Template talk:Infobox officeholder

Edit request 23 September 2024

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)

 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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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. VanIsaac, GHTV ^contr_about 17:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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. VanIsaac, GHTV ^contr_about 20:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Edit request 2 December 2024

Description of suggested change:

Another "at-large" capitalization bug. See caption below infobox photo at Martin Maginnis for example. It would be nice if it would "lc:" the At-large parameter as used in the caption text. Dicklyon (talk) 04:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I do not think this one is possible, due to articles such as John Sellers (surveyor), where the district parameter intentionally starts with a capital letter. See also James Manahan, which may or may not have valid capitalization. A preliminary search yields about 465 articles to check. There may be more. I will leave this request as unanswered in case another template editor can come up with a clever fix that eludes me. I think the template in question is {{Infobox officeholder/office}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Someone with AWB access could tackle all those. But could you instead just have the template code check for "At-large" and replace it with "at-large"? I'm not up on what's possible/easy/hard in templates, but seems like it might not be too hard. Dicklyon (talk) 03:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that AWB is probably the best way to fix the 0.2% of transclusions that appear to have this issue. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

OK, got that done via AWB; mostly. Dicklyon (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Can we lose the "order"?

George H. W. Bush
41st President of the United States
In office January 20, 1989 – January 20, 1993
Vice President	Dan Quayle
Preceded by	Ronald Reagan
Succeeded by	Bill Clinton

This parameter makes no sense the way it is presented in the infobox. George W. Bush was not preceded by Bill Clinton in the role of "43rd President of the United States", nor did Barack Obama succeed him in the role of "43rd President of the United States". Because people just copy what they see, we inevitably get absurd OR such as "50th Attorney General of Arkansas", "2nd Chief of the U.S. Liaison Office to the People's Republic of China", "31st Prime Minister of Egypt", etc. This is impossible to correct, let alone keep correct, and even when used as intended, it just does not make sense. Surtsicna (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

You want to remove the numbering? You may need to open an RFC here, or begin one at the proper Village Pump. After all, the numbering in the infoboxes, have been around for decades. GoodDay (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

No reasonable person would interpret the infobox as saying that Bill Clinton was the next 41st president. I think it looks fine the way it is. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Does it impart essential information though? And what about other offices? "50th Attorney General of Arkansas"? Surtsicna (talk) 11:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

If it is not appropriate for a specific article, you can boldly remove the value of |order=, discuss it on the article's talk page, or both. Presidents of the United States are commonly referred to by their ordinal number. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that they are the only officeholders who are commonly referred to by the ordinal number. Does the infobox need a parameter that is only appropriate in a relatively small of group of articles? It would not be an issue if these were not the most prominent articles; because of their prominence, the ordinals end up spammed everywhere. I still believe that listing the ordinal as if it were a part of the office looks odd. In normal parlance one says that Bush was president from 1989 to 1993, not that he was the 41st president from 1989 to 1993. Surtsicna (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Concerning the infoboxes of US cabinet members? I'd recommend testing your proposal, by removing the numberings from the infoboxes of the current US cabinet members. GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I tried to get something going at Village Pump, but wasn't successful. Anyways, good luck in what you're trying to accomplish 'here'. The community's lack of enthusiasm about this general topic, is quite disappointing. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Police service section

What do you think of adding a new section to the infobox for police srvice of the officeholder, similar to that for military service? There's a few of those cases (e.g. Bernard Kerik; mostly police officers who turned to politics, or police chiefs) and embeding the {{Infobox police officer}} is not ideal as it operates with different visuals and therefore creates confusion—the section title "Police career" has plain background as it is based on the {{Infobox person}} colour scheme, which apears to look more like a subsection when used as a child with {{Infobox officeholder}} rather than a full section and does not create clear distinction with the rest of the infobox. It is even more inappropriate when the "Military service" section is used. Proposed parameters:

Police service

• Police force/Service/Department for the name of the force, all three denominations avalible as not all apply always
• Branch/Unit
• Service Years or Years of service
• Status
• Rank
• Awards

Chears! — Antoni12345 (talk) 02:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on why you think embedding would create confusion? That seems like a neat solution. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)