Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Residence

WP:BLPPRIVACY says that "articles should not include postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, although links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted" and later "If you see personal information such as phone numbers, addresses, account numbers, etc. in a BLP or anywhere on Wikipedia, edit the page to remove it and contact the oversight team so that they can evaluate it and possibly remove it from the page history." With this policy language, should "residence" remain a parameter in this template? My sense is that it should be deleted from the template to discourage editors from entering information that would violate BLPPRIVACY. --Enos733 (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with residence as long as it is only used for residences which come with the office held: it is reasonable to record that Joe Biden is resident at the White House. But it should not be used for any private residences: so at the Rishi Sunak page we should only list 10 Downing Street and Chequers and should remove the curent reference to Kirby Sigston Manor which is a purely private house. Perhaps the parameter should be changed to "official residence" or similar? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Note also that this parameter was removed from the main person template following this discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm wondering if it might actually belong here, but with some guidance on what is appropriate. When it comes to electoral districts or constituencies, the town/city in which a representative lives might be a germane use of this kind of parameter. I'm not necessarily arguing this is the case, but it is certainly a perspective worth considering. I don't think that would really fall under BLP concerns, and official residences are of course well-suited to such a parameter. VanIsaac, GHTV ^cont_WpWS 17:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Template not displaying correctly on Charles Harper (politician)

I recently made changes to Charles Harper (politician) to include all of their offices, but have noticed that under the first office ("2nd Speaker of the Western Australian Legislative Assembly") the predecessor and successor are not showing. I have checked all of the parameters and can't find any errors. Both fields were showing at multiple points when I was previewing the changes I was making but in the final published edit the information isn't displaying. Can someone please tell me what I've done wrong and how to correct it? Adam Black ^{talk • contributions} 20:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I have managed to fix this myself by appending "1" to each of the parameters for that office, but I'm going to leave this discussion here as it does seem like there is an issue with the template. For the edit I was referring to above, see here. Adam Black ^{talk • contributions} 20:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Add criminal fields

John Politician
Representative Example
Criminal information
Criminal charge	doing crime
Penalty	wrist slapping

Because there is a growing list of politicians turned criminals, I propose that we add fields (criminal_charge, convinction_penalty, and conviction_status) from Template:Infobox criminal to Template:Infobox officeholder in the same way that they have been made available in Template:Infobox person.

Currently, there is a dispute about adding an instance of Template:Infobox criminal to the page of Donald Trump following his criminal conviction. Given that some argue that the use of Template:Infobox criminal is too strong, the amendment of Template:Infobox officeholder as previously mentioned could provide a compromise. Bgregz (talk) 00:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Criminal-related parameters can already be available via module - see example right. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I was not aware of this, thank you! Bgregz (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

What was the rationale for incorporating those parameters into {{infobox person}} rather than using that infobox's |module= parameter? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

It appears that the criminal parameters there predate the implementation of |module=. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Issue with spouse param

The spouse parameter is causing issues on articles eg. Rishi Sunak, Donald Trump 93.37.105.221 (talk) 11:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

That seems to have been fixed. It was caused by changes at Template:If both. Toadspike [Talk] 12:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Template rendering messed up

The rendering is completely messed up on the wiki of many politicians. It is displaying an "ambassador to" field below all tables.

Eg: Narendra Modi, Rishi Sunak

am not able to add screenshots Skratata69 (talk) 11:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

yes, somebody fucked up Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes RWILD✉ 11:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Yep! The last edits to the template were by User:Jdlrobson on 5 April 2024‎. I don't know if this is the cause or if something else has happened. It looks very unprofessional at the moment. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 12:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I came here to report the same problem. I noticed it on the page Pete Buttigieg. Gottagotospace (talk) 12:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I just posted on the Talk page of the user who last edited the template. Hopefully they can help! Gottagotospace (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

This has now been fixed. Not sure how or why. Toadspike [Talk] 12:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

It's still showing up incorrectly on some pages. Maybe it needs time to "refresh" everywhere? Gottagotospace (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, likely cache issues.

Just noting that I've made this a subsection of the one above - the issue was with an embedded template, which has now been fixed. Primefac (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 June 2024

Clean ndivs; implement my edit today in this template's sandbox page. Santiago Claudio (talk) 06:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@Santiago Claudio: I have no idea what "ndivs" means. What is the purpose of your edit? SilverLocust 💬 07:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Align with edit by administrator Izno to Template:Infobox person last April with a summary of "clean ndivs." Santiago Claudio (talk) 08:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@Izno: Could you clarify what "clean ndivs" means (and/or comment on this requested edit here)? SilverLocust 💬 09:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

No idea where the n came from, but basically the gist is that all the blocks in that template didn't need to be in the br-separated entries, they could just use divs normally. Izno (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: I already made this change here a while ago. Izno (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Caliph

Can you add a caliph= parameter ? A lot articles about Islamic governors/generals use monarch= which is wrong. I know its possible to add it with xblanknamey but thats too much hassle AlexBobCharles (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Age and Deceased status

It seems important to have the age and status of whether a given politician is deceased in a fairly obvious place in the infobox for officeholders. The current state is that there can optionally be a personal information section which contains this below the entire list of political positions, so that instead of being listed clerly, most politician's infoboxes omit the entire "Personal data" section - this seems much worse than having the living status / age highlighted at the top. Davidmanheim (talk) 06:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

That's certainly a valid perspective on things, but the way to do it is to embed in an infobox that makes birth and death more prominent, such as {{Infobox person|module={{Infobox officeholder|embed=yes}}}}. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanisaac (talk • contribs) 06:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the issue here. Most politician articles are of deceased persons. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Edit request 10 August 2024

Description of suggested change: Nobold in parameter "native name". Diff:

−

subheader = {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{embed}}}}}|yes||{{#if:{{{native_name|}}}|{{#if:{{{native_name_lang|}}}|<div class="nickname" lang="{{{native_name_lang}}}">}}{{{native_name}}}{{#if:{{{native_name_lang|}}}|</div>}}}}}}

