Template talk:Infobox Politician

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Template format changes

I am very upset that the formatting for the template has changed recently. Why has this occurred?? What reason can there be for ruining the format of hundreds of articles?? In the summer, I changed the template carefully, so that, if you have a politician who switched roles for a number of years, and then stepped back up to the old role, you could easily type the details in the 'office3' field (e.g. Willi Stoph). This does not work any more.

Rather than cause folks even more grief, I have built a template called Template:Infobox Politician 2 (which is identical to the version as at
19. July 2006), so some folks may wish to start using this instead, as the fields all work the old way.

Please do not make unnecessary formatting changes to templates, because they are used by many, many articles, causing them to be ruined. (RM21 02:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC))

  • Alternatively, would someone else like to make the 'office3' field work properly again?? There's not much need for another template almost the same as this one. I'm just tired of my effort being rubbed out in an instant. (RM21 02:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC))
Could you give an example article where the current code breaks the infobox? It seems like an easy fix. --MZMcBride 02:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nationality

Shouldn't we include nationality (not all of us are Americans). Electionworld 07:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It used to have nationality. Why was the template changed? A lot of places are now broke because the format changed substantially. Tbeatty

[edit] Color

Wouldn't it be cool if the box was blue for dems and red for republicans? - Ravedave 23:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it would be. Color is arbitrary and until recently, if I'm not mistaken it described incumbency, not a particular party. Also, the box is for all politicians, not just those in the U.S. Plus, Red is almost universally associated with communism and would be confusing to those outside the U.S. Tbeatty 02:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Hrm how about an Elephant/R and Donkey/D image? -Ravedave 02:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Makeover

Would anybody mind if the template was changed by me to look similar to Template:Infobox President? --MZMcBride 05:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Separation lines

Would someone please restore the separation lines in this template? I don't want to mistakenly lose other good changes, so won't revert for now, but without the lines the info in the box is often difficult to read. Thanks. stilltim 02:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] image size

I've added some additional tags for this template. previously, if an image was below the hard-wired resolution, it came out looking very grainy when expanded to fit. the user may now specify the size of the image with the width and height attributes. The old hard-wired values are set as the default, so current uses shouldn't be broken. -- stubblyhead | T/c 17:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Note that to use the old sizing, one must delete the width= and height= attributes compeltely. If they are left blank, the image is not resized at all, which can mean a very large image. Also, units need to be specified when giving sizes, e.g. width = 200px JRawle (Talk) 23:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
User:Emperork removed, what I think - I'm no specialist on templating, a crucial part of the code http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AInfobox_Politician&diff=84789717&oldid=76842620 here]. I assume he did so to prevent all images from having the same size, which can become ugly for small images. It caused big images to become their real size however (i.e. huge). I've reverted it, but I hope some one can look at the code to make it work for both small and large images. C mon 11:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox "name" field - use common name? Full name?

I've seen widely inconsistent names in the "name" field of infoboxes of U.S. Representatives (Congressmen) and U.S. Senators. For example, for Dick Lugar, his full name (first sentence of the article) is Richard Green "Dick" Lugar. Should the infobox name field be "Richard Lugar", "Dick Lugar", "Richard Green Lugar", "Richard G. Lugar", or "Richard Green 'Dick' Lugar"?

My personal opinion - and a change I've made in a couple of places - is that the name in the infobox should be the same as the wikipedia article name. But given the wide variety of formats I've seen, and my sense that less than half of the infoboxes out there do use the wikipedia article name in this field, I'd like to find out what others think. Is there is a (prior) consensus on this? John Broughton | Talk 16:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, hearing no feedback, I'm going to start changing infoboxes, and see what happens, per WP:BB. John Broughton | Talk 22:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I, for one, disagree. This is something where consistency does not add much at all- it should be decided on a per-article basis, as this would affect thousands of infoboxes beyond even Politician which we can really say very little about. My thought is that in general, the full name (perhaps plus common nicknames) should be used in the infobox regardless of the page's title. The page's title has certain other constraints; the Infobox should strive to be complete. Look at Bill Clinton for example; the page title is Bill Clinton, but the Infobox prominently displays his complete name of "William Jefferson Clinton." SnowFire 02:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
It would nice to be consistent on this; I'm less concerned about which way things are done than with the current inconsistency. I'd welcome the comments of others. John Broughton | Talk 18:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Consistency is nice, but I believe that you are seeking a false consistency, and unfortunately I don't know how many people will notice this discussion. This issue isn't substantially different than at Infoboxes like "Congressman," "President," "Actor," or even "Book." All of those have true name / common name / title name issues. If a consistency could be reasonably established across all these (or even just all infoboxes on specific people), that would be one thing, though I doubt it will happen. But a consistency among only "Politician" means little. I would humbly suggest that this be raised elsewhere, although I'm not sure where- the general Template:Infobox doesn't seem to get much traffic. Perhaps the Manual of Style guidelines on people? SnowFire 20:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe the names should reflect the form most often found in the primary documentation of the offices for which they are noteable. This is generally the name they prefer to use in more formal documents, signatures, etc. For members of Congress I recommend following the form found in the Congressional lists [1]. It is usually first name, middle initial, last name, but not always. Nicknames are generally not appropriate for professionals like politicians, even if they use it in their campaign literature. I think common sense is more important than a blind following of a particular rule. stilltim 02:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes?

