Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Embedding voice files

A project I'm running, and a related event in mid-January will soon add around a thousand recordings of article subjects' voices to their biographies. I'd like to embed those in the relevant infoboxes, as in this example (using {{Infobox person}}). Can we add the necessary parameter to this template? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Sticking a {{listen}} directly into an infobox is somewhat inelegant. I'd prefer for support to be baked more directly into {{infobox}} if possible, avoiding lots of nasty superfluous divs and code-copying. For the time being, it's not too gross to use the existing out-of-infobox positioning, is it? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I discussed this when the project started (for infobox person, IIRC), and the consensus was that this was the best method to use. Embedding within the infobox prevents unsightly "steps" which occur one some articles; encourages standardisation of layout, allows the voice file to be referenced in the emitted metadata, and facilitates Wikidata integration. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Point taken, though I still think we can improve the output (if I can convince the file tag, when in audio mode, to consent to paying attention to any CSS at all). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• No, please - give them their own little box. Much too crufty and against WP:INFOBOX principles. Of course adding them is an excellent idea, but not in the main box. Johnbod (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Yes please. Nobody except Johnbod would prefer an ugly separate box to an elegant integration within the infobox. It works well with {{infobox person}}, and it should be just as useful in this template. --RexxS (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, as an experiment. The old audio/video player icon is huge and looks out of place on a page. If the experiment does not work, and is just as unsightly, we can always switch back. Any more elegant alternative is worth trying. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • We've had audio files embedded in 'person' infoboxes for many months now; see, for example, Corrie Corfield, Bill Thompson (technology writer), Keri Davies, Mark Porter (doctor), Rémi Mathis, Sue Black (computer scientist), Jamillah Knowles, to name but a few. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
• No. What do you do with a huge number of files, like for John F. Kennedy? Or any modern President, actor, musician, etc. Could be hundreds of files. If it is limited to one or a several, who gets to choose? Essentially, we are a visible encyclopedia. Yes, we have voice. But we are not allowed to edit voice! They are only there as possible bibliography to back up written material. They are a distraction in the infobox IMO. Student7 (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Surely we do the same as we do when there are a huge number of image files? We pick one for the infobox by consensus, of course - why should it be any different for choosing a sound file (or for any other edit)? We are an online encyclopedia; readers are able to make use of a wide variety of user agents to peruse our content and sound is just as legitimate as vision. Are you going to tell visitors who use screen readers that "we are a visible encyclopedia"? Of course we can edit sound clips, just as we can edit images or videos and a visit to Commons will show you the range of multimedia available to our project. Letting our readers know how a subject's voice sounds is just as encyclopedic as letting them see how the subject looked, so why would it be any more of a distraction that having an image in the infobox? --RexxS (talk) 20:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
• No. I agree with Johnbod ... sorry RexxS, one counterexample disproves the theorem. :-)   Audio is too crufty. But that's just a style opinion, I'd prefer to keep the main infobox uncluttered and put the audio in a separate box (as beautiful of a separate box as possible of course). That said, I have nothing (in theory — I haven't actually specifically looked) against Corrie Corfield and other articles that "integrate" the audio with the main infobox, where it makes sense for that particular article. But as a general rule, Student7 is on the money. Audio is *not* something anybody can edit. This is not just a technological limitation; it is a direct-quotation-limitation. Audio is an opaque blob, which usually contains words-with-meaning, but wikipedians cannot ethically *edit* said words-nor-meaning.

  For example, we have an article on Bono, of U2. Should the One-And-Only audio-clip in their BLP infoboxen, use Bono's speaking voice, or their singing voice? If we use a song, which song? Line from the chorus, or line from the melody? Include 'background' guitar by The Edge, or strip it out as "not Bono" ... thus murdering the musical qualities of the song? If speaking voice, aren't we raising something to Noteworthy which is actually not? Well, in Bono's case, he has become reasonably Notable as a speaker on political issues like health, war, wealth, et cetera, but for most people, the "sound of them speaking" is not notable-slash-encyclopedic. Disc jockey? Sure, we need Howard Stern's voice in his BLP. News anchor? Sure, we need Walter Cronkite's voice in his BLP. Musician? Maybe... but methinks not, see reasoning above, clips belong in the album-articles. Politician? Kinda. But then the real question becomes, what *one* audio soundbite of 30 seconds or less exemplifies the essence of the person? Doubt we can ever judge fairly, with exceptions like Clara_Peller being exceedingly rare.