+

subheader = {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{embed}}}}}|yes||{{#if:{{nobold|{{{native_name|}}}}}|{{#if:{{{native_name_lang|}}}|<div class="nickname" lang="{{{native_name_lang}}}">}}{{nobold|{{{native_name}}}}}{{#if:{{{native_name_lang|}}}|</div>}}}}}}

MykolaHK (talk) 18:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. I don't think the proposed code will work correctly, but it should be easy to find out in the sandbox. Do you have consensus for this formatting change? – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Education vs Alma mater

What's the difference between those two fields? Should academic degrees go into the education field? Or is the education field for schools / universities that a subject enrolled in but not graduate from so that they are part of the subject's education but are not an alma mater for them? Or is the education field for non-academic education, i.e. elementary school, middle school, high school (and vocational school?)? Nakonana (talk) 12:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I apply the instructions from {{infobox person}}.

The |education= field is for Education, e.g., degree, institution and graduation year, if relevant. If very little information is available or relevant, the |alma_mater= parameter may be more appropriate.

The |alma_mater= parameter is a more concise alternative to (not addition to) |education=, and will often consist of the linked name of the last-attended institution of higher education (not secondary schools). It is usually not relevant to include either parameter for non-graduates, but article talk page consensus may conclude otherwise, as perhaps at Bill Gates. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

That helps, thanks :) Nakonana (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 July 2024

To any administrator, apply these, my previous edits to this infobox's sandbox:

−

| abovestyle = font-size: 100%; | above = {{#if:{{{honorific prefix|{{{honorific_prefix|{{{honorific-prefix|}}}}}}}}}|<div class="honorific-prefix" style="font-weight: normal;">{{{honorific prefix|{{{honorific_prefix|{{{honorific-prefix}}}}}}}}}</div>}}<!-- --><div class="fn" style="font-size:125%;">{{#if:{{{name|}}}|{{{name}}}|{{PAGENAMEBASE}}}}</div><!-- -->{{#if:{{{honorific suffix|{{{honorific_suffix|{{{honorific-suffix|}}}}}}}}}|<div class="honorific-suffix" style="font-weight: normal;">{{{honorific suffix|{{{honorific_suffix|{{{honorific-suffix}}}}}}}}}</div>}}

+

| abovestyle = {{{abovestyle|}}} | above = {{#if:{{{honorific prefix|{{{honorific_prefix|{{{honorific-prefix|}}}}}}}}}|<div class="honorific-prefix" style="font-weight: normal; font-size: 77%;">{{{honorific prefix|{{{honorific_prefix|{{{honorific-prefix}}}}}}}}}</div>}}<!-- --><div class="fn">{{#if:{{{name|}}}|{{{name}}}|{{PAGENAMEBASE}}}}</div><!-- -->{{#if:{{{honorific suffix|{{{honorific_suffix|{{{honorific-suffix|}}}}}}}}}|<div class="honorific-suffix" style="font-weight: normal; font-size: 77%;">{{{honorific suffix|{{{honorific_suffix|{{{honorific-suffix}}}}}}}}}</div>

Santiago Claudio (talk) 02:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Above at #Edit request on 18 June 2024, I asked for an explanation of the purpose of this edit. The explanation given (Align with edit by administrator Izno to Template:Infobox person last April with a summary of "clean ndivs.") did not make it any clearer. SilverLocust 💬 10:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done pending an explanation * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

This request is for alignment with |abovestyle= and |above= in {{Infobox person}}. Santiago Claudio (talk) 02:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Which test case contains a test of |abovestyle= and other new parameters? Why have useful HTML comment tags been removed? Why has the color been removed from headerstyle? Why has |class=skin-invert been removed? This proposed change does not look valid to me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Harry Truman. On the contrary, comment tags were added and there's still header background color; no new parameters. |class=skin-invert was already omitted when the sandbox was created. Santiago Claudio (talk) 01:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The Harry Truman test case does not contain |abovestyle= or |post-nominals=. Here's a diff link comparing the current live template with the sandbox. You should be able to see that there are more differences there than the one you are requesting. Please sync the sandbox with the live template before making proposed edits. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Auxiliaries are not "Military Service"

Thanks to this template, Dan Cox is listed as having military service because of having been in the Civil Air Patrol, even though CAP isn't one of the uniformed services and those who join it aren't subject to military discipline. Is there a way this template could be make to accommodate this difference, or would it be necessary to just remove it from the info box in the article itself and just refer to that membership in the article text? Thanks! --Steve Foerster (talk) 14:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@SteveFoerster, great catch! In my opinion, it should be removed from the infobox within that article on Dan Cox followed by an announcement on Talk:Dan Cox clarifying why it was removed. I can’t believe the infobox /doc needs clarification. But if you think that would help, it might be a good idea. — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 17:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Military Rank

What is the common practice when using the |rank= parameter if the officeholder held a higher rank than the one with which they separated military service?