Was the infobox format change made recently really necessary? I spent all day filling out this infobox and replacing existing infoboxes for Maryland governors because this one looked better, and now they are all out of whack. Is it going to be changed back, or is it going to be subject to more changes? 'cause i don't want to go back and correct all the infoboxes if it's going to be changed again. please lemme know. Taco325i 20:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the history, the recent change was made by an anonymous IP who has been banned before and did not discuss the change on the talk page. Feel free to revert it if it's messing anything up. SnowFire 23:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok great, thanks. Please let me know if my revert is messing it up for anybody else. Taco325i 13:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In office

For politicians in office, currently one needs to fill in a term_end, but term_start should be sufficient. I suggest displaying term start if no term end is given. -- User:Docu

[edit] whitespace issues

Per WP:VPT#Whitespace of unknown origin using the office2/term-start2/term_end2 arguments creates extra blank space at the start of an article. See, for example, Satveer Chaudhary. I have a version in User:Rick Block/Sandbox3 that apparently fixes this, but it seems like someone more familiar with this template might want to look into this. The changes I made were to convert the HTML table entries related to the office2 params into wikitable syntax. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixed [2]. --Ligulem 13:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link length

The infobox has trouble handling long URLs. Perhaps it could be changed so it'll show the politician's name instead? For example - on Steve Warnstadt's page, instead of showing http://www3.legis.state.ia.us/ga/member.do?id=154&ga=81 perhaps it could show Warnstadt's website. This shorter link would improve the template - preventing the template from being unnecessarily widened by the URL's length. --Tim4christ17 talk 04:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

A workaround is to just add ['s to the link as I did on the page. Do you actually want something built into the code, or will that suffice? --MZMcBride 05:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
That should be good - thanks.  :) --Tim4christ17 talk 06:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chronology

When using the template for a holder of multiple offices, should the most recent office held be on top, or the oldest?

Also, when using the template for multiple offices, the birth date/place ends up kind of awkwardly in the middle (after the top office held). Suggest moving it down to follow the last office in the template.

See Bill Janklow for an example of what I'm talking about. RJASE1 19:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colour

I've just reverted a change of this template by an anon user to have headings in a particular shade of green. Apart from my personal dislike of the choice, I think given the high use of this template discussion is required first. Do other editors feel colour is needed in the headings to enhance the template and, if so, what colour should be used? WJBscribe -WJB talk- 23:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think color in the headings enhances the template by providing a better visual cue for distinguishing the different sections of the template. As it is, the infobox is a big gray monolith that blends together.
As for your issue with using green, note the earlier discussion on this talk page where a user had a problem with using red or blue. Those concerns are understandable given the political connotations of those colors, at least in the USA. I think green is pretty neutral and thus would be appropriate for a political infobox. I have a feeling that someone could raise a localized issue with any color that was proposed. So we'll have to just pick one and go with it. Whatever it is, it needs to be light enough so as to keep the font readable.Harrykirk 04:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Green is very political in Northern Ireland. And is linked to environmental parties in many countries. Its going to be difficult to find one that's neutral. Maybe a light grey or light beige? WJBscribe -WJB talk- 10:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Sounds about right; how about FFFFCC? Try it out and see what you think.Harrykirk 14:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, FFFFCC works for me. Given that its not a very major change you can prob just go for it and change it. But we could also try and get some more opinions on the matter... What do you think? WJBscribe -WJB talk- 16:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Let's just change it and, if there are any objections, it can always be reverted.Harrykirk 18:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Please do not use the yellow - it looks awful!! I've been using this template for 'loads' of Northern Ireland biogs and the effect is dreadful. Will revert for now as there hasn't been enough discussion for a major change like this Weggie 20:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, ok...maybe you're right. To keep it as bland as possible, I propose: DDDDDD (grey). Let's give it a week for any responses, and whatever the outcome of the discussion is will be implemented at that time. Harrykirk 20:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The grey works for me as well :-). WJBscribe -WJB talk- 14:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I propose that the code be rewritten and tuned to be more inline with other similar templates, e.g. Template:Infobox Officeholder. The only color it would then use would be the standard     , which is pretty neutral. Thoughts? --MZMcBride 21:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with MZMcBride's suggestion to rework this template's appearance using Template:Infobox Officeholder as a model. VerruckteDan 21:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
How about a light blue colour as used in Template:Infobox Congressman ?? Could be for the background just behind the name of the individual only? Smee 22:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC).
The MZMcBride is OK - also this needs protection urgently - the template is being changed everyday NO colours please - all colours are associated with some political party Weggie 22:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Without objection, I will convert the template over in the next day and then submit a request for semi-protection. --MZMcBride 01:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Harrykirk 23:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] web external link

