Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:02, 8 April 2013

This template does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

U.S. Congress This template is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress This template is about one (or many) Person(s). United States: Government This template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States This template is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government. Politics This template is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. 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

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Formatting of name & honorifcs

Not for the first time, I've just removed a load of HTML from an instance of this template. Please can we tweak the presentation in the template (matching other biographical infoboxes with similar fields; and removing any more such markup by BOT if necessary), so that people don't feel the need to do this, de-cluttering instances for the benefit of future editors, and avoiding compromising the emitted metadata? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Presumably this is being encouraged by a style guideline or template documentation somewhere. That needs to be found and corrected. The style tweaks should be easy enough: feel free to propose new code for them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find anything in documentation, and Template:Infobox officeholder/example doesn't have it. I suspect it's just individuals trying to overcome sub-optimal design in this template (see the above example). Perhaps this is a good opportunity to convert to {{Infobox}}?

Otherwise, change:

{{#if:{{{honorific-prefix|}}}|<span class="honorific-prefix" style="font-size: small">{{{honorific-prefix}}}</span> }}<span class="fn">{{{name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}</span>{{#if:{{{honorific-suffix|}}}| <span class="honorific-suffix" style="font-size: small">{{{honorific-suffix}}}</span>}}

to:

{{#if:{{{honorific-prefix|}}}|<span class="honorific-prefix" style="font-size: small">{{{honorific-prefix|}}}</span><br />}}<includeonly><span class="fn">{{{name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}</span></includeonly>{{#if:{{{honorific-suffix|}}}|<br /><span class="honorific-suffix" style="font-size: small">{{{honorific-suffix|}}}</span>}}

(which is adapted from {{Infobox person}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I super-totally agree. I don't like seeing small tags in infoboxes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The need for this change is illustrated by the fact that I've been reverted at James Cable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Can we move forward on this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done: please check that this hasn't messed anything up. Cheers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

An additional fix deployed due to broken nesting of includeonly tags. Please make sure to test changes in the sandbox before proposing. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

... Additionally, this caused an absurd amount of whitespace as the br was using the full line height of the 125%-sized title. I've added a manual tweak to reduce the line-height on the title to 0.6em. This has made James Cable look less broken: please check to make sure that it hasn't caused unwanted artefacts elsewhere. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. The infobox on James Cable has the following:

|honorific-prefix =<small> ] ] </small> <br />
|name             =Sir James Cable <br />
|honorific-suffix =<small> ] ] </small>

with <small> and <br /> tags. Note my comment above about "removing any more such markup by BOT". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Right. That will need to be done first before the line-height hack is removed, as it's obviously commonplace (practically ubiquituous, in fact). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I've put something up on BOTREQ: Remove inline HTML from Infobox officeholder. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It's nice everyone is getting on this and everything, but we seem to have glossed over a significant detail. Current practice is that honorifics are only line-breaked and small tagged if they would already create a line break. For instance, Rehman Chishti has been "Rehman Chishti MP", all on one line. The sort-of adopted proposal creates an odd look by putting a small MP below. That looks fine when it is balanced by small text above it, but stupid without. Further, the proposal has been implemented in such a way that at that particular article (and so, presumably hundreds, perhaps thousands of others) makes the two lines of text overlap. -Rrius (talk) 13:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

That's not the format used by any other biographical infobox, that I know of. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

So what? Most also have nothing like the look and feel, so the change does nothing to put this one in line with those. And don't point to {{Infobox person}} because we both know the difference is recent in origin. -Rrius (talk) 00:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, the non-standard look and feel also needs to be addressed; but one thing at a time, eh? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Any chance the partial spaces between the top of the infobox and image/next field in the infobox can be added back. Looks a bit sloppy how it is right now. – Connormah (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Any chance the whole thing can be reverted so that the thing that what wasn't broke is no longer fixed? -Rrius (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Were the thing not broke; perhaps. But the thing was broke, and we're fixing it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

No it wasn't—you just didn't like the html code, which was your problem, but now you've made it everyone else's. From having something that displayed nicely but whose code you didn't like, we've gone to something where the text for the name is smaller, the lines overlap, and singleton post-nominals sit on their own line for no good reason. It was fine, now it isn't, and there is no good reason for it. -Rrius (talk) 00:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that a template that requires multiple inline HTML tags isn't broken. You also appear to have overlooked that I have already pointed out that there is work still in progress. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

That is asinine. What you have done is overlook the fact that honorifics are displayed in at least two different ways. Having to use html for one of those two in no way made the template broken. That you would claim something is broken when it allows choices, one of which includes using markup, is bizarre! Do you know what the word "broken" even means?