As a case in point, Tim Walz held the rank of Command Sergeant Major (provisional), but retired as Master Sergeant, a lower rank. Should this parameter be highest rank, or last rank held? — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 03:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

This is already being discussed extensively at Talk:Tim Walz, so a new discussion about that person should not be started here. I think you'll have better results if you post a query at Template talk:Infobox military person asking people to visit that article's discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, @Jonesey95, but I was hoping a different discussion here could help others when editing other articles. The /doc page is not at all clear on expected use of this attribute. Another editor could easily decide Chief Bottle Washer is an acceptable value, although common sense might rule otherwise. I’m just expecting a more public discussion here might help establish a best common practice. I still feel my question (with that aim) belongs here. The Tim Walz article is but one example. — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 18:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Clashing spouse parameter instructions

Following discussion with @Wozal: here and here, I want to seek consensus on removing the comment "Spouse(s), if notable" here: Template:Infobox officeholder § TemplateData (click show). This note shows up on visual editor for some editors. The template page itself does not have this note if you ctrl+f for "spouse" (it is currently only hidden under TemplateData), so, in my opinion, these instructions clash. Also, I've found the vast majority of pages follow the guidance that a spouse's name is included in the infobox, even if the spouse(s) are not notable enough to have a page in the encyclopedia; e.g., Stephen A. Douglas, Elizabeth Warren, J. B. Pritzker, Tina Kotek, Steve Womack, etc., etc. Also, if one spouse was notable and a second spouse was not, would we say "2, including Martha". I think the expectation that only notable spouses should be added is odd guidance, if you want a quick and full view of a subject's life, which is the goal of infobox, as far as I understand. --Engineerchange (talk) 14:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

If details of the non-notable spouse are known, such as if they died, divorced or the dates of the marriage, {{marriage}} can be used. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Neveselbert: Yup, I'm aware of the marriage template. My comment is on the TemplateData instruction insisting only notable spouses should be included in the infobox when the parameter is widely used for all spouses (notable and non-notable) of the subject. The absence of any instruction under Template:Infobox officeholder#Usage for the spouse parameter conflicts with the TemplateData instruction. --Engineerchange (talk) 04:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

If the guidance in the TemplateData programming code conflicts with the actual template documentation as established either by practice or consensus, the TemplateData guidance should be fixed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Just a dumb question but, when is a spouse “not notable”? — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 18:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

If they lack an article of their own. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Precedent across WP doesn’t seem to support that. I’ve seen many articles to the contrary. — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 18:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how we measure precedent here, but looking at this category of FA articles, feels like a fair start. From poking around, I feel like the lion's share follow my comment of non-notable and notable spouses added alike. Most articles are of dignitaries, royalty, or world leaders that have only notable spouses. A select handful do not list any spouse at all in the infobox, despite them being mentioned in the article (e.g., Hugh Beadle and Louis H. Bean); refuting my point. Some examples of the lion's share of articles in this category that do meet the criteria I mentioned, which one would imagine have been largely scrutinized since they are FA: James G. Blaine, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Adams, David Lewis (Canadian politician), Li Rui, Norodom Ranariddh, Nikita Khrushchev, Emma Goldman. Also, I wanted to comment that the note for the spouse parameter for Infobox military person (<!--{{marriage|name|start date|end date}}; add spouse if reliably sourced-->) may be a more appropriate change than just keeping the spouse parameter blank, as it is now for this template? Hope these comments help move the conversation forward. Cheers, --Engineerchange (talk) 03:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment The description was added in 2019 by Daviddwd.—Bagumba (talk) 04:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment Reading the comments above, I think, so far, @Jonesey95: is also in concurrence with the removal of the comment from TemplateData for the spouse parameter on this template. --Engineerchange (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 14 September 2024

Hi. I want you to add "Major donors" to the officeholder template so people can easily see who is behind the person's funding. Thanks! DivineReality (talk) 07:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC) DivineReality (talk) 07:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 10:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Position of the party field

The party field currently goes to personal details, In this version of Isaac Newton It seems disconnected from his political office. I did this to bypass the template default. Can we change it so the "party" label puts it in personal details and "party1" label puts in the office section? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. Political officials have a responsibility to serve their entire constituency. While political affiliation guides decision-making, and is a personal decision that could be subject to change (over the time in a specific office or over the subject's life. So, in the specific case, Newton was a Whig while in Parliament, and presumably was a Whig for (all of) most of his life, so it is better to put affiliation under personal details. And, as members of parliament represent their constituency, not their party, adding political party labels in the information about the office clutters the office section and implies incorrect information about the nature of the office. - Enos733 (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Edit request 23 September 2024

Add |family=

Already used in various other derivatives of infobox person, and would be useful (in particular) for British hereditary peers. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:39, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. Sohom (talk) 04:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

This surely counts as an uncontroversial change, within the meaning of the notice at the top of the page? Specifically, if the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. I'm not sure I can see any possible reason to forbid editors from adding a notable family when the facility to do so via clunkier means already exists. ''UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

alongside param doesn't work with term param

I don't know the code magic going on with {{Infobox officeholder/office}}, but the alongside param doesn't work when using the term (not term_start/term_end) param. Compare:

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

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

if someone is deputy…

If someone is a deputy to a non-standard position, where do I put the person they are a deputy to? e.g. for "deputy leader of moon landing committee" where do I put the name of the concurrent "leader of moon landing committee"?

There's a place to put the deputy in the box for a leader, but not the other way around?

Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 07:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: Merge 'relations' and 'relatives'

I see no reason to keep distinct fields |relatives= and |relations=, especially when they are ranked in different places in the infobox. — HTGS (talk) 04:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Other names or alias parameter

Is there a reason why this template doesn't include an "other names" or "alias" parameter under personal data? Seems like a useful parameter that is standard fare under most other biographical infoboxes. RachelTensions (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

This template is about a person's service as an officeholder, and it is often used as a module under an encompassing template, such as {{infobox person}} that would have that kind of data. There is a tendency towards trying to make infoboxes like this into an everything-holder, when it is not appropriate to do so. The module format for infoboxes exists precisely to prevent this kind of thing from happening, but as you have well noted, that architecture is being eroded in some other places. It doesn't mean we should follow suit. VanIsaac, GHTV ^contr_about 17:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand that, but embedding {{infobox officeholder}} into {{infobox person}} gives a very different visual result - when embedding, the office information is secondary to all the subject's personal information, meaning all information about offices is pushed to the bottom of the infobox.

Per Template:Infobox officeholder#Embedding within a different infobox, embedding is desirable when the subject is "known for more than just their appointments"... but embedding and shoving all the officeholder information to the bottom when the subject is only known for their appointments doesn't seem ideal.

