidents would likely already have custom SDs - but I would also expect those to be the cases where the proposed automatic version would be most likely to work well, and to be caught when it doesn't.

How would the proposed mechanism interpret cases like Afonso de Albuquerque? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

There is already a short description in that article, so the infobox's SD would not be used. If the local SD were not present, the infobox-generated SD would read "Captain-Major of the Seas of Arabia, Governor of Portuguese India from 1509 to 1515". You can test this for yourself using Special:ExpandTemplates: copy the infobox and paste it into that page, add "/sandbox" after "Infobox officeholder", put "Test" in the "Context title" box, and click OK. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Predecessor and Successor fields when there is no predecessor or successor

Should Predecessor and Successor parameters be filled out for offices of which the subject was the sole, inaugural, or final holder? It seems to me that filling out Predecessor and Successor parameters just to say that there was no predecessor or successor is like saying "None" in the Spouse or Children parameter, i.e. gratuitous and leading to a bloated infobox. Simply not using the parameters in such cases would indicate the same thing without spelling it out, such as how not using the Spouse parameter (rather than saying "Spouse: None") at James Buchanan indicates that he had no spouse. Surtsicna (talk) 13:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I added a section similar to this right above this section on predecessors or successors. I've seen Office established or Office abolished on many pages where the person held the first or final office. If the subject was the sole holder, it could be both, like Mikhail Gorbachev. The reason I originally asked about this was that some pages had "King [insert name here] (King of Italy)" as a predecessor or successor, and I wanted to see if there was any consensus on what it was supposed to be.FredModulars (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

New parameters

Parameter names "subterm", "subterm2", "suboffice" and "suboffice2" should be added to this template's description at Template:Infobox officeholder, so people could see and copy-paste it as part of the empty template code. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 10:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. Number 57 13:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. But it does not appear in the box on the right. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 13:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Number 57 14:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Differentiation between current and former jobs confusing

Templates are supposed to be a quick glance, capsule digest, just highlights. As such, great attention needs to be paid to typesetting and graphic design. Here, its hard to quickly realize what job functions (including committee memberships) are active / current and ongoing vs. prior history / no longer active. I personally find the term "incumbent" both confusing (strangely with the term "elect") and verbose. In any case, the multiple "incumbent" rows are annoying and unnecessarily consume valuable vertical space. What is needed is better VISUAL isolation between the entire group of "current positions" vs. "prior positions". Perhaps just a single bar "Prior" over those positions, and let current, on top, remain assumed. Perhaps a change in background tints for the current or prior block. Perhaps the uniform tint remains, but the single "===Prior===" separator bar floats with horizontal space before and after (vs. connecting to the vertical edges.) Needs the attention of a pro table typesetter / infographc person. Not a lot of change for change sake but just a visual touch up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.200.231 (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Test cases using subterm and suboffice fields for cabinet/committee posts

I've tried using the |suboffice= and |subterm= fields for some articles of US and Canadian politicians with infoboxes including multiple committee/cabinet posts, which I think makes their infoboxes ridiculously and unnecessarily long - see User:Connormah/Sandbox 5 for before/after, also including some consolidation of parliamentary terms. Of course, this eliminates the predecessor/successor fields, but I think that the navboxes at the foot of the article are sufficient for this purpose. Any further thoughts, or other test cases welcome. Connormah (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

A few examples of Israeli politicians (who were the prime reason for these new parameters when Infobox member of the Knesset was merged here) – Tzachi Hanegbi (12 ministerial offices held!), Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, Abba Eban or Moshe Ya'alon. Cheers, Number 57 19:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for linking those. I am hoping we might be able to get a wider consensus (perhaps with some improvements) to use these, as I think that in some cases the sheer length of some infoboxes, particularly for longer-serving politicians, are ridiculously long. Connormah (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I like this a lot. I too have thought that the infoboxes can get extraordinarily and unhelpfully long for veteran politicians, and I think this is an effective and elegant solution. What information is lost (predecessors and successors for each post) is of minor value IMO and thus acceptable. The one thing I'd suggest is leaving the current portfolio out of the list and keeping it as its own box (so Chrystia Freeland's would list DPM, then finance, then her seat, then the cabinet list); I think their current post is relevant and important information to have available at a glance, especially as it may be why the person is on the page. — Kawnhr (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that might be an agreeable compromise. I suppose that this solution doesn't really need to be applied in every case and is more suited towards those articles like the examples with many offices, though consistency might be good. The lost info is still covered in the navboxes at the end of the article in most cases. Connormah (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Field for European Parliament group

There should be a field for European Parliament group. While there is parliamentarygroup field, the European Parliament is distinct enough, and applies to 705 current officeholders, as well as many many more former MEPs. I'd include the ability to specify multiple groups, for those who have changed group over time, as Fidesz MEPs are set to do, for example. The field name in the box could link to that page too. It's done in a makeshift way with Irish MEPs, e.g. Chris MacManus and Barry Andrews (politician), although inconsistently as Colm Markey and Grace O'Sullivan link to European political parties. A field to consistently show the group for all MEPs would be helpful in general. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 11:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

How to represent non-consecutive time periods?

Hello, I recently updated the infobox of Adele Faccio, who has discontinuously been a member of the Italian chamber of deputies from 5 July 1976 until 23 May 1990. She held office:

• 5 July 1976 - 13.12.1978
• 20 June 1979 - 11 July 1983
• 2 June 1987 - 23 May 1990

always for the same party and was always elected in the same constituency

I am really unsure how to use this template in such case. Any suggestions? --Broc (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest something like Marcelle Rumeau or Germaine Peyroles. Which do people think is better? Number 57 14:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Only 16 offices?

Not all of Arthur_Henderson's offices are appearing in his infobox because of the limit of 16 positions. In addition to being his party's leader 3 times, and holding several ministerial positions, he managed to get elected in 5 different places, only to later lose his seat at a later election. So information in the Infobox as office17 being MP for for Barnard Castle from 1908 to 1913) is not appearing. 23:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Wrong dash formats

Can someone please stop the space displaying between start and end term fields. It comes out as, for example, 2011 – present, which is wrong. 2011–present is correct. You can't use the same system for plain years as for full dates (which do require a spaced dash: 3 January 1980 – 15 June 1999).