Instead of forcing the choice of line-breaking, why didn't you create an option like "|multiline-honorific=yes" that would have retained the ability to have shorter name+honorific combinations display as they currently do. What you done instead is create a great deal of work for people who will have to fix the hundreds of situations that the bots almost certainly will not. For instance, at Fiona Bruce (politician), it should read "Fiona Bruce MP", with no line break and no small text. Before your unnecessary change, it did. Now that article and hundreds of similar ones for parliamentarians around the world will require a fix that the bot or bots probably won't handle. So thanks. I hope you enjoy having cleaned up code text at the expense of what is actually displayed. Bully for you. -Rrius (talk) 08:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't care about the code or whatever, but the way that the name at the top of the infobox looks seemingly squeezed in there is really bugging the hell out of me. Can it be fixed? – Connormah (talk) 02:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes; that's what we're discussing, above, and at BOTREQ. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

A bot finally seems to be cleaning up after the mess, but it is removing the small tags without this template having been changed. Is it still the intention to have the template code shrink the text or not? -Rrius (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this was done far too quickly and with too little consultation considering that it will affect almost every biography on Misplaced Pages. Having said that I don't think it's a bad idea in principle, but it's pretty messy at the moment. In my area of Australian politics, I've got a whole bunch of people whose name, which should indisputably be the most significant thing at the top of the infobox, is overshadowed by a giant "The Honourable". The small tags were being used for a reason - if you hate the HTML so much, can you insert a "honorific-small=yes" condition or something? (As for the MP issue, I'm of the opinion that titles that are temporary and only held while elected to a certain position, like MP and Senator, should not be included in the infobox anyway, but that's a discussion for another time. If they are included, they should certainly be both small and after a line break.) Frickeg (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed here since mid August; that's over a quarter of a year. It most certainly will not "affect almost every biography on Misplaced Pages". No names are "overshadowed by a giant" anything. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

That's inaccurate and inadequate. The discussion was started in August, but sat dormant until early November. Then, you recommenced the discussion on the 6th, and "consensus" to make the change was achieved on the 7th. Two days is hardly a quarter of a year. Shortly thereafter, the line breaks were added to the template code. Now, a month and a half later, a bot is finally removing the code. It is also inaccurate to pretend that this is a well-watched page. A decision affecting as many pages as this does should have been much more widely advertised. So that's inaccuracy. The inadequate part is the failure to answer the questions about small text. The small tags were there for a reason, and no discussion was had to eliminate the display of text at a smaller size. In fact, the discussion above more than implied that this would be hard coded into the template. That has not happened. So I ask yet again, does it remain the intention to make that text small in the coding of this template? If not, there will be a lot of reversions of bot edits, and I will be among those reverting. There was never a consensus to eliminate the longstanding usage for biographical articles across the project. You can object to the word "overshadowed", but there is no doubt that the use of an identical font size buries the name, which should be the most prominent thing. The aesthetic choice was made for good reason, and the display should not ruined by some people's obsession with how the code looks in the edit window coupled with a failure to make the obvious change to the code of this template. -Rrius (talk) 03:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The only inaccuracy is that the period was over a third of year, not merely a quarter. That was perfectly adequate. 137 editors are watching this template; if no more than two or three of them could be bothered to comment, in over a third of a year, then they obviously weren't too troubled by the proposal. Bandying about unfounded assertions that "there is no doubt" is a logical fallacy. This infobox does not exist in isolation. The changes discussed above have brought it into step with the way our other, more widely used, infoboxes display honorifics, and has nothing to do with "how the code looks in the edit window", though it has fortunately removed the inline markup which should never have been used. While there remains (as clearly indicated above) some work to be done, I have no intention to change to make any specific change to how such templates display their content; because that's not my decision. Any decision on changing the way honorifics are displayed by biographical infoboxes in general should be centralised. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. There was a one-hour discussion on August 13 followed by a single contribution the next day. Then there was a conversation spanning almost exactly 24 hours from November 6 to 7. It is not as though there was a huge series of contributions that would have popped up on people's watchlists. Moreover, counting on such a short discussion on a page watched by only 137 people is not adequate for making decisions that affect thousands of articles. How you can try to justify that as adequate is baffling. That you could try to trump that up into a three-month discussion is astounding. I sincerely doubt that more than a handful of people who watch this page were aware of the discussion or that many more of the thousands of editors who regularly edit biographical articles did either. As for whether there is no doubt about the display issue, you seem to be alone in not seeing it. -Rrius (talk) 20:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I've just had this change applied to an article which I've done a lot of work on and frankly, it looks ugly having a long title jammed into the same line as the name. Mildly upset, actually Mark.hamid (talk) 12:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you wait for the job to be finished before forming an opinion? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Possibly because you aren't bothering to answer the question that has been put now multiple times: will code for the honorific-prefix and honorific-suffix parameters be changed to reduce the size of the text? When you've brushed up against answering the question, you haven't quite gotten there. So please answer that simple yes-or-no question. -Rrius (talk) 20:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Status Update