(and yes, I tried doing the reverse and embedding {{infobox person}} into {{infobox officeholder}} to get the "other names" parameter, and the result was even worse)

I can't see this being a controversial addition given there are definitely officeholders who have run for office under a different name (Tae Yong-ho is the one I'm working on, specifically, who ran for office under a pseudonym)... other people I can think of off the top of my head are Bill de Blasio who has changed his name 3 times (including being elected under one of those names) and JD Vance, who was known as "James David Hamel" up until he was 30 years old (though I'm not here to debate the specific merits on including those names in their infoboxes... I'm just saying they exist) RachelTensions (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Obviously you are going to have edge cases in almost everything, with different philosophies for handling it, but my first thought on someone getting elected under different names is that it might actually be better handled by embedding this template twice - once under each name used, and using the person infobox for sorting out the different identities. You can also embed the other way, with the person infobox subsumed under the politician. The other option is to cheat it with name=birth name née alias. But I am really captured by the thought that when you have people appointed/elected under different names that you kind of treat it as a separate politician, but the same person, and you structure the templates to reflect that they opted to use separate identities. My best to you on this conundrum, though. VanIsaac, GHTV ^contr_about 20:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

But I am really captured by the thought that when you have people appointed/elected under different names that you kind of treat it as a separate politician, but the same person, and you structure the templates to reflect that they opted to use separate identities. My best to you on this conundrum, though.
— User:Vanisaac 20:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

This is about a parameter to note the other names that an officeholder has been has been known by during their political career, not about "treating people with two names as two separate politicians but the same person."

There's no need to overcomplicate it by separating their different names into two different infoboxes under "two different identities"... it's just a statement in the infobox that they've also been known as X name, nothing more.

RachelTensions (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I’ll second that; multiple infoboxes for an officeholder who has used multiple names is an absurdly bad suggestion. — HTGS (talk) 05:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I ended up just DIYing it by placing a generic infobox within infobox officeholder to place the "other name" at Tae Yong-ho RachelTensions (talk) 05:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Listing office holders, before they've taken office.

Perhaps I'm wrong. But as I understand it, we list a lieutenant governor in a governor's infobox or a governor in a lieutenant governors' infobox, even before they've taken office. We simply add "(elect)", next to the name. I'm asking because this practice is being questioned. GoodDay (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit request 2 December 2024

Description of suggested change:

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

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

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

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

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

Can we lose the "order"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Police service section

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

Police service

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

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

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

Add parameters criminal charges to officeholder template

Is it possible to add the criminal parameters from the Template:Infobox person to the officeholder template for someone who has been convicted and sentenced for a felony and is a current officeholder?

| criminal_charges   = 
| criminal_penalty   = 
| criminal_status    =

Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:45, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

As noted previously, this can be done via module. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I had tried that, but it didn't seem to work. I just noticed that the parameters are added below "Cabinet", no matter where I place the module. Maybe I just overlooked them. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, embedding the module works here, but still doesn't work in infobox of Donald Trump. Worked it out — the problem was another module. The parameters ended up below all "officeholder" parameters. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:26, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

This may prove to be problematic, particularly if there's a certain BLP in mind. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

GoodDay, ya think ? The discussion which resulted in consensus item 66 took place in May and June 2024, after Trump was convicted by the jury but before he was sentenced, and it was about using the "criminal" infobox instead of "officeholder". Citing the closing: The question of whether to add the conviction to the current infobox (as suggested by ARandomName123 and Sr Desayuno) is not answered in this RfC. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I've no objections to adding such parameters. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Template:Constlk

Template:Infobox officeholder makes use of Template:Constlk, which, according to its documentation, should be substituted. I'm inexperienced in these matters, and I fear breaking things. Can or should it be substituted in this instance? Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 12:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

It transcludes {{constlk}}, which means that it's not used directly in the article, so substitution isn't necessary. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I meant to say, should it be substituted in {{Infobox officeholder/office}}? My understanding (perhaps mistaken) is that a template is either transcluded or substituted, and this one specifies that it should be substituted. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

No, because then it would not work when transcluded. A transclusion is different from ordinarily including a template within an article, as it's done indirectly through the use of another template. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:26, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Elon Musk: Infobox officeholder or Infobox person?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elon Musk § RfC: Should we use the officeholder infobox?. Some1 (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 5 April 2025

Description of suggested change: I request that the formatting of native_name be updated from bold to roman and the use of {{nobold}} be made obsolete here. I have yet to see a page that does not use that template inside it.

another person would likely need to automate the removal of the template if this request goes through. Juwan (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template.

First of all, would you mind clarify what you mean "to roman"? Could you please implement this change in the sandbox?

Here are examples of usages of the template without {{nobold}}, that I found using an insource search:

• Jim Thorpe – no template at all, but additional formatting is present due to parameter |native_name_lang=sac
• Chiang Kai-shek – uses a different template, {{langn}}
• Joseph Stalin – uses {{Plainlist}}

Template {{Infobox officeholder}} is used more than on a quarter million pages. This change will need a wider consensus. I recommend notifying WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Infoboxes, and WikiProject Biography of this discussion. —⁠andrybak (talk) 12:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Caption not displaying

Hi, I added a caption to the template's use at Marwan Barghouti, but for reasons that I cannot figure out, the caption is not displaying. Any help would be appreciated. Green Montanan (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Another editor fixed it for you by removing a duplicate, and empty, |caption= parameter. That's a tricky one. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:09, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 28 April 2025

Unlink Template:Infobox people, there is not disappearance parameters. Now I can't add disappearance date and place on Dhirendranath Datta. Please add "disappeared_place" and "disappeared_date" parameters like infobox people. Mehedi Abedin 20:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. That article is not a great example; the person's disappearance is neither sourced nor discussed in the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

@Jonesey95 Where can I start discussion for consensus? Mehedi Abedin 00:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

This talk page is a good place to start. This template is used on 251,000 pages. How many pages would |disappeared_date= be used on? Can you provide ten examples? If not, you probably won't get support. In the meantime, you can use |module= to embed a different infobox that supports |disappeared_date= if you have an article that contains sourced information about the disappearance of an officeholder. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 3 February 2025

A "chiefminister" field should be added as there is many chief ministers such as Chief Minister of the Isle of Man, Chief Minister of Jersey, Chief Minister of Guernsey. It would be used on the infoboxes of government ministers such as those on Council of Ministers of the Isle of Man. Sahaib (talk) 08:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Bump to prevent archival. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:06, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 3 June 2025

Description of suggested change:

The formatting of native names in this infobox is inconsistent with that of other biographical infoboxes (e.g. infobox person) -- as far as I can see, only officeholder bolds them; they are usually in regular type.