If this isn't fixed soon, I'm going to rub out these two fields whenever I see them. Tony (talk) 08:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Tony1, there is no need to YELL at us or threaten to remove valid information from articles. I hope that you are feeling OK; maybe take a break? When you are ready, please see the relevant discussion above, and maybe contribute an idea about how to change the code that formats the dates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, Jonesey95—I expect no one to even notice posts such as this, let alone respond to them. I've thought about a solution, and have proposed it in the thread above that you linked to. Tony (talk) 02:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Dash format changes when adding reference

I noticed on Eknath Khadse that the date ranges did not have a consistent dash format, and noticed that the dash format changes when adding a reference. I added some examples to Template:Infobox_officeholder/testcases#Dash format changes when adding reference. Could someone please tweak the source so that all ranges are consistent throughout the infobox, whether references exist or not? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 14:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a good solution, but this effect originates from code in Template:Infobox_officeholder/office that reads:

{{{termstart}}}{{#iferror:{{#expr:{{{termstart}}}*{{{termend}}}}}| – |–}}{{{termend}}}

Basically, it is checking the term start and the term end for pure-year values by multiplying them together and seeing if they result in a number or a math error. If there is no math error, the template uses an en dash to join the two years. A math error results in the assumption that the term start and/or end are not just year values, so a spaced en dash is inserted, per MOS. A term end value that includes a ref will (appropriately) result in a math error, even if the term end is really just a year. This is a hack, but it mostly works. There may be a better way to test the two values to see if they are both (or both start with) year values. Some kind of string matching test might work, but it may have unexpected side effects. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: No particular requested change, so nothing to implement. Interesting problem, though.

Also, please do not add references to infoboxes in general - just like the article lead, references are unnecessary and content should be backed by the article prose. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Adding a note to keep this from being archived. Someone must be able to come up with a clever resolution for this problem. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

What about tagging the existing "Term_start" and "Term-end" fields and duplicating them?

Term_start_(year_only)

Term_end_(year_only)

Term_start_(date_only)

Term_end_(date_only)

with the correct typography built in for each: so, 2001–2003; 4 February 1952 – 17 June 1953. Tony (talk) 02:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that solution would work. It would also be a pain in the neck to implement cross-wiki and possibly in multiple other infoboxes. It also doesn't necessarily get there because we still have to deal with present if nothing else. Izno (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Any movement on this proposal? Tony (talk) 08:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion for committee chairs reduction

I am repeating my suggestion again to add a parameter for committee chairs. You can most recently find this suggestion in Archive 23:

The infobox should add a parameter/label "chair" or "chair_of" (and possibly also "ranking_member") for members of legislatures who chair committees or subcommittees. Having committee chairs as separate offices obscures the order of significance and is a major source of clutter in the case of long-serving legislators. (See, e.g. Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy, or the examples at User:Connormah/Sandbox 5)

It would be quite easy to subsume this office, sacrificing only the exact terms in office, predecessor, and successor, which are all still reflected in the succession box. For example, Joe Biden's infobox would include the following under United States Senator from Delaware:

Chair: Judiciary (1987–95)
Foreign Relations (2001, 2001–03, 2007–09)
Narcotics Caucus (2007–09)

This issue may be more salient now that Joe Biden is President and his chairmanships are hidden in his infobox, running against the presumption at MOS:DONTHIDE.

I am pinging @Connormah:, @Number 57:, and @Kawnhr:, who were discussing this in Archive 24 without a clear consensus reached. I think my proposal is preferable to Connormah's, but either is clearly preferable to the status quo. I also support Connormah's suggestion to similarly reduce ministerial portfolios, and add that the same should be done for party leadership positions in the United States (see Steny Hoyer or Joseph W. Martin Jr.). I hope we can come together and get something done on this. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 07:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The above comment on Arthur Henderson is also a good example of this phenomenon and an example of urgency; we have officeholders with more offices than the template can handle. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 08:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure a specific parameter is needed – why can the chairmanships not be listed using the existing office/suboffice parameters? Regarding the limit on 16 offices, this can be extended quite easily. Part of the problem with these massive infoboxes is that many editors are unaware of (or don't care about) MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE ("the purpose of an infobox [is] to summarize key facts that appear in the article... The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose). Many of the things in Henderson's infobox are not in the article (like who his Deputy and Chief Whip were when he was Labour leader). I would strip it down solely to the offices he held, not mentioning people in related positions or even his predecessors/successors (which in most cases are detailed in the footer templates). Number 57 08:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I do not have a strong preference against the "sub-office" solution; as I said, it is superior to the status quo. But it does take up slightly more space and I prefer the option of a new parameter for two reasons: (1) it is easier to apply uniformly and (2) at least for committee chairmanships, it is visually more obvious that the office is truly a "sub-office." This latter reason may be a distinction between American chairmanships and ministerial portfolios, which are perhaps not subordinate in the same sense. The reasons they cannot be listed with the ordinary office parameter in many cases is well established and does not bear re-hashing (see, again, Joseph W. Martin Jr.). Whatever we determine, I think the key thing is to come to a conclusion and make whatever changes are necessary. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 10:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Appreciate the ping, but I was a johnny-come-lately to this whole thing, so I'm not sure exactly what your proposal is. Is the idea to add another field, "Chair", to the Senate section of an infobox, in the same manner as "Predecessor" and "Successor"? So that the infobox would appear something like:

United States Senator from Delaware

In office
January 3, 1973 – January 15, 2009
Preceded by J. Caleb Boggs
Succeeded by Ted Kaufman

Chair Judiciary (1987–95)