  Photographs *are* traditionally encyclopedic, by contrast: before those existed, hand-created portraits were used. Picking one photo for the infoboxen is pretty easy. The reason is simple: in a photograph, the person may be posed a specific way, or dressed a specific way, or seen with certain props, but they are still always themselves. By contrast, audio contains words which have meaning, and except for something banal like Barack Obama saying "My name is Barack Obama" the words are almost never self-referential, and the meaning will almost never cut to the essence of what the BLP is about. Picking the "one" photo for the infobox is rarely controversial, because the person is themselves, in all photographs of them. Picking the "essential" audio clip, is guaranteed to be pointlessly controversial. Better to have a separate place for audio, where we are not constrained to one short clip which must give the 'essence' of the speaker en toto, and can instead present a library of clips. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

  p.s. There is absolutely zero conflict with screen-readers, the think-of-the-blind argument is a total red herring. Screen-readers work best with prose in a linear layout, and work worst with infoboxes and multimedia, methinks. Screen-readers also work fine with photographs, as long as the photo has descriptive alt-text. There is obviously some benefit to having audio in the article, somewhere, which permit the readership to hear famous music, or famous speeches, or even famous catchphrases I suppose. But that audio-benefit applies to *all* our readership, not to blind folks using screen-readers exclusively. Audio is an enriching and useful thing; for articles about specific pieces of music, it is an *essential* enrichment. But for articles about BLPs, it is a decorative thing. The article on Clara Peller can be fully and completely encyclopedic, without an audio recording of her catchphrase... and if there *was* any multimedia, a video recording of the original Wendy's commercial with the originally-famous-catchphrase would be vastly preferable to an audio recording made later. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Dispatch article

This infobox is discussed, at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-07-10/Dispatch, using Winston Churchill as an example.

I agree with the argument that the succession/ prime minister information is superfluous on that article; it's already in the succession boxes at the foot of the article. That infobox should also display persona biography (dates of birth and death, etc.) ahead of posts held.

How can we best remedy these issues? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

RFC: successor fields

Should the successor/predecessor fields be kept, removed, or altered? —Designate (talk) 13:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Support removal. I don't think succession information can be considered part of the essential data for an individual. It's essential data for the office, which is why we have a list on the page for the office, and tons of navboxes for almost every officeholder. The infobox has to be a trade-off; it can't just be any conceivably useful thing. Succession information doesn't come close to basic biographical data like offices held, birthdates, etc. I doubt many readers are loading up an officeholder's page to find the one person that came before them; if someone wants a single predecessor's name, they probably want the whole list, not just one name at a time. It's not a likely use case. Let's consider getting rid of it. —Designate (talk) 19:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Support removal. It is distracting from much more relevant information, and by many personalities that held diverse offices results in a ridiculously long info-column. --ELEKHH^T 13:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Support removal I agree with the point made by Designate, successors and predecessors are attributes of the office, not the individual. This doesn't mean that successors and predecessors do not deserve discussion ant he office, it may well be relevant to the bio that someone defeated someone else in an election, lost to someone else in an election, replaced or was replaced in appointive office, but those facts should be included in the main text only if they are important context, not automatically and always included. The infobox is not a place for such information.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Weak Support Keep - Not having a huge background in political biographies or infoboxes, I can't say I really have a strong opinion on this one. I appreciate the argument being put forth here by Designate that the infobox "can't just be any conceivably useful thing". The "usefulness" or "relevance" of the predecessor/successor info is most likely going to be highly subject to POV. That said, my POV is that the predecessor/successor info is very relevant and important. When I scan over political biographies, the predecessor/successor info is one of the first things I look to. It tends to provide historical context to a biography.

Additionally, my understanding is that the predecessor/successor info is optional, right? Seems like if it was too much info, individual editors could omit it at their own discretion on individual biographies.