I reverted user:Walter Humala's edit here since the coding for external websites is fine. As long as you code external links like this [http://www.femkehalsema.nl www.femkehalsema.nl] all is fine. C mon 21:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, you're right -- Walter Humala Godsave him! (wanna Talk?) 22:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The template has been updated. It's a rather large and complicated template, so there may be one or two mistakes in it; but it seems to be working pretty well. I've also listed the template on the requests for protection page, see here. --MZMcBride 23:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of the spouse and children

Can we remove the spouse and children fields from this? Although sometimes these will merit mention

  1. They seldom need highlighted in an infobox - in the article just maybe in some cases but are they generally among the most significant facts - NO
  2. Whilst Bill Clinton's family is fine - we don't want to encourage the naming of the young children of some city councillor
  3. Often '(s)he is married with four children' will suffice
  4. Having this in an infobox encourages the inclusion on unreferenced personal details

For all these reasons, can someone who understands these things remove their fields?--Docg 22:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree - where the spouces and children are notable they are very useful to include. Most countries have political families esp. in N.Ireland and the US example above Weggie 22:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but most politicians are not part of political families. In the unusual cases they are, that information can be included in the article. But infoboxes are for organising information that is typical and typically should be prominent. The names of the kids are certainly not in that category.--Docg 23:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, Doc glasgow. --Deskana (ya rly) 23:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
spouse and children should only be noted if they are notable, so I say delete the thing. →AzaToth 23:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Responsible editing should control this - wiki already has defined rules on when this information can be included. Weggie 23:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
If you have spouse and children in the standard box, that only encourages people to scum around for information that's not otherwise notable. Further it highlights something as information that will usually be, at best, peripheral to the subject's notability. We get enough complaints about unnecessary privacy violations without this. --Docg 23:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree that spouse and children should be removed. It sets the expectation that most of the time this information is significant to the article and should be sought out. This promotes original research to get the information. It also opens the door for negative information about these family members. For these reasons I oppose the routine inclusion of spouse and children. FloNight 23:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that normally they should not be included - but sometimes it is very pertinent so to do. I only include on a notability/public domain basis. WP:AGF. I could be persuaded about Children but to remove Spouse seems a bit drastic Weggie 23:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
While you might do that, in general an empty line on an infobox does encourage people to go find data in order to fill in that line, whatever it is. Notable information can always be included in the article rather than in a list of disjointed factoids. —Centrx→talk • 23:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
If normally they should not be included then they are not needed in the template. That is all I am saying. FloNight 23:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I must disagree with a blanket removal. Political nepotism is the most common kind. I really think this should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. If there is a real problem with specific articles it would be easy to add a temporary maintenance category for all pages using this infobox with non-blank parameters for {{{spouse}}} and {{{children}}} so that they can be checked individually, and removed in cases where the information appears not to be publicly stated. But even in the case of city council people, if all or most of our sources of information on a given person also give information about the person's family, our articles should reflect that. On the other hand, it could be argued that the names of children under age 13 should be removed per COPPA, which I can understand, but I don't think that will apply in the majority of cases. Hopefully we will find that out soon enough. — CharlotteWebb 01:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You miss the point, this isn't about removing information - sure sometimes it can be relevant and well sourced - this is about the prominence. Inforboxes are a quick summery of the most important information that is generally relevant to that type of article. The names of family are a) not always relevant for inclusion at all. b) even where they are relevant, seldom will it be information of the first order. Having it in an infobox encourages inclusion and prominence when this is often uncalled for. I'm not asking for information to be removed - and asking for the style to be changed so that the info is NOT in the general infobox.--Docg 08:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Docg on this count (with regards to children at least) - the information should be removed from the general template. Most cases in which this is sufficiently important to be included in the Infobox will be governors or heads of state, which won't be using this infobox. --Tim4christ17 talk 04:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say nix the kids and keep the spouse. Joestella 01:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Civil partner"

The civil partner field seems a bit jurisdiction-specific – the term has no meaning for, say, an Australian politician. Defactos, life partners, boyfriends/girlfriends as well as "civil partners" could all be summed up in a blanket term like "Partner". Joestella 01:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Politician vs. Officeholder

What's the difference between the two templates? Geva Zeichner 16:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

  • This template has more fields and the 'office' field is used differently on this template, but apart from that, there is very little difference. Philip Stevens 13:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, could this Infobox be listed under Category : People infobox templates so that people can find it when they go looking? Otherwise they might think that there is no Infobox for politicians. (Anonymous) 12:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image Size/Placement

What recent change was made to alter the image size and placement of the infobox? For example, see Mark Meadows. It used to be much smaller and on the side of the page. Harrykirk (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)