Or have I misunderstood how you want this new parameter to be displayed? — Kawnhr (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kawnhr: That's roughly my preferred option, yes. I don't have a very firm preference on details as long as this can get done. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 23:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@-A-M-B-1996-:: In that case, I prefer Connormah's solution (here) of putting the chairmanships in their own little section. It looks odd to me to list the committes chaired in the same 'box' as the Senate seat, as the two are not directly connected. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kawnhr: I prefer my option because committee chairmanships are subordinate to the office of Senator (i.e. you cannot hold a committee chair without being a Senator); I would say they are definitely directly connected. But I would strongly prefer Connormah's solution to the status quo or a collapsed subsection like on Biden's infobox. If there is significant preference for that proposal, I would very gladly accede. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 20:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm now removing term ranges from this template when I see them

See two of the threads above. No one has done anything about it despite knowing that it's a breach of our styleguide. So I'm removing them where I see wrong formatting (the information is always in the main text, anyway). Tony (talk) 00:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Tony1, you're a template editor, why not fix the issue instead of removing information that should be in infoboxes. I just noticed this, but I'm looking into how you could remove the spacing in the particular template that is at issue - all of them are templateprotected so I can't do it but I'll post here if I can figure out how. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I find editing templates perversely difficult (I've never been taught). And my suggested fix above has received utterly no comments. I'm unsure whether it's the best fix anyway. But the breach in formatting can't be exposed so prominently at the top of articles: it's a disservice to confuse other editors about it. Tony (talk) 00:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually, this seems from my cursory glance to be created by many subtemplates/modules. {{Infobox officeholder/office}} is the first, which calls at least 2 dozen other modules for the contents of each section. I've attempted to raise this issue with some people I know who are more experienced with templates to take a look because I can't be arsed to look through two dozen plus modules to find the issue(s). I completely understand (now) your unwillingness to wade through a bunch of crap - but I don't think removal is the best option - it's better to escalate the issue to have it fixed - because a slight MOS violation is not reason to gut infoboxes on articles, at least in my opinion. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, this template is a mess. Every once in a while I take a cursory look to see if there are ways to improve it, and every time I decide I have better templates to rewrite. Maybe one of these days I'll have enough motivation to wade in. Primefac (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tony1: That would be vandalism of the WP:POINT variety. If you continue to do that I will block you. Got it? Izno (talk) 00:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Then FIX the problem. Tony (talk) 02:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Tony1, please do not remove valid information from infoboxes. If the field has a reference in it, move the reference to a better location in the article. If you find a field with something else in it that causes MOS-invalid ranges, please link to it from here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Jonesey95 and Izno – Jonesey, that's much more productive than Izno's admin-fuelled aggression, which simply reinforces my very low opinion of wannabe-big-man-sheriff admins who care nothing about improving reader experience and the authority of en.WP. I almost never see refs in that field. I will start linking instances of wrong formatting in this thread – good suggestion. But you don't need lots, right, just a few? Tony (talk) 01:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

You've been on wiki longer than I have, so I'm not going to mince words: POINT violators get blocked. I don't like being the big-bad-admin, but you don't get to make Wikipedia (infoboxes) observably worse because of an essentially-trivial style issue. (And I'm one of the people who respects that our MOS is our MOS and we should do due diligence to follow it.) The world will not burn if a dash is in the wrong spot or a space is there when it should not be.

As for "FIX the problem", the problem is not trivial to resolve. It is doubly harder when you provide no pages or examples where the issue occurs. I'm happy you now intend to provide cases here instead of removing cases in the mainspace. Report as many as you think illustrate the main and edge cases. Izno (talk) 02:04, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

You both compound your original unproductive knee-jerk bullying, and duplicate Jonesey's sensible post, which you might have done originally. Fail on both counts. No hyphen after "-ly" ("essentially-trivial"). Tony (talk) 07:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd say "not trivial" is an understatement - as Primefac said, this template is a "mess" and I'd say that's putting it nicely. When someone like myself, who taught myself how modules/template coding worked on their own, can't even be arsed to go through something, that means it's overly complex. There's no reason for the complexity here and it's utterly incomprehensible to people who didn't write it - it's bad coding, a "mess", and should be fixed. In lieu of a complete rewrite, though, the best thing to do is do our best to rectify the issues... but that requires examples. Maybe with examples I could've identified specific problems and proposed fixes. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I just made a little template, {{En dash range}}, that I am hoping we can use to solve this problem. It takes care of auto-spacing the en dash if either the start or end term contains a space (i.e., what MOS:RANGE suggests), ignoring references. I updated the sandbox page to use it. Some examples are below. I think it covers the cases we care about?

Infobox examples
Foo In office 2020–2021 Foo In office 1 January 2020 – 1 January 2021 Foo In office 1 January 2020 – 2021 Foo In office 2020–present Foo In office 2020–2021

Thanks. — The Earwig (talk) 03:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Wow, that looks like it works well. I cleaned up the relevant test cases. I don't see any bugs. I think we should deploy it. I suspect that we will find some edge cases and will figure out how to deal with them appropriately. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

User:The Earwig, thank you so much! And thanks to Jonesey for testing it. Your third example is "1 January 2020 – 2021" (where consistent precision would be preferred, of course, but it does potentially occur); if it works for that, I presume it will work for "January–November 2021", and "3 January – November 2021" (again, not the best, but such lapses might occur). Lightbulb thought: User:Plastikspork is a whizz at coding fixes. I or someone else could ask him nicely for advice if unfixable bugs do emerge.

So ... would this fix need to be manually updated for each appearance of year-only ranges, which is the most common problem? Tony (talk) 07:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Tony1: "3 January – November 2021" will work. "January–November 2021" won't though; the proposed template will produce "January – November 2021", same as the current one (so no worse, but no better). That is a difficult edge case. Have we seen examples of it? I will think more about how to handle it.

