Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 15
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
Allow small photos?
Currently the "Senator" infobox at Carte Goodwin looks awful because his picture is only 121 pixels across and the infobox is stretching it larger, resulting in a blurry picture. We're stuck waiting for a larger-resolution picture to be available. Alternatively, could it be possible to add a flag of some sort to this infobox instructing it to not stretch a small picture to become larger to fit? Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Doesn't the "imagesize" field fix the problem? For example |imagesize=121px. There is also a |smallimage= field as an alternative to |image=. Road Wizard (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Try the sandbox, which has a fix for this. Better? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 23:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Signature size
{{editprotected}}
Can we optionally customise the signature image's size? At the moment there is a standard 128px size, which can be far too large (see John Key). Can we replace the current '128px' with {{{signature_size|128px}}}? Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- I certainly agree that John Key needs fixing. Does anyone else have a suggestion on the best way to proceed? Perhaps it would be better to have to specify the full image syntax, e.g.
|signature=[[File:John Key sig.svg|50px]], or perhaps we should fix the height rather than the width of the signature? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)- I'm going to tl the {{editprotected}} request for now. This is an extremely high profile and complex template. The setting requested will need to get passed through at least one sub-template. We're going to have to sandbox the change and make sure we have it tested before changing this I think. Put the request back when you have the exact change you want. The change you want I think is actually in {{Infobox officeholder/Personal data}} but I want to make sure before updating this. --Selket Talk 21:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- I just changed the size to 128x80px, which sets a maximum height as well. Please revert if this causes a problem. It does seem reasonable that there should be a way to override this, either by changing the syntax as suggest above, or adding an optional size parameter. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Net worth as a parameter
Would anyone else support the addition of a net worth parameter as in {{infobox person}}? My particular interest in this arises in the specific case of wanting to be able to add net worth to Richard Blumenthal which uses this template where his opponent in the election, Linda McMahon's article, uses {{infobox person}} and incorporates net worth information (at least when it hasn't been edited out). Abby Kelleyite (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Net worth? How can you tell? You have his bank account details? What does he owe the IRS? How are property prices moving? Can we cite it? What is included and excluded? Is he on the Times/Forbes rich list? In the end all we can say is "X said his net worth was Y on date Z" (or - a little more conclusively, of the dead, "his estate was valued at ..." - even then, John Maisefield's estate, I think it was, was valued by the Inland Revenue based on the value of "unpublished poems" hardly a known quantity). I think that's why {{Infobox person}}'s field is so regularly removed. Net worth, if it is noteworthy, is likely to be the subject of at least a sentence of discussion, rather than just a headline figure. Rich Farmbrough, 09:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC).
- Net worth is a dangerous concept in a BLP. Its publication would be an invasion of privacy. Furthermore, there will be gave issues of WP:RS, of POV, OR to name a few. A net worth in the Fobres rich list or such like might be WP:RS. It should be less of a problem for the deceased, since it will appear in probate or death duties documents, whence is may be quoted in published biographies. In summary, too many difficulties for inclusion to be satsifacotry. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed - it might be a relevant field for an "Infobox Forbes 400" but I don't think it would be relevant for officeholders generally. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Net worth is a dangerous concept in a BLP. Its publication would be an invasion of privacy. Furthermore, there will be gave issues of WP:RS, of POV, OR to name a few. A net worth in the Fobres rich list or such like might be WP:RS. It should be less of a problem for the deceased, since it will appear in probate or death duties documents, whence is may be quoted in published biographies. In summary, too many difficulties for inclusion to be satsifacotry. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
honorific-prefix
Am I right to believe that honorific-prefix is always separated by a break line from the name? I removed a break line with this edit and an editor complained in my bot's talk page. The question is if there is supposed to always be a break line then we should add it to template's source code. Opinions? -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- If you read back - either here or at AWB you will find that the answer is "sometimes". More than that I cannot say, but I agree the template should handle it, even if it is "sometimes". Rich Farmbrough, 09:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC).