Demonstration provided (person on top, officeholder below). Could this template be changed for consistency? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Example Person
Persona Exempla
Occupation	Exemplary person

Example Person
Persona Exempla
Exemplary office

 Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. This has been pending for more than a month and nobody has taken up the invitation to code this so it's clear nobody ever will. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:37, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 20 July 2025

Change'Union for the Congolese Nation' to 'Alliance des Forces Démocratiques du Congo' The personnality has changed his political affiliation since December 2024. GoTT2024 (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Infobox officeholder}}. If possible, please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. If you cannot edit the article's talk page, you can instead make your request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for edits to a protected page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 17:51, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

ISO 3166-1 related error

On Martin Van Buren, the valid presence in this template of the string "British America" as part of the value for |birth_place= causes a "Script warning: AMERICA ("America") is not a recognized country in ISO 3166-1 (Module:ISO 3166)." in preview. (Removing those two words and the preceeding comma causes a "Script warning: No parameter for the country given (Module:ISO 3166)." error instead.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:40, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Both errors come from {{Country2nationality}}, which is passed the output of {{find country}}. In the first case, {{find country}} decides the country is "America", which {{Country2nationality}} does not recognize, while in the second it finds no country. Not watching, please ping if further input is needed from me. Anomie⚔ 16:02, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Why is the infobox doing that anyway? Birthplace is not necessarily an indicator of nationality.

Where is this supposed nationality being used? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:22, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Anomie: as instructed in his signature. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

This I have no idea about. 🤷 Anomie⚔ 19:22, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Sounds like the problem is in {{Country2nationality}} or {{find country}}. Is the output "America" problematic, or is not supporting "America" as an input an oversight? I'd bring this to those two templates to work out. VanIsaac, GHTV ^contr_about 19:26, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

"British America" or "British Colonial America" isn't something I usually see outside of FamilySearch. I would think New York Province should be enough precision here.--Auric talk 17:19, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I guess that the calls to {{find country}} and {{Country2nationality}} are an attempt to catch errors in the country name, and nothing more, since evidently the nationality is not used, but is just discarded.

So this error check is coming up with what I might describe as a false positive: it decides that British America is not a suitable country to appear in a birth place parameter, when editors seem to think that it is suitable for that purpose.

Part of the handling of this error is to issue the Script warning described above. Earlier, I think I remember observing that the article was also being put in a hidden category, Category:Wikipedia articles with obscure country. But I am not seeing that now; perhaps I am not remembering this correctly.

It would be possible to pursue this as a bug in one or more templates, either for the false positive, or for the confusing and obscure error handling. But I am not planning to pursue it at present. Bruce leverett (talk) 23:53, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

It's actually trying to catch cases where the birthplace and nationality are the same and then hide the nationality, per WP:INFONAT which states "Omit when this can be inferred from the birth country". I tweaked the template so that it won't perform the check if nationality or birth_place are blank. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:35, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Issue displaying "alongside" data

Currently, if an article uses "term=" to list the span of a term, any information added using "alongside=" will not display.

"alongside=" data only is displayed if "term_start=" / "term_end=" are instead utilized.

If this could be remedied so that "alongside=" information is displayed in either instance that would be much appreciated! Please ping me if/when this is addressed. Thank you! SecretName101 (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done. See this test case. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:00, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Social Links

Is it possible/appropriate to add social media links using this infobox? If so, how would I go about it? Eulersidentity (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Generally no - the only link that should be added there is the subject's official website. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:16, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Affirmative. That said, do you or does anyone else have a suggestion as to what would be the best way to incorporate such links in an article? Eulersidentity (talk) 04:33, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

In the external links section at the bottom of the article, but see WP:ELMIN. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:40, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Eulersidentity (talk) 04:12, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Residence parameter

After editing perhaps a thousand political BLPs since 2021, only just now am I seeing the description for the residence parameter. I have always operated under the impression that given that American politicians are elected within a constituency, where several municipalities can be represented at one time, the residence is useful information relative to the article subject. I am not referring to the personal address, but simply the name of the municipality.
The parameter description: Where this person lives. Only use for residences that come with the office. NOT for towns, cities, states, countries, etc..
Looking at this archived talk page section, it looks like there wasn't much feedback here. Looking at a handful of congressional BLPs, I see that the residence parameters are not present. Looking at a handful of state legislative BLPs the parameters are present.
Is the prime concern regarding personal information? Is the concern that the information is not encyclopedic? My belief is that this is core information that readers will look for and perhaps this parameter description should be revisited. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 11:58, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

That instruction was added in 2024. I don't recall a discussion about it. Maybe HTGS knows of a discussion. In retrospect, |residence= is probably a bad name for a parameter denoting the official home of an officeholder, since it has many meanings. The TemplateData report says that the parameter is used in 28,649 articles, FWIW. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Nope, no discussion, just what I presumed most sensible. I added that advice after reviewing a lot of pages that listed essentially just the country or city of the office the person represents. In giving that guidance I may have been too bold, but (1) that is how many of the most-edited / most-important bios seemed to already treat the parameter (see: Droupadi Murmu, Emmanuel Macron, Bongbong Marcos) and (2) I do believe that adding the “area someone lives in” is more problematic than helpful as a practice and for most pages.