There should be no need for manual updates for each appearance of year-only ranges. I'm not clear exactly what you have in mind by this. — The Earwig (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

User:The Earwig – that's great news that the template will self-correct in all places it's been used. That seemed like complicated coding, but I'm totally non-tech, so I shouldn't have presumed. dm – my is very much an edge case, and I can't recall having seen it. Just checking on the boundaries, I guess! Tony (talk) 02:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC) LATER: I found a little glitch: "2001 – Present" needs to be closed (and uncapped, though that might have to be done manually) ... "2001–present". This occurs quite often. Thanks. Tony (talk) 02:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

That case should be properly handled, though it will not automatically uncapitalize the P. I just deployed the change to the live template, so if you are still seeing an issue (after purging), let me know, and link the page. — The Earwig (talk) 06:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Earwig, you're a blessing. I'll check tomorrow. Thanks. Tony (talk) 06:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

BTW, I have a plan for how we can fix the MM–MM YYYY issue, but it is a bit annoying to do, so would prefer to defer until we find an example of it in the wild (or someone prods me more aggressively). — The Earwig (talk) 06:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

User:The Earwig, please defer. I'll let you know if it crops up more than very occasionally. I don't think it will. Thank you again. Tony (talk) 10:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

My pleasure. — The Earwig (talk) 02:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 26 May 2021

Please add a signature_size parameter like the one in Template:Infobox person. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. The size of the signature appears to be hard-coded, ostensibly so that it will not cause the infobox to be larger than necessary. Is there any reason why we would need a user-defined signature size? Primefac (talk) 12:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)  Done before I saw Primefac's response. Seems harmless, and I preserved the default size. If there is no consensus for it, any template editor can revert this change, and I will have no objections. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I was not objecting to the change, just looking for clarification and/or consensus before enacting it. Now that it's done, I'm in Jonesey's boat of leaving things be unless there is specific objection. Primefac (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

constituency_MP and parliament parameters

Currently, the "constituency_MP" and "parliament=Australia" parameters do not work together. (Example: Mike Kelly (Australian politician)) In the past, these two parameters could work together, showing "Member of the Australian Parliament" followed by the constituency name. Now, the Australian Parliament supersedes the constituency. In the example Template:Infobox officeholder/example#Member of Parliament, the parameters work for the United Kingdom parliament. However, they do not work for the Australian parliament as well as state parliaments of the Australian states. Marcnut1996 (talk) 01:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I have also observed this while going through various pages of elected Members of Parliament. A more rudimentary way of rectifying this is by adding an additional "|office" parameter in the infobox. This is currently observed in the page for Anthony Albanese, the Federal Leader of the Opposition. Here, the parameter is: "Member of Parliament
for Grayndler" APNOneTwo (talk) 12:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I have used the workaround described by APNOneTwo recently, but thought that the electorate used to show by using constituency_MP too. Has something changed with an unexpected negative side effect? --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

It seems to have arisen from this edit by User:Neveselbert on 7 June on Template:Infobox officeholder/office. I'm not alert enough tonight to determine the precise problem or how to fix it. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

(responding to ping) @ScottDavis: Should be  Fixed now. Cheers, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Neveselbert: Thank you for the prompt repair. It looks like you have fixed the problem. --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

More than one branch and serviceyears

Ran into an issue with Mike Milburn, an officeholder, who served in the US Air Force from 1975-1982 and then the Montana National Guard from 1982-1998. Looks like the officeholder parameters don't allow for multiple serviceyears or branches. I took my best stab at adding both stints into the infobox. Is info in the infobox set up correctly? If not, I'll happily make appropriate changes if there is another article I should mirror that someone could point me to. Thanks! --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 14:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

You should be able to embed {{Infobox military person}}. See the documentation there, and at Template:Infobox officeholder#Embedding other templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your help on this! --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Ángel Liberal Lucini clash with viceprimeminister and office

Ángel Liberal Lucini
File:Ángel Liberal Lucini.jpg
Chief of Defence
In office 11 January 1984 – 31 October 1986
Monarch	Juan Carlos I
Prime Minister	Felipe González
Minister	Narcís Serra (as Defence minister)
Vice PM	Alfonso Guerra
Succeeded by	air Lieutenant General Gonzalo Puigcerver Romá
Personal details
Born	(1921-09-19)September 19, 1921 Barcelona, Catalonia
Died	October 2, 2006(2006-10-02) (aged 85) Ruber Clinic, Madrid, Spain
Military service
Allegiance	Spain
Branch/service	Spanish Navy
Years of service	1938– 1986
Rank	Admiral General (1999)
Unit	JEMAD
Commands	Chief of Defence Staff

I ran into this, so I'm posting here. This way people familiar with this template can implement a fix, either at the template level, or at the article level. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

It's because |office= is piped, meaning if you pass something piped (such as |office=[[Chief of the Defence Staff (Spain)|Chief of Defence]] it tries to pipe it twice (which breaks it). Primefac (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The documentation attempts to explain this nuance, in the third paragraph of the "Usage" section. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Is there anyway of repairing it.Nigerlite (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Remove the pipe or choose a different parameter. Primefac (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I would question why this is even needed. For a start it's a violation of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE as the information (Guerra being his deputy) is not mentioned in the article. I've personally never understood the need to include details of who was PM/president or whatever during someone's term of office in the actual infobox (which is meant to be a brief summary). Number 57 22:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

And edit somewhere is still needed BTW. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Capitalise or not.