Finally, if this change were to be made, I think we have to acknowledge it would be a fairly major change affecting thousands of biographies. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but I think it does mean we should be sure we get a lot of eyes looking at this, and pretty clear consensus for the change. NickCT (talk) 12:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that you're not yet quite fully informed, so maybe should withhold your decision for a while. Regarding the "optional" aspect, when I removed the field previously from articles I have been reverted with the single argument that consistency across political bios has priority. So making it optional would require a clear indication in the template documentation. Regarding high usage, you're right, the infobox is used in 69,901 instances. I think the biggest problem is with politicians which held a large number of positions, and thus the addition of predecessor&successor fields makes the infobox very long, duplicated by a long column of navbars like here - which I find makes the article look like some blog of a psycho that feels the need to repeat everything in a shouting format. --ELEKHH^T 13:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

re "that you're not yet quite fully informed" - So inform me. I'm always willing to change my decision in light of new information. What I said above was an initial impression.

re "consistency across political bios has priority.... biggest problem is with politicians which held a large number of positions.... the infobox very long" - Ok. I completely appreciate what you're saying, and I see how that could be a problem. My concern is that you're going to throw the baby out with the bath water. B/c the predecessor/successor fields are problematic on some pages, doesn't mean they aren't helpful on others. Perhaps an alternative to removing the predecessor/successor fields would be to add a comment to the template page or some policy pages reading - "On some biographies where a subject has held a large number of offices, filling in predecessor/successor fields may lead to overly large infoboxes. In general, for subjects who have held more than X offices, predecessor/successor fields should either be omitted, or should be omitted for all but the most significant office(s) held by the subject". NickCT (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't really like the argument that unnecessary features can be removed on a case-by-case basis if everyone agrees they're disruptive, but otherwise will be included by default. It's tough because (as Elekhh said) it's hard to get consensus to make one article different from 99.9% of them. Drive-by editors will always dump that information back in, and it's a headache to make the case for each article. I think we should treat the infoboxes as excluding information by default and only including it if editors can make the case that the information is fundamental. The real problem isn't length but whether the information belongs there.

The problem is that the fields are more likely to be used by readers for higher offices where the sequence is notable (presidents, PMs, kings) than for minor offices (Congressman), but people who have attained those higher offices will invariably have longer infoboxes—so you're excluding the information on the articles where it's most likely to be useful and including it where it's most likely to be meaningless. This is why a standard length doesn't really work. —Designate (talk) 01:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

@Designate re "I think we should treat the infoboxes as excluding information by default" - I could definitely get behind the idea of excluding the predecessor/successor info by default. How do you achieve that technically though? Do you have to write it into policy or something? NickCT (talk) 16:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Some articles are too short to have an infobox and succession boxes. The current arrangement allows the infobox to contain the summary information and to provide succession information. Additionally, I'm very uncomfortable with people coming here to try to remove the feature altogether just because they were unable to achieve consensus for removal at particular articles. The very fact that consensus is hard to achieve even with long infoboxes should be seen as an argument for keeping the feature, not deleting. That something is popular is a poor reason for getting rid of it. Finally, if it is so terrible having duplication (I don't really see the problem), then why not apply the logic in favour of getting rid of succession boxes? The purpose of the infobox is to provide information about the offices a person held. It makes no sense to remove some of that information and stick it at the bottom of the article. In the end, some people find it useful to have the information at the top, and some find it useful at the bottom. Just because you fit in to just one or neither of those camps and therefore don't find it useful to have the information in the infobox doesn't make it right to punish those who do. -Rrius (talk) 11:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • It was a hypothetical. I was explaining why there's no point taking it to individual pages without a community discussion. —Designate (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Keep If duplication is really a problem get rid of the footers. Agathoclea (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Remove. This is most often done with a nav box below the article. As far as the general question raised, the longer a info box template has been around, the more parameters it tends to accumulate. It almost seems like they should be pruned periodically! Student7 (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
• Keep As far as I understand, we all agree that "preceded by/succeeded by" information should be somewhere in the article. The problem is just that it is usually duplicated. If that is the problem, I vote for removing navboxes from the bottom of the page, just like Agathoclea and Rrius pointed out. Most users just want to find out basic information on a person, and they usually only read the article lead, and less often the whole article. So, most users do not even get to the bottom of the page. So, the information on the top of the page is much more useful that on the bottom. Anyway, I agree that we should not have the same set of information two times in the same article. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, no, the duplication is not the only problem. The infobox is supposed to be a summary of basic information about an individual which appears in the article, and this information does not appear in the article and is not about the individual. It's just the wrong spot for this category of data, like putting the population of the city they were born in or the name of their chief staffers. It's not basic pertinent information. And it's not clear why we should assume readers go to the article on an individual to get a fraction of the succession data, rather than going the article about the office to get the whole list. —Designate (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Remove per "it's an attribute of the office, not the person", points given above. –Quiddity (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
• Remove from the infobox: there is a footer to deal with this and it overbloats an infobox. - SchroCat (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment if we keep them, can we have an explicit guideline as to what to do for the first holder of the office, to avoid disputes like the one happening in with Julia Gillard: [1][2][3][4][5]. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
• Keep I find it very useful when looking up politicians to be able to see who preceded and succeeded them in office. In fact, I find it about the most useful thing in the Infobox. I believe it is important information, not just about the office, but about the person, since it helps to work out where they fit in in the line of officeholders. I also agree with the comments by Rrius and NickCT. Neljack (talk) 04:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
• Keep It is incredibly useful to have predecessor and successor up front in the infobox, as often, such details are crucial to be easily seen. Succession boxes at the foot of the article are merely there for formality, but the main purveyor of such information should be the infobox. Ithinkicahn (talk) 11:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. It's generally the succession footers that need to go, because they're mostly outdated and ugly and create unhelpful clutter that results in creeping templatitis. It may indeed be the case that a person's predecessor and successor in a political position aren't technically attributes of the person, but it is useful and relevant information for the article to contain and the infobox is a less obtrusive place to put it than a handcoded succession footer is. Bearcat (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. People come to the article to look for specific information. They look at the top of the article first where these fields are located. There is no reason why an infobox cannot contain information on the office and the person at the same time. After all, we have the name of the person that they worked for, the president, governor, or mayor. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. My use-case is almost exactly what Designate describes as "not a likely use case".  :-)   If I'm reading about the SecDef, the generic article with "list of historical SecDef officeholders" is not useful to me, because the key details (stances held and achievements while in office and such) are always buried in the BLP articles. Therefore, to understand the role of the SecDef during the Cold War, say, I usually pick the BLP article about the SecDef just before the Cold War started, and then keep clicking on the successor-links until I stop hearing about the Cold War. So in a way, Designate is correct... in the hopping from officeholder-to-officeholder use case, I don't usually care about the *name* of the successor... but I want the hyperlink to that successor, in the infobox. Going back in time is also common for me... I will read about the actions some officeholder took, and get curious about what kind of foolishness the predecessor was up to, that necessitated said actions... this curiosity then recurs, repeatedly, dragging me inexorably further back in time.  :-)