The same goes for the leading <br> in honorific-suffix and the small tags to both of them. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Ward
{{Edit protected}}
Some bodies use the term "ward" instead of "constituency". Can a parameter be added for ward as well? Thanks, MitchellDuce (talk) 15:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds reasonable. Could we leave this request for a few days to see if other editors have a view on this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- In UK, ward is largely used for the "constituency" of a local councillor, but most local councillors are NN. I therefore fear that the introduction of this will encourage a lot of articles on NN politicians. Even when a council leader is notable, I very much dount whether the ward he happens to represent will be comment-worthy and there will certainly be no article on the ward, which is one of the purposes of linking constituencies. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Someone who's more notable than a local councilor (say, a mayor or a prime minister) could have in the past held office as a councilor. This parameter could be used for them. MitchellDuce (talk) 23:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- If there's no further concern from Peter or anyone else, I'll add back the
{{edit protected}}in a day or two. MitchellDuce (talk) 01:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)- IMO, if someone like a PM or mayor has previously been a councillor, they probably don't need their council office in the infobox. Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- While that is your opinion, others' may differ, and until there is a policy or guideline enforcing that upon all articles, I think that we need to allow editors to come to a consensus on individual talk pages. And I'm sure that you can agree that there will always be exceptions to the idea that local councilors cannot be notable without holding a higher office (e.g. Harvey Milk, though I will admit that they use the term "district" as opposed to "ward") and so we need to allow for that. Simply adding a parameter to an infobox does not mean that it must be used incredibly frequently. MitchellDuce (talk) 03:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with MitchellDuce - I don't think this will greatly affect the number of nn biographies created, those already happen and will continue to happen, but it could be useful for those who are notable. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 15:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- While that is your opinion, others' may differ, and until there is a policy or guideline enforcing that upon all articles, I think that we need to allow editors to come to a consensus on individual talk pages. And I'm sure that you can agree that there will always be exceptions to the idea that local councilors cannot be notable without holding a higher office (e.g. Harvey Milk, though I will admit that they use the term "district" as opposed to "ward") and so we need to allow for that. Simply adding a parameter to an infobox does not mean that it must be used incredibly frequently. MitchellDuce (talk) 03:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- IMO, if someone like a PM or mayor has previously been a councillor, they probably don't need their council office in the infobox. Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- In UK, ward is largely used for the "constituency" of a local councillor, but most local councillors are NN. I therefore fear that the introduction of this will encourage a lot of articles on NN politicians. Even when a council leader is notable, I very much dount whether the ward he happens to represent will be comment-worthy and there will certainly be no article on the ward, which is one of the purposes of linking constituencies. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
(←) Also, I think that maybe we could expand this proposal to include a parameter for "district" as well. MitchellDuce (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
So does anyone have any problem with the parameter itself, as opposed to how the parameter could be used inappropriately? MitchellDuce (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Vice Chancellor and Vice Premier
Surely there should be parameters for Vice Chancellors and Vice Premiers, those offices do exist in Austria, Germany, the People's Republic of China, and the Republic of China, as far as I'm aware. I made a prior request, but was told to manually add it by the 1blankname, 1namedata parameters. This I feel is inconvenient and would be much easier to add if those offices were made parameters.--The Taerkasten (talk) 14:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Not done for now: Adding parameters to infoboxes can be controversial, so please allow a few days for other editors to comment. Feel free to reactivate the request if there is no response. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe I should just forget about it. Doesn't seem like anybody cares or is willing to respond, judging from this and the last request.--The Taerkasten (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- If no one responds, that would mean that it is most likely uncontroversial, and can be implemented. Most editors don't notice changes to templates unless it changes the appearance of articles. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- You're right. I'm re-adding the tl. There seems to be no objections--The Taerkasten (talk) 13:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Looking through the code,
vicepremierat least already seems to be supported. This is very hairy code and it shouldn't really be edited lightly. Can you please confirm ifvicepremierworks first? Multiple edits will need to be made both to this template and the sub-template it calls in order to add new parameters, and I'd rather not go making edits that aren't needed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Looking through the code,
- Yep,
vicepremierseems to be working just fine.--The Taerkasten (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yep,