Where does this template stand, on capitalising offices in the infobox? GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Suspect this template is causing lots of incorrect Wanted Pages

Use of this template appears to be creating many (as of now 3629) Wanted Pages for "(UK_Parliament_constituency)" As far as I can see, very few items on the list are actually UK constituencies see - Special:WhatLinksHere/(UK_Parliament_constituency) This template is used so widely I'm too nervous to fiddle with the template. Chris (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:Infobox_officeholder/office line 74 has an #ifexist tag, which if I am not mistaken creates a "what links here" entry even if the "ifexist" is false. There is a {{#ifeq:{{Title disambig text|{{{constituency_MP|}}}}}|UK Parliament constituency... call that triggers the ifexist check, so any time the constituency isn't "UK Parliament constituency" you're going to create a hidden redlink. Not sure the best way to fix that, though, given that I haven't played around with this template in a while. Primefac (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

How do we handle the predecessor's inclusion in the infobox

If an individual is or claims to be an acting president of a country. How do we show his predecessor? if his predecessor was president? Do we show merely the "name", or the "name (as president)", in the infobox. This question stems from a dispute at Amrullah Saleh's infobox, concerning how to show Ashraf Ghani in that infobox. GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Addition of Chairman

Can we add Chairman as a field (parallel to Prime Minister, President, Monarch, etc.) for officeholders in historical/present circumstances where their superior held that title? We have other less common titles like Taoiseach in there, after all. Dan Wang (talk) 03:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support - No probs, with me. GoodDay (talk) 03:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment If we want this, would it not be better to make a customisable superior field (so any superior name can be added) rather than keep adding more and more specific ones? But separately, are these fields actually needed? I've never seen the point personally – they fail MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE both because in most cases they are not really key information, and in some cases the information doesn't actually appear anywhere in the article (for instance, in the Tony Blair article, the infobox is the only place where it says he was PM under Queen Elizabeth II). Cheers, Number 57 10:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree in both. It would be better to have a superior kind of fields, fieldname and fieldvalue (which is exactly what the 1blankname and 1blankdata does). At the same time, as you said, it fails the purpose of the infobox. IMO, any kind of superior would be irrelevant, I personally never saw the importance, when we talk about the subject, rather the constituency, order and office would be important. And then there are successor and predecessor fields. — DaxServer (talk to me) 11:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Customisable field would be a good idea. I do think it's relevant information who the superior is - it definitely feels like good info to have that George W. Bush was President during Donald Rumsfield's tenure as Secretary of Defense, for instance. Dan Wang (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 3 October 2021

I request the following changes:
change | birth_date = {{Birth date|1950|5|5}} to | birth_date = {{Birth date|1950|5|25}}
change | death_date = {{Death date and age|2010|10|10|1950|5|5}} to | death_date = {{Death date and age|2010|10|22|1950|5|25}}
Date formats varies from place to place, some write day before month, some month before day. I believe this change would make it easier to know how dates are formatted here. When someone reads 1950|5|25 they immediately, without priorly obtained context, know that here 1950 is the year, 5 is the month and 25 is the day. Thank you in advance. FreeToDisagree (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

You can do this yourself, as the documentation is not protected. Number 57 19:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, that is very good to know. I have now made the requested edits myself. FreeToDisagree (talk) 22:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Odd line spacing

I've noticed that the line spacing when using suboffice and subterm parameters seems to have significantly increased – looking at Bezalel Smotrich, the gaps between the rows in the 'Faction represented in the Knesset' section are really large. I can't see what has caused this – there was a change to a spacing parameter in {{Infobox officeholder/office}}, but when I reverted it, nothing changed. Has there been a change on a related template that may have affected this one? Cheers. Number 57 22:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Deprecating the net worth parameter?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus is to deprecate - David Gerard (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

---

The net worth parameter in {{Infobox person}} was deprecated in July 2021, following a consensus. Should we deprecate it here as well? — DaxServer (talk to me) 09:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• I would support this. Number 57 21:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• I don't see why any of the arguments that applied to {{Infobox person}} wouldn't apply to {{Infobox officeholder}}. If consensus exists that it should be deprecated there then it seems fairly straightforward that it should be deprecated here too, no? Am I missing something? ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 23:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
• I support deprecation. the officeholder box has less reason to include net worth than the generic person infobox. I find the context arguments from the previous discussion persuasive: the estimated nature of the dollar value and the potential for multiple, wildly differing estimates is best contextualized in prose and not in the infobox. To me, this echos the spirit of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• Deprecate. The entire point of the previous deprecation is that this is not encyclopedic information, so bypassing that consensus by switching infoboxes is not okay.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
• I would support this. As mentioned by others, the same argument that applied to {{Infobox person}} should apply here as well. I am open to counter-arguments but it does not appear any have been made. Jurisdicta (talk) 06:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
• I support the deprecation of net worth parameter in {{Infobox officeholder}}. As was summarised in the July 2021 RfC, the primary reason for deprecation was ...there are multiple sources that determine net worth (notably, Forbes and Bloomberg) and there isn't a good way to choose which source to use in the infobox.... The same concerns apply here as well. ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 18:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• I support deprecation of the net worth parameter here. While I disagree with it's deprecation at {{infobox person}}, I think the consensus should stand and precedent should be followed here. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:58, 15 September 2021 (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.

Discussion

I'll need a visual example of what you're proposing. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Officeholder name

@GoodDay: I'm not exactly proposing, but wondering whether we should drop the "Net worth" field as shown in the infobox. It was deprecated in the base {{Infobox person}} — DaxServer (talk to me) 11:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

How do we deprecate this parameter?

What steps are involved in deprecating, now that consensus has been established? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

TBH, I don't have a clue what's been agreed to. So, I'm waiting to see what it looks like, when implemented. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers I've made the changes to the documentation and TemplateData. All that is remaining is to remove the param in articles when one stumbles upon it while editing. — DaxServer (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the parameter from the template code itself, so it will no longer display, and using it in an article will display an error message in Preview mode. Articles using the net worth parameter will show up in Category:Pages using infobox officeholder with unknown parameters, which currently contains 2,897 articles and could use some attention. Here's a list of articles that were using net worth, as of the last database dump. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! — DaxServer (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 27 October 2021

Please add a parameter to make a custom header for the "military service" section. Edit request prompted by concern at Talk:Rachel Levine#"Info box". ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. This does not seem like a good solution to that problem, and there does not appear to be consensus at that discussion. The section is for military service. If a person served in the military, the header should say "military service". If they didn't, other parameters should be used, or |module= can be used along with an appropriate child infobox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: What child infobox would you suggest? I do think changing the header to "Uniformed service" would be the best solution, because all the fields used in that section would remain appropriate. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 08:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