  Of course, there is another use case which is also common for me, which is when I'm reading about a BLP, for the sake of understanding that BLP specifically. In this use-case, the names of the predecessor and the successor (and the appointed-by field), serve the purpose of situating the BLP in history. Knowing that Volcker was just before Greenspan, and that Bernanke was just after, is important to the historical sense of Greenspan themselves... especially if I've heard of Bernanke but not Greenspan! And while I'm certain Greenspan is an interesting person qua person, the main reason people read about him in wikipedia is because he was Fed chair, and therefore the names of (and especially hyperlinks to) the officeholders on either side are helpful. I'd even urge expansion: the infobox would be more useful methinks, if it said "Preceded by Paul Volcker ('79—87), Succeeded by Ben Bernanke ('06—present)". HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Education and Alma mater fields

Are we going to harmonize with "template:infobox person" and have a field for "Alma mater" and "education"? That way we do not have to keep fighting over which of the many schools someone attends gets to be their singular nourishing mother, which is the only field supported here. "Alma mater" (singular) by Wikipedia usage appears to be the undergraduate education. Some people attend prep school or prominent high school like Bronx Science, college, graduate school. Some people have multiple degrees, like M.D.-Ph.D. or were Rhode Scholars and split their education with time at University of Oxford. The education field can list all prominent schools separated by breaks. Either field can be left empty. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Mayor

We need the field "| mayor = ". We have city offices appointed by mayors, like chief of police and fire chief. I am working on the chiefs of police and fire chiefs for New York City and Philadelphia. We already have fields for presidents and for governors, for federal and state appointees. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps "appointed by" would be more generic, and this more useful? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I'd misunderstood RAN's request on my talk. "Appointed by" makes sense to me, and covers this use case: if you can whip up some code I'll sync it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