- Right. And how widely would the vice chancellor field be used? Are we talking about a dozen articles or a thousand? Adding a new field here requires at least eleven logic additions to the template, which isn't worth it if that matches the number of expected transclusions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, it looks to be more than a dozen, especially considering all the Chancellors of Austria and Germany, and whether they had deputies or not.--The Taerkasten (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Right. And how widely would the vice chancellor field be used? Are we talking about a dozen articles or a thousand? Adding a new field here requires at least eleven logic additions to the template, which isn't worth it if that matches the number of expected transclusions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- The code is too hairy to consider making this change to the live code without sandboxing, which hasn't been done yet. I might not get to this for a while, so it might be best to remove the editprotected request for now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Alright, thanks for the response. Appreciate it.--The Taerkasten (talk) 19:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Parents
Can there be a section for Parents? Parents are as importants as childrens and spouses. I know there is the relations section but a parents section would be good.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- This could be a good idea - especially considering the sizable number of officeholders whose parents are notable and have held public office. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'd like to suggest the opposite - doesn't this violate several of our standards, specifically verifiability, reliability, notability, irrelevant genealogical data, etc? I propose we change the "spouse" field to "marital status", and add no further info on parents, other family, etc. Couch on his Head and Smiling (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Problem with "succeeding" parameter
I've noticed that the "succeeding" parameter does not function properly in conjunction with "state_house", "state_senate", "state_assembly" or "state_delegate". For example, Rich Gordon's infobox should read "Member-elect of the California State Assembly". Instead, it's displayed as "Member-elect of the U.S. House of Representatives district". Can someone have a go at fixing it? Many thanks. --Lincolnite (talk) 05:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- I believe you need to specify the office. I will have a look. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, it looks like there is a problem with the template code. I don't have time to fix it right now, but will have a look later if someone else doesn't fix it first. Basically, if you specify district + state_assembly the code assumes it is a U.S. House of Representatives politician. I believe the fix would be to untangle this and create more cases. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a look. Without the succeeding parameter (i.e. when using preceded or nothing at all), district + state_assembly works perfectly for state legislators (indeed, it's the only way it works AFAIK) and the code doesn't assume anything about membership of the U.S. House of Representatives. The same goes for state_house, state_senate, etc. But adding succeeding changes everything and screws it up! Thanks again for your help. --Lincolnite (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Note: I've applied a temporary fix to Rich Gordon's infobox using the office parameter. The issue highlighted above, though, still persists and can be viewed on this previous version of the page. --Lincolnite (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, it looks like there is a problem with the template code. I don't have time to fix it right now, but will have a look later if someone else doesn't fix it first. Basically, if you specify district + state_assembly the code assumes it is a U.S. House of Representatives politician. I believe the fix would be to untangle this and create more cases. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Problem with Office when Order exists
This line of Infobox officeholder/Office puts office in brackets as a wikilink, which is not how it's treated otherwise.
-->{{#if:{{{office{{{1}}}|}}} | [[{{{office{{{1}}}}}}]]}}<!--
It's preventing piped links. See Parkash Singh Badal. --Bsherr (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've implemented a work-around fix at that article by removing the brackets and using {{!}} to pipe the link. But you're right, the template seems to be treating these inconsistently - this should be fixed. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Nominee/Candidate
This such infoboxes should be eliminated. The infoboxes should be limited to just the office holders, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- There is an archived discussion on this subject at Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 7#Nominee/Candidate section. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Parents
Why is there a children parameter but not one for parents? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- See Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 14#Relations. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Alma mater
And can we finally change Alma Mater to "Education", if it needs to be blue linked, and the blue link definition is still nebulous, we have a problem as to which college to list when one has attended multiple. We don't use "Domicile" so why have this one in Latin. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- "Alma mater" isn't just a Latin term - its use entered the English language long ago. However, you're right about "Education" being more clear - the only reason I'm hesitant about switching it to "Education" is that it should only really be used for college education and above, and just using "Education" may imply that all education should be put in the field. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
"In office" is wrong
Hi everyone,
The template is putting "in office" for people who have a term end date.
This is wrong.
For example, for George W. Bush, the template says he is still "in office" as President of the United States. Also, he is still "in office" as Governor of Texas.