1. Bot run #1 completed: 8,500 articles whose honorific began with <small> and/or <br> tags.
2. Bot run #2 95% complete: Articles whose honorific ended in a <br>. This is being run as WP:CHECKWIKI error #59, which includes more infoboxes than just officeholder.
3. Any cases that have not been caught will be dealt with after the next database dump.
4. Now that most <br> tags are removed, the temporary line-height fix (mentioned above) has been reverted in the infobox template code. Line spacing between the name and honorifics should look normal again.
5. Text-size has been changed in the infobox template code for honorifics. Honorifics text size should look smaller again... should be same size as before when the <small> tags were removed. Bgwhite (talk) 09:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Belated thanks for fixing this up. Frickeg (talk) 00:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Guidelines for when to include each parameter

Some guidelines as to when to use each parameter might be helpful. There is currently a disagreement (Talk:Julia Gillard#Inclusion of monarch and governor-general in infobox) about whether the monarch and governor-general should be included in {{infobox prime minister}}.

Parents

Like {{infobox person}}, this infobox should have a |parents= parameter, rather the shoeing such links into |relations= or one of the generic parameters. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

This has been previously suggested at /Archive 14#Relations, /Archive 15#Parents, and at /Archive 16#Parents vs Children. – Philosopher  10:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

If there was some way to restrict its usage to parents have articles, I'd like the idea; I don't see any need to list non-notable parents, though. – Philosopher  10:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

That's how the parameter is usually used in {{infobox person}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any other responses, so if you can type up the code, I guess we could add this. (Sorry, but I'm not up to take on coding for a major infobox just now.) – Philosopher  20:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

RFC regarding signature images in biographies

I've started an RFC over at Stephen King's bio. As it involves information presented through this template, it might be of interest to editors who monitor or work on it. Thanks. §FreeRangeFrog 17:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. As I stated there, I think the signature parameter is useful for people who sign legislation into law, for the people who sign a nation's currency, etc. However, I don't see any reason to include it for most officeholders. – Philosopher  20:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

order/office parameters

The order or office parameters are used to title a section about an office to which the person has been elected/appointed. For example, Josiah Bartlett has office=4th Governor of New Hampshire. However, if you look at List of Governors of New Hampshire, while he is the 4th unique person to hold the office, he was the winner of the 6th election.

Looking at List of Governors of California § Governors for precedent, it seems that the usual standard is to keep the same ordinal only when someone serves additional consecutive terms (i.e. Jerry Brown is #34 and #39, but Pete Wilson, who served two consecutive terms is #36 only).

Similarly, at List of Presidents of the United States, footnote 1 states this explicitly, and, for example, Grover Cleveland is #22 and #24 while FDR, having served 3+ consecutive terms, is #32 only.

Is this rule specified somewhere, and should it be consistent across various offices? Is there a better place to discuss this? This came up because of an (I believe incorrect) edit to Levi Woodbury. —— 00:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

As Misplaced Pages reports on the world, we can't just make up the number. For a prominent office like the ones you've listed, it's likely that a numbering already exists - check the official's official website or a historical society reference and see if it has a number somewhere. – Philosopher  03:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that's the right approach. It's the approach we took on List of lieutenant governors of California. California keeps a count and includes Acting LGs in the list, and therefore, so does Misplaced Pages. See here and here. TJRC (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Please add fields

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

Please add the fields "influences" and "influenced" to this template.--76.220.18.223 (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Page is fully protected. Changed request to match. RudolfRed (talk) 05:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit protected}} template. Similar requests on other infoboxes have demonstrated that such parameters can be controversial. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:ICONDECORATION

Would there be any reason to display decorative icons in this infobox's text fields? I am not seeing it but I would welcome discussion. It might be worth updating the template's docs with a recommendation not to do this. --John (talk) 10:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

If they are used, they should be in separate parameters, not mixed with text. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

"Decorative" seems like an inappropriately skewed adjective to use. The images seem to be informative: the proper coronets for the noble title held, badges of the viceregal offices occupied. These images have been in those infoboxes for years and hardly seem "mixed in". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Judicious use of the icons in question is not unreasonable, IMO. PKT(alk) 17:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Template-Class U.S. Congress pages
• NA-importance U.S. Congress pages
• WikiProject U.S. Congress persons
• Template-Class United States pages
• NA-importance United States pages
• Template-Class United States articles of NA-importance
• Template-Class United States Government pages
• NA-importance United States Government pages
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Template-Class politics pages
• NA-importance politics pages
• WikiProject Politics articles