Other than (a) editors just filling the parameter with a place that they presume someone lives (part of parameter temptation), the main problem to me seems to be (b) a lack of continuous review, so that when the subject leaves office or moves we no longer have an up-to-date infobox, because unlike leaving the White House people assume that if your residence was Washington, D.C. before, then they assume it will still be Washington, D.C. after leaving office. Similarly, (c) we often just don’t get updates when someone moves house, so it would be very easy for even diligent editors to fail to keep the param up-to-date on the less-watched officeholders. And (d) when filling the parameter with an accurate region/city for where someone lives, a lot of the time the information is largely redundant and not terribly informative. (This last point is of course subjective, and we could recommend only filling the parameter when it isn’t implied by the rest of the infobox.)

(Thanks for the ping, btw.) — HTGS (talk) 06:18, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

The documentation states (twice) Only use for residences that come with the office. NOT for towns, cities, states, countries, etc. This means that it should be blanked when a person leaves office. Sometimes, the official residence is not used by the officeholder: for example, the official residence of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is 10 Downing Street, whilst 11 Downing Street is the official residence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But when Tony Blair was Prime Minister, and Gordon Brown was Chancellor, they each lived in the "other" house, because Brown was single whereas Blair had a wife and three (later four) children, and No. 11 has more residential space than No. 10. Since Blair left office, several prime ministers (most of whom have had children under 18) have also lived in No. 11 in preference to no. 10, see 11 Downing Street#Recent occupancy. In short: the officeholder doesn't necessarily live in the official residence. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:17, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

All very reasonable, and yes, I think bio editors will understand implicitly that once a person is no longer in office, their residence should be blanked. I have no objection to the doc being changed to account for the Blair–Brown nuance, but my reading of that situation is that Blair is in No. 11 because he is PM, not because he is renting some random flat in another part of the city.

I’d like to add, after a moment’s reflection: I trust editors at the bio article to understand situations like Blair’s, and make their own judgement, as informed by the current guidance at the doc. Sensible editors (imo) will know that they should be safe listing No 11. More cautious editors will start a discussion, and the community will reach a sensible solution (even if it is not what I would do): either they list the residence of the office (eg, No 10), or the actual residence as used by the officeholder (eg, No 11) or they will list no residence. Whichever way they choose to go, I don’t see a great need for more guidance than is written. — HTGS (talk) 09:25, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I think the problem is that "residence" is too ambiguous and should be something like "official_residence" if the documentation's new instructions have consensus. The residence= parameter was removed from Infobox person in 2020. I wouldn't mind "official_residence" existing with the current instructions, but having "residence" is pretty inconsistent with Infobox person and has inevitably led to junk like we see in H. Rap Brown (residence = United States Penitentiary, Tucson). – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Seems sensible enough. Would you want to change the label as well?

I’m uncertain but cautious about the label “Official residence” myself, given the Blair–Brown case above, but I could see it being useful if we set it differently dependent on |residence= vs |official_residence= or something similar. — HTGS (talk) 00:44, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I think the painful but sensible way to do it would be to add |official_residence= with clear documentation, add it to the template as a new label ("Official residence"), convert existing valid usages, and then deprecate and remove |residence= per the Infobox person precedent. It will take a while. People have been putting whatever they want in that field for many years. (The Blair-Brown situation is an edge case that could be handled with an efn note and an explanation in the body of the article.)– Jonesey95 (talk) 00:52, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I’m happy to support a change in parameter name—that part seems very sensible—but I’d rather get feedback from other editors looking at more biographies before backing a change in label name. Of course that should be easy to follow up on as a last step either way. — HTGS (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

If the parameter is only for official residences, then do we even need the parameter? It's not like this information isn't covered elsewhere: Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland tells us the PM lives in 10 Downing and Chequers, for example. In fact, I'd wager that most if not all posts that come with an official residence have a Wikipedia article. Seems like we could save ourselves a lot of time and frustration if we deprecated the parameter here and left it to Template:Infobox official post. — Kawnhr (talk) 16:34, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Except they don't always. The residence of even the US President was Blair House during Truman's presidency, Octagon House during Madison's, and a handful of others besides the White House. The use of 11 Downing St under Blair, Cameron, May, and Johnson would be another example of divergence from the traditional 10 Downing St for UK Prime Ministers. That's the sort of thing that I feel this parameter was meant to represent. VanIsaac, GHTV ^contr_about 20:50, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

But we don't keep this info in their infobox after they leave office. Harry Truman doesn't say |residence=Blair House, David Cameron doesn't have |residence=11 Downing Street, etc — they're blank. We're content with the idea that, once they leave office, we can clarify that their official residence was different from the usual one in their article body (or the relevant pages). Why not do that all the time? — Kawnhr (talk) 21:25, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I think this point stands for just about any fact in the infobox though. If you think some or all infoboxes shouldn’t list officeholders’ residences, that’s fine—I personally think far too many of these infoboxes are far too long—but I think you’d be suggesting that people looking up so-and-so officeholder aren’t going to want to see their official residence. — HTGS (talk) 05:30, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree, that is not a prime detail viewers are looking for. Not saying that viewers are clamoring to find the city/town either, but it is significantly more important than official residences, especially when the official residence is tied to an office rather than an individual. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 23:40, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Template:Infobox person has an RfC

Template:Infobox person has an RfC for possible consensus regarding the removal of color from person infoboxes. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. —Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:13, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Alma mater parameter

The template gives no advice on adding degree level to the alma mater parameter. Should these be added? I have reverted edits by User:BuckTheArsenalFan342, here and here, as I believe they introduce unwanted clutter. Which is correct? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

The revert is correct, per MOS:INFOEDU; this parameter should be institution only. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I have already warned the editor about this, but they have made quite a lot of similar additions. So I will request that they self-revert. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I suppose the guidance listed on Template:Infobox person applies here too. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 12:28, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I would assume so. But they are two different templates doing two different jobs? My request to the editor seems to fallen on deaf ears. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Parameter for cabinet/commission

Looking at articles of European commissioners (for example, Roxana Mînzatu), I see that they refer in the infobox to the "Commission" rather than the "President". This is achieved by "|1blankname = Commission" and "|1namedata = [[Von der Leyen Commission II|Von der Leyen II]]". At Talk:Jan Anthonie Bruijn, I have proposed a similar construction for Dutch political officeholders (mentioning "Cabinet" rather than "Prime minister". I believe in some European systems it makes more sense, as (1) it allows to distinguish between different cabinets headed by the same prime minister and (2) Dutch cabinet members don't serve under the prime minister (the prime minister is merely chairing the Council of Ministers).

