Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Template talk:Infobox officeholder

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 20:28, 31 May 2014 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) from Template talk:Infobox officeholder) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 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)
  • 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. --ELEKHHT 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. --ELEKHHT 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)
  • 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? Zerotalk 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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder/Archive_18&oldid=610976908"