That is a simple solution. How did it get to proliferate to "| deputy = | lieutenant = | monarch = | president = | primeminister = | chancellor = | governor = " ? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Next question: Which field should we be using no matter which entity appointed the person? "| deputy = | lieutenant = | monarch = | president = | primeminister = | chancellor = | governor = " or "appointed by =" ? "Appointed by =" gives the label: "Appointed by Woodrow Wilson" whereas "President =" gives "President Woodrow Wilson". Lots of options are nice, but having a consistent look and feel is important also. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, I'd prefer to use "Appointed by" and ditch the rest. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree. For complex cases, like Alan Greenspan, we can still have a list of the various presidents that appointed them, just instead of saying "presidents: reagan bush1 clinton1 bush2" we can simply say "appointed by: reagan bush1 clinton1 bush2 (presidents)" which is more generically useful. What about the |deputy= field, can we replace that (and synonyms) with something like "superior of" or perhaps "assisted by" ... or maybe even "minions"?  ;-)   — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It looks like we still need the "| mayor = ". Some heads of municipal offices are not appointed by the mayor but serve under the mayor. They are elected by the city council (or alderman, or freeholders, depending on the city) to serve the new mayor. Can we add the field? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

missing end-date and incumbency

If start_date is given but end_date is not, a link "incumbent" is automatically generated. However, in the case of historical figures the end_date might be missing because it is unknown or because we can't find it. Is there a way to suppress "incumbent" in that case? Zero^talk 03:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Denomination

It seems to me that we need a denomination field, to be able to distinguish between religion and denominational affiliation, without losing good and specific information. –St.nerol (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

This could get complicated.

There is a joke that runs: "I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are you christian or buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me too! Are you episcopalian or baptist?" He said, "Baptist!" I said,"Wow! Me too! Are you baptist church of god or baptist church of the lord?" He said, "Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you original baptist church of god, or are you reformed baptist church of god?" He said,"Reformed Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off." -- Emo Phillips

While it may not be that complex for most people, there may be more than one or two qualifiers/"denominations." For example, there are supposedly 33,000 Protestant "denominations." Might be easier if the guys in the joke were "just" Baptist! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Student7 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 7 March 2014‎ (UTC)

Employer

For people who are no longer in office, or for whom the office is occupied at the same time as they have a professional career, this template needs the |employer= parameter, like in {{Infobox person}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Normally, the reason this box is used is because the person is noteworthy for being elected. Usually only for that reason. There are exceptions. Clint Eastwood was most notable an actor, not a mayor. Jesse Ventura is more of a quandary because of the prominence of his governorship. Editors there have preferred the elected office. Ronald Reagan wasn't really that prominent an actor, compared to his presidency. "Profession" within the box seems to solve the problem. We don't want to clutter boxes if we can avoid it, IMO. Student7 (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've certainly found a good many cases where he parameter is needed, over the years, I think your "usually" needs qualification, if indeed it's not bogus. I also note that all your examples are from the US; the template, though is used for subjects from around the globe, including places where employment is apparently more common and significant. "|profession=" should not be used for "|employer=", for reasons of preserving data granularity, but its very existence is an argument for an |employer= parameter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Question for ministerial positions/cabinet members

I wonder what is the best way to link to the cabinet a minister belongs, which in many cases is more interesting than linking to the individual Prime Minister. Parameters cabinet or minister_from don't seem to serve this particular need.

The template documentation and examples did not help me to understand the best way to do that, probably because they currently have a very US-American flavour and ministerial positions are quite specific in the American presidential system, however {{Infobox minister}} redirects there and this seems to be the right template.

Does anybody have an idea on how to do that? Place Clichy (talk) 11:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC) (Copied from Archive 17)

I am missing this functionality too and I think that we should implement it. — Petr Matas 06:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

It would also be useful to be able to add custom fields to each office entry. Then, it would be possible to present relevant information that the template does not anticipate, like the cabinet, which the minister belongs to. — Petr Matas 06:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Look at Yulia Tymoshenko to see what we are trying to do. — Petr Matas 06:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Legibility

Currently, there isn't enough contrast, in size and/or colour, between the font used for the honorifics and post-nominal letters and that used for the subject's name. The subject's name, which should obviously be the most prominent textual element, becomes camouflaged among a jumble of words and letters. Can the sizing and colours/tones be adjusted to remedy this legibility issue? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

This relates to discussion at Talk:Michaëlle Jean#Text formatting. There is also a related RfC there on the use of {{plainlist}} in an instance of this template, where editors may wish to comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy;Andy's edits 17:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Here is how the default styling of {{Infobox officeholder}} would render the section if it were allowed (what Miesianiacal calls "camouflaged among a jumble of words and letters"):

The Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean PC CC CMM COM CD FRCPSC(hon)

Here is how the article is rendered at present with dimmer, smaller text that breaches MOS:ACCESS #Text "The use of reduced font sizes should be used sparingly. Avoid using smaller font sizes in elements that already use a smaller font size, such as infoboxes, navboxes and reference sections. In no case should the resulting font size drop below 85% of the page fontsize (or 11px)." and is simply too small (and dim) for many (including myself) to read:

The Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean PC CC CMM COM CD FRCPSC(hon)

I would suggest, as a compromise, that the infobox could be amended to slightly reduce the default font size and weight of the honorific and post-nominals as I have done in the sandbox. this would be the result (and that's pretty much at the limit of what I can comfortably focus):

The Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean PC CC CMM COM CD FRCPSC(hon)

What do others think? --RexxS (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean PC CC CMM COM CD FRCPSC(hon)

Another alternative is to keep the honorifcs as at present, but make the name bigger. I've mocked that up here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I considered that, Andy, but infoboxes have a limited width, so keeping the name at 110% and reducing the size of the honorifics (as in the sandbox) allows longer names, etc. without undue wrapping, and seems more to match the spirit of what Miesianiacal is trying to do. Setting the name at 126% as in your mockup would make it significantly larger than names in other biographical infoboxes. Additionally, per MOS:BOLD, there's no reason to have the honorifics at more than normal font weight, and whatever solution is found ought to at least remove the bolding from them. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The accessibility and legibility topics are a subset of the Text formatting discussion on the Talk:Michaëlle Jean page. Can we terminate/consolidate this discussion and keep everything in one place because decisions in both threads will affect infobox officeholder. --Karl Stephens ( talk | contribs ) 17:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

or terminate/consolidate Talk:Michaëlle Jean and continue discussion on this page so long as we're not discussing the same point in two pages. --Karl Stephens ( talk | contribs ) 17:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

As the styling for text in an infobox ought to be part of the infobox, I believe this is the right place to have any fruitful discussion. The debate at Talk:Michaëlle Jean #Text formatting stopped on the same day that it was raised here. As there are no other suggestions to answer Miesianiacal's question (and assuming no further discussion ensues here), tomorrow I propose to boldly make the changes to this template that are in the sandbox. I'll clean up the articles that transclude Infobox governor general or Infobox Governor General and have inline styling of the honorifics. --RexxS (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The sandbox version looks liked a good compromise that meets policy especially for accessibility. --Karl Stephens ( talk | contribs ) 02:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, it certainly is looking better. The contrast in font works well. My only critique at the moment would be that the subject's name is still a little too small, but, I did note the comment above about the want to avoid wrapping. If there's no way to make the subject's name bigger vis-à-vis the honorifics/post-noms without making the latter smaller than 85% or the former so big that it will cause wrapping more often than is reasonable, then, I guess this should do. Is there a way to make the font of the subject's name more bold? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend trying to make the title extra-bold because some browsers handle that badly (it's already bold because it's in a row header (<td>...</td>). I've tweaked the sandbox to make the title 5% bigger. You can edit the sandbox as well, if you want to try bigger sizes, because it's not protected like the main template is. You may need to purge the sandbox page to make any changes visible. Unfortunately, the 'preview' box at the bottom of the sandbox version doesn't work because of the redirect. Would Freeman Freeman-Thomas, 1st Marquess of Willingdon have the longest title ("the Marquess of Willingdon") that you're aware of? --RexxS (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean PC CC CMM COM CD FRCPSC(hon)

Major the Most Honourable the Marquess of Willingdon PC GCSI GCMG GCIE GBE

I think the Earl of Aberdeen and Temair and the Duke of Connaught and Strathearn are probably the longest among Canadian governors general. I can't think of longer outside that group. The names in the infoboxes at the two aforementioned articles are wrapping already, though. So, I'm not sure they influence the decision much.

If 5% bigger is okay by everybody else, I'd go for it. And then leave it at that. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

It's only a slight increase in size - it doesn't even alter the line wrap at John Hamilton-Gordon, 1st Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair when I tested it - and it's probably safe to carry out, so I've gone ahead and made the change. It's easy enough to revert if anyone finds a problem. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

"Lieutenant Governor" field

Seems to me that the "Lieutenant governor" field messes with the alignment of the infomation column on templated that use this eg. Alison Redford, Alexander Edmund Batson Davie, John Robson, etc., in that it compresses it and makes unnecessary line breaks... is there any way a linebreak can be put between the words "Lieutenant Governor" on the box? Thanks. – Connormah (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

@Connormah: I've taken the {{nowrap}} off the label. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Connormah (talk) 05:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Why not abbreviate, "Lt. Governor" or "Lieut. Governor"? Activist (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)