Based on these repeated uses (for all European commissioners and potentially all Dutch cabinet members), I am wondering if it would be desirable to add "Commission" and "Cabinet" parameters to the infobox (like the "President" and "Prime minister" parameters). This, as opposed to using the construction with 1blankname and 1namedata. Happy to hear comments, as I'm not sure at what point this would become preferred. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea and I get where you're coming from. I'm personally unsure about it and would be extremely careful about adding it directly to the template, as it could easily open a Pandora's box. Once "Cabinet" or "Commission" become standardised fields, editors will no doubt start using them everywhere, and things could get messy very quickly. I'd recommend starting an RfC if there's wider support for it, though I would oppose it. Tahōmaru 多宝丸 ^talk 01:39, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Add | cabinet = {{{cabinet|}}}, | cabinet = {{{cabinet1|}}}, ..., | cabinet = {{{cabinet16|}}} to the office modules, along with {{{cabinet0|}}} and | regexp90 = cabinet[%d]* at the end. Tristan Surtel (talk) 11:58, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. Given Tahomaru's opposition to the change, I recommend you wait for broader consensus. As this is a high-visibility template, an RfC would be a reasonable way to go at it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:27, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Moving signature location

Is there a reason that {{{signature}}} displays in the middle of the infobox? Every other infobox I've come across ({{Infobox military person}}, {{Infobox royalty}} & {{infobox person}} to name a few) all display it at the bottom. It seems fit much better there and doesn't break up the flow of the infobox as much. I have modified the Sandbox to style the signature the same way {{Infobox person}} does it. Also added a testcase to show the difference. Any objection to moving it to the bottom? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 08:34, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

If you consider the military section to functionally just be a module that's so common it's just been incorporated, it's perfectly consistent with all but Infobox person. I'm not opposed to the suggestion - as a maintainer at Infobox person, I am partisan towards its organization - but it needs to come as a larger conversation at some place like WT:WikiProject Infoboxes, with notifications at these and other infoboxes that include signature parameters. VanIsaac, GHTV ^contr_about 04:19, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 19 October 2025

Please change to {{nbhyph}} to -. Thanks, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:36, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

The proposed change appears to be a regular hyphen, is there a reason why the text should wrap there? WP:HYPHEN doesn't give a lot of information about where non-breaking hyphens should be used instead of regular hyphens (for context, the word that would be impacted is "Governor‑General"). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:31, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby: I made the change myself here: Special:Diff/1194994938. I didn't realise that this would squeeze the layout of the infobox, so I'd like it to be reverted. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:49, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 23:04, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:24, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Happy to help! Paine  00:29, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Infobox Native American leader - Template Help and Edits

I'm trying to use the Native American leader infobox to add native specific details to an "Infobox military person", and I'm running into 2 issues.

1. The Template:Infobox_Native_American_leader doesn't allow itself to be embedded into other infoboxes, even though its supposed to just be a wrapped for the 'Officeholder'
2. The 'Tribe' parameter automatically makes the infobox list the person as a XXXX Tribe Leader, and doesn't allow the tribe to just be another information point.

Can someone lend a hand? TimeEngineer (talk) 13:09, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I have fixed both issues. I provided documentation for the |role= parameter, which allows the default "leader" to be changed. See {{Infobox Native American leader/testcases}} for an example. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 November 2025

Proposal: Add "Top campaign contributors" field

Wanted to propose adding an optional parameter (e.g. top_contributors=) to the Infobox officeholder template, intended to list the top donors or organizations that financially contributed to an elected official’s campaign.

Rationale

• Finance transparency is a key part of understanding an elected official’s background and influences.
• Many election-related articles (especially for the U.S., UK, EU, and other democracies) already mention donor information in the body text or references. Consolidating this in the infobox could improve accessibility and consistency.
• This would be an optional field, used only when verifiable, reliable sourcing (e.g. official electoral commission data, watchdog organizations, or government disclosure databases) is available.

Concerns to discuss

• Consistency across jurisdictions: Campaign finance disclosure rules differ widely; may be difficult to implement globally.
• Template complexity: The infobox is already quite large; additional fields should be used sparingly.
• Verifiability: Donor lists would need to be limited to top donors (e.g. top 2-3) and backed by reliable sources.

Possible implementation

A minimal addition such as: top_contributors = Example Organization ($1,000,000), Example Person ($750,000)

I’m posting this first for feedback and consensus-building before suggesting any code changes, as this would have wide-reaching implications.