See this example of how that could work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with User:Tartan357 that a more permanent and parsimonious change should probably be made to the template. The USPHS Commissioned Corps is not normally or currently an armed service nor are its officers normally or currently subject to the UCMJ. Fire and police departments are uniformed services but they are not part of the military, either.
I've corrected the issue re: Rachel Levine using User:Jonesey95's suggested remedy. However, that uses Template:Infobox military person for a non-military person. The same problem occurs with Vivek Murthy, Boris Lushniak, and Regina Benjamin and those were three of only four Surgeons General I checked. I suspect the issue is more widespread among entries of USPHS and, perhaps, NOAA commissioned officers. Also, Joycelyn Elders actually served in the Army before becoming a USPHS commissioned officer. Any long-term fix should also accommodate histories such as hers. --Mox La Push (talk) 07:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

It sounds like the "military" part of the infobox name bothers people. I have created {{Infobox uniformed officer}} as a redirect, since the infobox appears to accommodate surgeons general and other uniformed officers in non-military services. I have also expanded the documentation a bit to explain this additional use. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion notice: Saule Omarova

Hi, KidAd and I are having a light-hearted dispute at Talk:Saule Omarova § Recent changes concerning the correct parameters to use for a Biden nominee pending Senate confirmation. Any input is appreciated. JBchrch talk 17:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

"nickname" under the "Military service"?

Why does "nickname" parameter appear under the "Military service" section?

I've noticed it in Joseph Stalin article, where it surely constitutes an obvious rough error. His nickname "Koba" pertained to him in his early years, when he didn't hold any official rank, and even hasn't been in any military service at all. "Military service" section there describes his later years, when the nickname was never used, by then it was almost forgotten.

I believe the "nickname" parameter should appear earlier in the template box, under "Personal details". Or, at the very least, please provide an option to move it there for the sake of the abovementioned instance. — Mike Novikoff 22:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

For many years, this template used subtemplates to manage the parameters. |nickname= was displayed using a "Personal data" subtemplate, immediately under |website= and before "Military service". It appears that in 2016, when this template was merged into a single template, the placement of |nickname= remained the same, but it was moved under the "Military service" header, probably in error. The merge was complex. I have swapped |nickname= and the "Military service" header so that the nickname will display at the bottom of the "Personal details" section. There may be a better place for it, but I think this fixes the immediate problem. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Jonesey! I agree that it can be further improved by moving |nickname= somewhat upper within "Personal details", but I'm not sure where exactly; so, for now, just thank you. Does anyone have a suggestion for a better location? — Mike Novikoff 23:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Unused parameter

This template has |source= in the valid parameter check, but it does not appear to be used anymore (if it ever was), so I think it should be removed from the check. Jonesey95? MB 16:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

|source= appears, and appears to be rendered, in the infobox's |below= section. It is used in about 1,800 pages. You can see how it is rendered at Anant Geete. When you clicked on View Source and then used your browser's Find command to search for "source" in the code, what went wrong? – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Jonesey95, I don't know what went wrong, I did search for it. Still, see Eshwara Khandre which is using it, but it is NOT rendered as in the example you gave. MB 18:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed so that the undocumented |source= parameter does not depend on the undocumented |date= parameter. Good catch! – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 7 December 2021

No new comments in over a week, so I believe the above RfC should be closed. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Closure requests, is the place. GoodDay (talk) 01:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I need a template editor to implement the changes. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I think consensus is clear, and that there's no need for formal closure. I'd close it myself, but I think the "don't close discussions if you can't implement the results" rule of thumb is a good one. Firefangledfeathers 03:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: You asked for an RFC, so wait a month you will. I'm rolling back that edit. And quite honestly, I'm pissedannoyed that I spent time closing that only to find that it wasn't even time up! Primefac (talk) 08:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

And for the record, I'm not saying the RFC can't be closed early, but with this little participation and only 10 days having passed, it's best to just let it run its course. There's no deadline, no rush, so just be patient and it will get done when it's time (after all, I do have this page on my watchlist). Primefac (talk) 08:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Primefac: Um, it seems you are saying that: You asked for an RFC, so wait a month you will. And you're apparently "pissed" I followed the procedures at WP:RFCEND:

When a discussion has naturally ended, you should consider ending the RfC.

and

An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent it won't be. There is no required minimum or maximum duration; however, Legobot assumes an RfC has been forgotten and automatically ends it (removes the rfc template) 30 days after it begins, to avoid a buildup of stale discussions cluttering the lists and wasting commenters' time. But editors should not wait for that: if one of the reasons listed above applies, someone should end it manually, as soon as it is clear the discussion has run its course.

There have been no new comments in 10 days, it is clear the conditions for ending the RfC as laid out in WP:RFCEND have been met. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, we don't have to wait fixed periods of time for things for no reason. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 09:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, at least this RFC is or was civil. I was just threatened with an ANI report, over another RFC. GoodDay (talk) 09:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

With only 5 !votes, I consider it to be insufficient participation to close after ten days, even if that fifth opinion was given nine days prior, because of how huge this template is and how contentious some decisions have been in the past. There are a ton of folks watching this template, which is why I am surprised there has not been more discussion, and why I opted to "re-open" the RFC as it were. My language choices were... unfortunate... in my initial close of this TPER, and I apologise and strike; a real-world task came up that needed my immediate attention, so I was a little more rushed than I would have been for a situation such as this. Primefac (talk) 10:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

No worries. At least, you didn't get mass-reverted like I did. GoodDay (talk) 10:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Documentation

Hello!