I suggest that this could be changed in {{Infobox officeholder/Office}}:
- change from:
- |<!--then term has start and end:-->{{!}}colspan="2" style="border-bottom:none; text-align:center;"{{!}}
'''In office'''<br />{{{term{{#if:{{{termstart{{{1}}}|}}}||_}}start{{{1}}}}}}{{#iferror:{{#expr:{{{term{{#if:{{{termstart{{{1}}}|}}}||_}}start{{{1}}}}}}*{{{term{{#if:{{{termend{{{1}}}|}}}||_}}end{{{1}}}}}}}}| – |–}}{{{term{{#if:{{{termend{{{1}}}|}}}||_}}end{{{1}}}}}}{{#if:{{{alongside{{{1}}}|}}}{{{co-leader{{{1}}}|}}}|<br />{{#if:{{{alongside{{{1}}}|}}}|Serving|Co–leading}} with {{#if:{{{alongside{{{1}}}|}}}|{{{alongside{{{1}}}}}}|{{{co-leader{{{1}}}}}}}}}}
- |<!--then term has start and end:-->{{!}}colspan="2" style="border-bottom:none; text-align:center;"{{!}}
- change to:
- |<!--then term has start and end:-->{{!}}colspan="2" style="border-bottom:none; text-align:center;"{{!}}{{{term{{#if:{{{termstart{{{1}}}|}}}||_}}start{{{1}}}}}}{{#iferror:{{#expr:{{{term{{#if:{{{termstart{{{1}}}|}}}||_}}start{{{1}}}}}}*{{{term{{#if:{{{termend{{{1}}}|}}}||_}}end{{{1}}}}}}}}| – |–}}{{{term{{#if:{{{termend{{{1}}}|}}}||_}}end{{{1}}}}}}{{#if:{{{alongside{{{1}}}|}}}{{{co-leader{{{1}}}|}}}|<br />{{#if:{{{alongside{{{1}}}|}}}|Serving|Co–leading}} with {{#if:{{{alongside{{{1}}}|}}}|{{{alongside{{{1}}}}}}|{{{co-leader{{{1}}}}}}}}}}
--Kevinkor2 (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't believe this is a mistake. The words "in office" don't mean "presently in office", they refer to the dates that follow. In George W. Bush's case, that's "in office 2001–2009". --Lincolnite (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- There is nothing wrong with the current format. It clearly gives a date when he left office, showing that he is no longer in post. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ah. Sorry about that. I was a moron in a hurry. :)
- For future reference, here is the pseudocode for the term section:
If {{{succeeding}}} is set, then
//The person will take office at some future time.
Output: '''Taking office'''<br />{{{termstart}}}
Else if {{{term}}} is set, then
//Complex situation. Use the provided term.
Output: '''In office'''<br />{{{term}}}
If {{{termstart}}} is set, then
If {{{termend}}} is set, then
//The person has left office or is scheduled to leave office by termend.
Output: '''In office'''<br />{{{termstart}}} - {{{termend}}}
If {{{alongside}}} is set, then
//The person is serving alongside another.
Output: <br />Serving with [[{{{alongside}}}]]
Else,
//The term is ongoing.
Output: '''[[Incumbent]]'''
Output: '''Assumed office '''<br />{{{termstart}}}
If {{{alongside}}} is set, then
//The person is serving alongside another.
Output: <br />Serving with [[{{{alongside}}}]]
Like to Propose a change to Infobox State Senator
I'm trying to radically update the U.S. State Senate and then U.S. State House Pages with the Members of the incoming houses, In some States there is a position in the Upper House known as the President of the State Senate, I do not understand why I cannot add this. I feel we could add this just like we can add Speaker of the State House. The Other thing I want to know is, is it possible to combine people who have both served in the State House and Senate, like Make one Template out of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.190.94 (talk) 05:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hi there, thanks for your questions. In reply, the template for state reps and state senators is identical, whether it's called "Infobox State Senator", "Infobox State Representative" or "Infobox officeholder". They are just different names for the same thing. Also, it is currently possible to list both house and senate service in the same infobox: see for example Nicole LeFavour. If they served in the senate after the house, "state_senate" and "state_house1" should be used, with separate "district" and "district1", "successor" and "successor1", etc. (the parameters ending in 1 would refer to their house service in this case since you've placed a 1 after "state_house"). Finally, I don't really understand your point about state senate presidents. Are you seeking to add this information merely to the infoboxes of those serving as presidents or to every state senator? If it's the former, you should use "order" and "office" to create something like "34th President of the Nevada Senate". If it's the latter, you shouldn't be listing that information (just as congressmen's infoboxes don't list the current Speaker of the U.S. House). Hope that's helpful. --Lincolnite (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Parents vs children
Why is there a children parameter but not one for parents? We should have both, or none. Why is going down a generation important, and going up a generation NOT important? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Would anyone else prefer the "parents" parameter restored?
