Template talk:Infobox officeholder

Foo Bar
Foo Bar
Bar of Foosville
	In office; 2024–2024 Serving with Bar Baz and Baz Qux

Foo Bar
Foo Bar
Bar of Foosville
	In office; 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Infobox officeholder template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26: 3 months

Infoboxes

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Infoboxes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes articles

Politics

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles

Template:Infobox officeholder is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.

Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

Edit request on 24 July 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Military Rank

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

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

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

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

Clashing spouse parameter instructions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Auxiliaries are not "Military Service"

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

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

Template-protected edit request on 14 September 2024

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

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

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

Position of the party field

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

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

Edit request 23 September 2024

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

Add |family=

Already used in various other derivatives of infobox person, and would be useful (in particular) for British hereditary peers. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:39, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. Sohom (talk) 04:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This surely counts as an uncontroversial change, within the meaning of the notice at the top of the page? Specifically, if the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. I'm not sure I can see any possible reason to forbid editors from adding a notable family when the facility to do so via clunkier means already exists. ''UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

alongside param doesn't work with term param

I don't know the code magic going on with {{Infobox officeholder/office}}, but the alongside param doesn't work when using the term (not term_start/term_end) param. Compare:

Markup

Renders as

{{Infobox officeholder
|name=Foo Bar
|office=Bar of Foosville
|term=2024
|alongside=Bar Baz and Baz Qux
}}

{{Infobox officeholder
|name=Foo Bar
|office=Bar of Foosville
|term_start=2024
|term_end=2024
|alongside=Bar Baz and Baz Qux
}}

Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 01:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if someone is deputy…

If someone is a deputy to a non-standard position, where do I put the person they are a deputy to? e.g. for "deputy leader of moon landing committee" where do I put the name of the concurrent "leader of moon landing committee"?

There's a place to put the deputy in the box for a leader, but not the other way around?

Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 07:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other names or alias parameter

Is there a reason why this template doesn't include an "other names" or "alias" parameter under personal data? Seems like a useful parameter that is standard fare under most other biographical infoboxes. RachelTensions (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This template is about a person's service as an officeholder, and it is often used as a module under an encompassing template, such as {{infobox person}} that would have that kind of data. There is a tendency towards trying to make infoboxes like this into an everything-holder, when it is not appropriate to do so. The module format for infoboxes exists precisely to prevent this kind of thing from happening, but as you have well noted, that architecture is being eroded in some other places. It doesn't mean we should follow suit. Van Isaac, GHTV^contr_about 17:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but embedding {{infobox officeholder}} into {{infobox person}} gives a very different visual result - when embedding, the office information is secondary to all the subject's personal information, meaning all information about offices is pushed to the bottom of the infobox.

Per Template:Infobox officeholder#Embedding within a different infobox, embedding is desirable when the subject is "known for more than just their appointments"... but embedding and shoving all the officeholder information to the bottom when the subject is only known for their appointments doesn't seem ideal.

(and yes, I tried doing the reverse and embedding {{infobox person}} into {{infobox officeholder}} to get the "other names" parameter, and the result was even worse)

I can't see this being a controversial addition given there are definitely officeholders who have run for office under a different name (Tae Yong-ho is the one I'm working on, specifically, who ran for office under a pseudonym)... other people I can think of off the top of my head are Bill de Blasio who has changed his name 3 times (including being elected under one of those names) and JD Vance, who was known as "James David Hamel" up until he was 30 years old (though I'm not here to debate the specific merits on including those names in their infoboxes... I'm just saying they exist) RachelTensions (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you are going to have edge cases in almost everything, with different philosophies for handling it, but my first thought on someone getting elected under different names is that it might actually be better handled by embedding this template twice - once under each name used, and using the person infobox for sorting out the different identities. You can also embed the other way, with the person infobox subsumed under the politician. The other option is to cheat it with name=birth name née alias. But I am really captured by the thought that when you have people appointed/elected under different names that you kind of treat it as a separate politician, but the same person, and you structure the templates to reflect that they opted to use separate identities. My best to you on this conundrum, though. Van Isaac, GHTV^contr_about 20:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But I am really captured by the thought that when you have people appointed/elected under different names that you kind of treat it as a separate politician, but the same person, and you structure the templates to reflect that they opted to use separate identities. My best to you on this conundrum, though.
— User:Vanisaac 20:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

This is about a parameter to note the other names that an officeholder has been has been known by during their political career, not about "treating people with two names as two separate politicians but the same person."

There's no need to overcomplicate it by separating their different names into two different infoboxes under "two different identities"... it's just a statement in the infobox that they've also been known as X name, nothing more.

RachelTensions (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll second that; multiple infoboxes for an officeholder who has used multiple names is an absurdly bad suggestion. — HTGS (talk) 05:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I ended up just DIYing it by placing a generic infobox within infobox officeholder to place the "other name" at Tae Yong-ho RachelTensions (talk) 05:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Merge 'relations' and 'relatives'

I see no reason to keep distinct fields |relatives= and |relations=, especially when they are ranked in different places in the infobox. — HTGS (talk) 04:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Listing office holders, before they've taken office.

Perhaps I'm wrong. But as I understand it, we list a lieutenant governor in a governor's infobox or a governor in a lieutenant governors' infobox, even before they've taken office. We simply add "(elect)", next to the name. I'm asking because this practice is being questioned. GoodDay (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]