Can someone well informed with this particular infobox add a full list of parameters and a table explaining their use in the doc page? Something like {{Infobox person}} and many other infoboxes already have. For new users such as myself some of the parameters are too close or ambiguous in meaning and I wouldn't be sure where to use what value if using it. - Klein Muçi (talk) 12:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@Klein Muçi: The documentation page has a heading TemplateData with a collapsed table under it. If you click [show] on that green box, does it show what you are looking for? --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@ScottDavis, yes it does, thank you! (I wouldn't expect it to find it there.) However that's only 50%. A full list of parameters example is still missing, if you understand what I mean. - Klein Muçi (talk) 13:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Klein Muçi: Sorry, I don't understand what you mean is missing. There are a bunch of alternate blank "top parts" using compatible sets of parameters, followed by a blank common "bottom part" for the personal data that would be the same whatever kind of office is held. Can you point to an example of what you think needs to be added, or explain what you think could be clarified? --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@ScottDavis, well what you say, merged together. All blank parameters that can be used (alternative tops + personal bottom) shown in one place with explanatory comments, in a section like here. The closest to that would be this section but I think even that is missing some parameters when compared with this list, no?

All in all, considering the different top parts and the examples (which I hadn't seen up until now) I think the documentation is explanatory enough if you want to keep it like that. It's just that it follows up a format that I'm not used to apparently. When I go to an infobox page the fist things I look for are a blank template with all parameters and a list of all those parameters with explanations how to use them. The list was "hidden", the "all parameters blank template" didn't really exist but instead was scattered in different sections and examples and... It took me a while to gather up the information I needed (given that I'm used in having it presented to me first thing when I open the page). But the information is there (apparently) and if the interested members want to keep this approach, it's all good I guess. Thank you for guiding me! :) - Klein Muçi (talk) 09:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

RfC on deprecating the nominee/candidate usage

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.

---

Should the Nominee/candidate usage of this template and associated fields be kept or deprecated? ― Tartan357 ^Talk 07:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Survey (nominee/candidate)

• Deprecate: There is a big difference between holding elected office and merely running for it, and we should not be conflating the two in this way by making the infobox presentation so similar. This usage already appears rare; not even the example at Template:Infobox officeholder/example#Nominee/candidate is actually in use at Ralph Nader. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 07:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
• Deprecate: - Absolutely, without a doubt. GoodDay (talk) 08:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
• Don't Depracate I believe this can be used properly, but I believe we should set some guidelines on the candidates parameter. It should be similarly used in my opinion as the awkward transition between being elected and assuming office. For example, if John Doe is elected to be the Republican nominee for president in 2024, then this parameter should be used from the moment of his nomination to election Day or during a normal candidates candidacy until it ends. This parameter should only be temporary and not serve as a constant position forever like a normal officeholding position. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 08:26, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
• Deprecate Not an office and not even a position. Number 57 16:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
• Deprecate Mere nominations that don't pan out can be explained in the body of the article in question. I don't think even a smaller bulletted list in the infobox for the politician in question would be a good idea; it's more nitty-gritty biographical information, really. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 00:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
• Deprecate. The example provided Ralph Nader, doesn't use the template, suggesting that local consensuses have found it to not be useful. (Summoned by bot) BilledMammal (talk) 02:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (nominee/candidate)

Would you point out two examples of bios that have & don't have it? GoodDay (talk) 07:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Take a look at Template:Infobox officeholder/example#Nominee/candidate and Ralph Nader. I'm not aware of a bio that's actually using it right now. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 08:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Done so & am in full agreement with you. GoodDay (talk) 08:04, 27 November 2021 (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.

Template-protected edit request on 2 January 2022

Please remove the following parameters per the result of the above RfC.

 | nominee   = 
 | party_election = 
 | election_date = 
 | runningmate = 
 | opponent  = 
 | incumbent =
 | candidate =

― Tartan357 ^Talk 04:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tartan357: I assume you mean to entirely remove support for all of those effectively removing all references to things like: {{{nominee}}}, {{{candidate}}}, {{{party_election}}}, {{{election_date}}}, {{{runningmate}}}, {{{opponent}}} and {{{incumbent}}}. That is sort of a non-trivial thing and it affects not only {{Infobox officeholder}} but also its subtemplate {{Infobox officeholder/office}}. It would have been nice if you had done the work in the sandboxes for this (as then I could just check and paste them in). Please look at the following: Special:Diff/1062804823/1063309007 and Special:Diff/1057468508/1063316712 and see if {{Infobox officeholder/sandbox}} accomplishes that (provided no one changes it). If so, I can make the changes however there are a few more implications, i.e., it might be good to rename Category:Pages using infobox officeholder with speaker and without nominee or candidate (which I can also do since it requires changes to the protected template) and update the documentation afterwards. —Uzume (talk) 09:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. Agree with the above - I was going to do this as a "quick fix" last week when the RFC closed but didn't have the time to fully sandbox and test what is going to be a rather significant change to the code. I'm not saying you specifically need to do it, but someone needs to sandbox this before it goes live. Primefac (talk) 10:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Job titles should not be in upper case

This template produces item headings "Governor General", "Prime Minister", and "Vice President". These are common nouns, and per MOS:JOBTITLES should be in lower case, so "Governor general", "Prime minister", and "Vice president". Chris the speller ^yack 01:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

We already had a long-drawn out RFC on that matter. WP:JOBTITLES doesn't cover the infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely incorrect, that RfC was closed as no consensus. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

If you disagree? Then by all means, open up another RFC on the matter. At the moment, if you attempt to 'lowercase' political offices, etc in the infobox of bios where they exist? you'll likely get quite a bit of resistance. GoodDay (talk) 02:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

It's a template, they can't lowercase them "where they exist". ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

If either of you want to start pushing that topic again? Then open up another RFC. Otherwise, let it go. GoodDay (talk) 03:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

You can't demand that people don't discuss something for which there's no consensus (despite your false claims that consensus was reached, it wasn't). If you don't wish to be a part of the discussion, then don't be. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Open up another RFC, if you want. GoodDay (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

If you do? Make it about whether or not WP:JOBTITLES covers infoboxes. I seem to recall, the disagreement over that particular matter was the root of the dispute. GoodDay (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

You are correct. I've opened up an RfC on the underlying sentence case/title case issue, and tried to keep the issue as broad and as simple as I could. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

That's cool. Hopefully this time around, we'll end up with more clarity. GoodDay (talk) 04:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