- Not really, because, like "children", it will encourage editors to insert non-notables into the infobox. This information should be in the body of the article. I'd take "children" out. Tony (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Speaker assumes to US Congress
I would change it, to be less US-centric, but I don't know how. There's no reason why it has to be US-centric and I have to use CanadianMP. NorthernThunder (talk) 08:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Birth name
Can someone please move the birth_name field into the Born section of the infobox, alongside the birth_date and birth_place, like in the infobox Infobox person?
--- | |
|---|---|
| Born | birth_name birth_date birth_place |
- I for one am not sure what you mean. The parameter birthname exists in the 'personal data' part of the infobox. Here's an excerpt:
- |birth_date =
- |birth_place =
- |death_date =
- |death_place =
- |restingplace =
- |restingplacecoordinates =
- |birthname =
- Is your request to reorder the items so that 'birthname' is between 'birth_place' and 'death_date'? Schwede66 03:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- No. I'm not sure if I'm explaining it right. The birthname field that is currently used in Infobox officeholder is not the same one as the birth_name field that is used in Infobox Person, in that one the birth name appears above birth_date and birth_place under the heading Born (see the above Infobox). What I'd like to see is the birthname field replaced by birth_name and have that incorporated alongside birth_date and birth_place in Born.
--- | |
|---|---|
| Born | birth_name birth_date birth_place |
Infobox person
- | name = ---
- | birth_name = birth_name
- | birth_date = birth_date
- | birth_place = birth_place
Infobox officeholder/Archive 15 | |
|---|---|
| Personal details | |
| Born | birthname birth_date birth_place |
Infobox officeholder
- |birth_date = birth_date
- |birth_place = birth_place
- |death_date =
- |death_place =
- |restingplace =
- |restingplacecoordinates =
- |birthname = birthname
89.168.253.65 (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Infobox military person
I would like to add an optional content line "Key Assignments" for those military service members who have not held command and therefore the "Commands Held" label is not appropriate. I am editing VADM Dorsett's wiki page, and he has instructed me to use the "Key Assignment" label vice "Commands Held". Please help.
Dickjensen (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Parameter parliament
{{editprotected}}
When the parameter 'parliament' is set to New Zealand, it produces "Member of the New Zealand Parliament". New Zealand Parliament redirects to Parliament of New Zealand. Can we either change the link, or pipe to the article, so that we avoid the redirect? Schwede66 07:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Can anybody help? Schwede66 18:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- There doesn't seem to be any objection, so I've added {{editprotected}} to ask an admin to execute the change. Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Hm, not quite. The parameters 'parliament' and 'constituency_MP' previously produced the following infobox text:
Member of the [[New Zealand Parliament]] for {{{constituency_MP}}}
What it should do is:
Member of the [[Parliament of New Zealand|New Zealand Parliament]] for {{{constituency_MP}}}
What it now does is:
[[Parliament of New Zealand]] for {{{constituency_MP}}}
Hope it's easy to fix. Schwede66 18:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- It is perhaps possible, but what about not fixing redirects that are not broken? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Don't forget that templates are the exception to WP:NOTBROKEN, see that same section under "exceptions". So, I support the redirects being fixed in this template. --Funandtrvl (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- The exception given is "navigational template", which is not what this is. And the only reason given is that the template looks different when it used on the actual target of the link. However this template will never be used on the article Parliament of New Zealand so I don't understand why this should be an exception. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm happy with not 'fixing' the redirect for policy reasons. Can we thus please revert the template to the previous version, as the current version misses the "Member of the" bit, as outlined above? Schwede66 01:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, how's that? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm happy with not 'fixing' the redirect for policy reasons. Can we thus please revert the template to the previous version, as the current version misses the "Member of the" bit, as outlined above? Schwede66 01:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- The exception given is "navigational template", which is not what this is. And the only reason given is that the template looks different when it used on the actual target of the link. However this template will never be used on the article Parliament of New Zealand so I don't understand why this should be an exception. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Don't forget that templates are the exception to WP:NOTBROKEN, see that same section under "exceptions". So, I support the redirects being fixed in this template. --Funandtrvl (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)