Dzlinker \,,/(*_*)\,,/ 08:40, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. phuzion (talk) 11:52, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Seems the default way is to "just do it", so i went on and updated the sandbox - What would be next? Dzlinker \,,/(*_*)\,,/ 07:43, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Next is to get consensus, as indicated above. I don't think adding these fields is a good idea. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

was this discussed before? i saw a similar suggestion in the archives that went nowhere. can you share thoughts on why it's not a good idea? it'll be 2 lines of information. the other option is to have a separate infobox, but that's too much for just 2 lines (total funding, and major donors). Dzlinker \,,/(*_*)\,,/ 09:05, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this information rises to the level of importance to be in this often overcrowded infobox. Officeholders often hold many offices over time. Would you list funders for each office, or just one overall? This is just too much trivia for an infobox, which is intended to summarize the important facts about a person. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:13, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

think having a single, overall summary of major donors/funding sources for the politician's entire career in their biography infobox, with detailed breakdowns on other individual campaign pages, makes more sense.

idea is to provides a high-level view of their financial backing. could be fields like "notable major donors" or "primary funding sources" or "total funding" that lists the most significant contributors over time, and overall disclosed funds.

this would directly enrich the context on the main biography page, think it gives a direct and instant snapshot of their broader financials and financial networks (crucial and far from trivia imo). Dzlinker \,,/(*_*)\,,/ 07:17, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jonesey - this would be better discussed in the article body. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:14, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria @Jonesey95 agree the details belong in the article, but an optional 'major donors' line in the infobox offers a crucial at-a-glance summary, consistent with how we treat other key data points Dzlinker \,,/(*_*)\,,/ 07:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

any thoughts on my last comment? @Nikkimaria @Jonesey95 Dzlinker \,,/(*_*)\,,/ 12:14, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Your last comment hasn't changed my position, unfortunately. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I am declining this third opinion request because there are already more than 2 editors involved. Feel free to use other dispute resolution processes like the DRN, RfC, linking this discussion on project talk pages, etc. Katzrockso (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

@Dzlinker Please see WP:LLMCOMM. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:03, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Increase in number of offices

Is there a technical restriction that would prevent an editor from increasing the number of available office parameters to at least 18? Currently, Chuck Grassley requires 18 and 2 of his infobox parameters are hidden as they are not legitimate in the template. estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:07, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Ranking memberships & Dean, should be deleted or hidden. GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

It seems that back in August, an editor added "Dean" to the US Senators & US House members infoboxes, without a prior consensus. GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Caretaker?

Do we really need the descriptive "Caretaker" in the infobox? One is the incumbent prime minister until one leaves office. Therefore, the descriptive "Caretaker" seems irrelevant. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I'd rather prefer having this in the body alone. From what I've at least seen, the caretaker part is ommited from infoboxes once the prime minister's term ends. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I've seen before where once the PM becomes in a caretaker position, you put it as caretaker. But maybe you guys have seen otherwise. Accccepting (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

In the case of Rosen Zhelyazkov, he was not caretaker his entire tenure as prime minister. But your edit(s) was making it look as though he were. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I admit my mistakes. My apologies. Accccepting (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

@Accccepting: at the ver least, dates should be included, when the 'caretaking' period doesn't cover the entire prime ministerial tenure. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Add second signature field for people who have multiple signatures depending on the language?

Sanae Takaichi has both a signature in her native Japanese and another she used in English in this document. The English signature was swapped for the Japanese, and I added back the English via a custom field (that way her infobox has both Japanese and English signatures).

Also Sun Yat-sen has a signature in English and a signature in Chinese (though here the custom field was used for his Chinese signature).

I think it would be a good idea for a signature2 field so, for example, a person's Arabic and English signatures could be displayed at the same time without needing to use a custom field. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I mean, this is exactly the purpose of those custom fields, and it seems to work in those few cases where it is applicable. This just doesn't seem like an issue that justifies a fully scaled addition to the template. VanIsaac, GHTV ^contr_about 21:14, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

What's the difference between Occupation and Profession?

Looking at Keir Starmer, he has both:

| occupation = {{hlist|Politician|lawyer}} | profession = [[Barristers in England and Wales|Barrister]]

On plain reading, it seems to me like pretty much the same thing. What's the difference? Amberkitten (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 19 February 2026

I recommend the following edit to the documentation:

−

Per consensus in this RfC, the infobox for an incumbent officeholder should not mention an elected or designated successor, or the end date of the term, until the successor takes office.

+

Per consensus in this RfC, the infobox for an incumbent officeholder should not mention an elected or designated successor or the end date of the officeholder's term.

Reason: The sentence as currently written implies while a person is the incumbent, once the person's successor has taken office, the infobox for the person can include their end date and successor. But by that point the person is no longer the incumbent, so the prohibition provided by the first part of the sentence no longer applies anyway. Therefore, the part after the second comma makes no difference in the meaning of the sentence. Also, the first comma is superfluous, and it should refer to the officeholder's term. Largoplazo (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, the documentation page isn't protected so I could have made this change myself directly. But it doesn't hurt to have someone else vet it. Largoplazo (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Would the proposed change, still mean that the 'successor' is hidden, until they assume office? GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking. I'm not proposing any change to the functionality of the template. I'm pointing out an apparent fallacy in the current wording that I'm proposing to eliminate. Largoplazo (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

No prob :) GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that you might mean that the template doesn't display the successor or end date of an incumbent, and the instruction is directed at future editors of the template itself to leave it that way. Is that it? I thought it was directed at people using the template in an article. Largoplazo (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Just wanted to make sure we weren't going back to showing "person (elect)" in the 'successor' peremeter. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Requesting to fix this template on sdwiki

Hi, Someone kindly fix this template because this template isn't showing correct in the relevant pages in which this template is placed in the start of pages on Sindhi Wikipedia. JogiAsad ^talk 21:38, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

i tried to fix the problem, for this I restored earlier versions but doing this didn't help to fix the problem. JogiAsad ^talk 21:40, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

User:JogiAsad can you link to the page you are seeing the error on? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:12, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

@Zackmann08 this error was showing on this sd:آيت_الله_خامنائي but now I saw it's resolved. JogiAsad ^talk 07:41, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

earlier revision can be observed which had problem showing this infobox not working, but now it's working. JogiAsad ^talk 07:42, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 April 2026

It is proposed to add another parameter Chief Minister to this template in the same line as prime minister, first minister, etc. Oritsu.me (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before posting an edit request. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:41, 11 April 2026 (UTC)