See this 2020 discussion in the talk archives for this page, which links to this 2020 RFC on MOS/Biography. Also see a "no consensus" RFC farther down on the former page. It's no consensus all the way down. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe the RFC idea has been put aside. GoodDay (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 18 February 2022

The infobox is used on the page Stuart Ayres, and the number of offices is such that the parameter |office17 (and related parameters) is needed. Can this be added? Alternatively, is there a workaround? Thanks! Shuipzv3 (talk) 12:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that is too many offices to list in the infobox; when you start collapsing infobox material in contravention of MOS, that's a clue that it may be too stuffed with trivia. "Minister Assisting the Premier on Western Sydney"? A table in the body of the article might be a better format for this laundry list of ministerial positions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I also just put the Ayres page in compliance with MOS:SMALLFONT, so no more too-small text getting crammed in. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I would also suggest using the suboffice/subterm parameters to list multiple ministerial offices, as is used at (for example) Avigdor Lieberman. Number 57 18:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: It appears that editing the article is usually better than adding even more |officenn= parameters to this template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 4 March 2022

Can the "residence" parameter in the personal details section be changed to "residence(s)"? People have more than one residence, and I have seen multiple listed residences in articles under this parameter, despite the fact that it is in the singular. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 00:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 03:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Native name bold

It seems pretty common practice to place {{nobold}} in |native_name= so the English name is most prominent. Can we remove the default bolding? {{Infobox official post}} doesn't have it. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 06:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 14 March 2022

Add "opponents" just like in Template:Infobox person A poor son of Adam (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: First, |opponent= is already in the template (for now). Second, an RFC earlier this year determined that it, along with other parameters related to a nomination, should be removed from the template. Primefac (talk) 07:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit request - add disappearance-related fields from Template:Infobox person

Yevhen Deidei is a case where Template:Infobox person's disappeared_date field would be useful. Embedding Infobox person itself as a module is the current workaround, but it results in the disappearance info appearing at the very end of the infobox, when it really ought to be in the same area as birth/death info. Thanks. -Elmer Clark (talk) 04:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I have disabled the request, as this will need some discussion/consensus. If you have discussed this on another talk page, please direct me to it — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I have not - I didn't anticipate this being controversial. I don't really have any further argument for it beyond "there's a current use case for it, and optional fields are cheap," so I guess I'll hope others chime in. -Elmer Clark (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

Could "secretary-general" be added as a parameter, please? It is useful for functionaries in political parties and trades unions, eg. André Renard.—Brigade Piron (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Officeholders-elect

Currently the template allows for officeholders-elect to have their position included in infoboxes, with the starting date under the words "Assuming office". This is triggered by the "succeeding" parameter, however not all officeholders have a direct successor. For instance, Australia's senators are elected to terms beginning on 1 July but are elected on tickets so do not directly succeed anyone. This means recently elected senators, e.g. Kerrynne Liddle and Tammy Tyrrell, are shown as "assumed office" on 1 July. Is there a way to change the trigger for "Assuming office" so that it doesn't rely on the "succeeding" parameter? ITBF (talk) 06:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Just put in the name of their predecessor in their infobox, twice (under 'predecessor' & under 'succeeded'. It's alright, if there's a vacancy between the previous senator & the next senator. Just look the the bios of the popes. PS - I've also noticed, that someone jumped the gun & put the end dates in the infoboxes of the outgoing senators. Such changes shouldn't be made until July 1, 2022, as an RFC from months ago, decreed that successors shouldn't be shown in those infoboxes, until they're sworn in. GoodDay (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

BTW: I've found a lot of inconsistencies in the infoboxes of current, former & incoming Australian senators. Some have predecessors, some don't. Some have successors & some don't. There's one that's already listed as the government leader in the Senate, yet hasn't become a senator yet. GoodDay (talk) 14:39, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I think you've missed the point, which is a very good one: There is not always a successor/predecessor because some parliamentarians are elected via systems like PR or block voting where there are multiple seats and so you cannot say that X was replaced by Y.

I've added an 'assuming' parameter, which can be used with whatever order to make the infobox show "Assuming office". See how it works here. Cheers, Number 57 15:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I suppose, it's not exactly the US Senate ;) GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks User:Number 57, that's exactly what I was after! ITBF (talk) 10:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Does this template forbid numbering offices?

Just wondering. Does this template forbid the numbering of offices? An example would be "23rd prime minister of Canada". GoodDay (talk) 02:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

See the directions under #Usage in the template documentation. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Found it. Just was slightly confused, because earlier an editor reverted me for numbering a Andorran prime minister. My reason for numbering the prime minister was because his predecessors & successors were all numbered. Not certain why the editor didn't 'delete' the other Andorran prime ministers numbers, so I completed the deletions. GoodDay (talk) 03:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Children

Forgive me if I've missed something recently, but did something change to have |children= display as "Child" (singular) in the personal info section of this infobox? And if so, how does one get the plural version to display? Connormah (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, {{Pluralize from text}} was added to turn "Children" into "Child" with an optional "ren" based on the template output. Primefac (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

hike395, there is a problem with detect plural when used with |children= since we commonly display the number of children in infoboxes. This change is causing Child 4 instead of Children 4 MB 18:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I didn't realize that! I will remove that plural check.

@Connormah: In general, for these plural checks, you can use {{force singular}} or {{force plural}} to force the output of the check. {{Pluralize from text}} also reliably detects the {{ubl}} and {{hlist}}, so using those will trigger the plural. — hike395 (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated! Connormah (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikilinking office when order is specified

Why does the template automatically wikilink the office name if the order is specified? I expected that it wouldn't automatically wikilink the office, as that is the standard behavior without the order specified, but even the instructions for the template note this behavior difference. I would personally prefer that users manually enter the wikilink in both cases, so I was curious if there's a good reason behind this branching of behaviors. Clay (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Misleading, USA-centric parameter name

The parameter state= is supposed to be used for members of the United States House of Representatives, but this is not obvious from the name of the parameter, and can lead to misuse, such as this revision for an Indian state legislator from Haryana. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC)