Template talk:Hillary Clinton

Please remember images DO NOT belong on talk pages.
If it is necessary, please link to the image instead.
DiligentTerrier • talk |sign here 20:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Expanded template

I have expanded this template to look like real life and not like a pale nothing about nothing pro-Hillary PR piece. Everyone knows that Bill Clinton is her "spouse" and Chelsea is her "daughter" and that the people whose names end with "Rodham" belong to her immediate family, who else? (How dumb can anyone get, and what a total waste that is to say so, and makes everyone look stupid, duh, like, oh yeah, her puddy cat was Socks.) Could we discuss what anyone thinks is "not relevant" to the expanded template as every item in it is directly relevant to HRC and it is NPOV. All the articles in this expanded template are about HRC and she is central to all of them. There is no Wikipedia "law" that says that templates cannot be expanded and improved, something that happens all the time on Wikipedia (unless of course, some people here are working for Hillary, which I hope is not true.) Wikipedia is here for NPOV work only. It is not for Hillary-bashing nor is it here to work for her election as in Wikipedia is not hillaryclinton.com (See WP:NOT#ADVERTISING and WP:NOT#WEBSPACE and more.) Thanks, IZAK (talk) 11:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, you don't like Hillary, we get it, no need for the cartoon characters. The real issue here is, should this be a short nav template that just points to the most immediately relevant articles about HRC that complement the main article, or should this be a long nav template that points to every article that has any connection with HRC. If the latter, we have this version which is slanted anti-HRC (but you missed at least five articles that would make her look even worse, keep trying IZAK!), or we have this version from last month which was slanted pro-HRC. Combine the two, and we'd have one really big nav template. Me, I supported junking the template in the AfD, just to avoid this kind of tussle. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wasted Time R: Your feedback is appreciated. I just couldn't resist having Tweety Bird here when I saw that the template in its simplistic form is just plain dumb. I mean, does anyone really need to be told that Bill Clinton is her "spouse"? I am looking at this as a historian would, trying to "navigate" the whole picture of her 60 year old life. I actually looked at almost every article, so I don't know why you think I missed anything. What's in the template is known to the slightly more academic observer of the Clintons, whether you hate or love 'em, these are the important things, they are factually, truthfully and historically 100% accurate. If there is any hearsay of unsubstantiated slander, please feel free to cut it out, I will suppor you on that, but not when you have fairly good articles on Wikipedia that cover the entire gamut of Hillary's professional and political life. She is a truly very important person, and she has withstood the tests in her political life so it actually makes her look stronger and not weaker or diminished. I am not one-dimensional, and fortunataly neither does Wikipedia subscribe to one-dimensional views, in fact that is why we have WP:NPOV that requires that all views be shared and reflected, and not that there be " 'No' Points of View." I tried my best to enhance the contents of this template and created Category:Images of Hillary Rodham Clinton to gather up all the images of HRC (as well as Category:Images of Bill Clinton) to enhance this template. I added the articles about her senate victories and her work in congress, as that should be in such a template for a sitting US senator as she is. So regardless of my personal views, as editors we should strive to present the total picture of this very complex character and not reduce her to a caricature. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 09:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The old version of the template you point out from last month is no good because it links to all sorts of articles and topics about organizations and efforts where often the articles do not really mention her name. The link to "First Ladies of Arkansas" was a redirect to the governors' page. Anyhow, my version is not about throwing in everything but the kitchen sink, because the articles in this present template follow a chronological order and have HRC pretty much at their center and make prominent mention of her and her activities, pro and con, but on balance it's an accurate depiction of her. Feel free to add your views, but merely to flippantly state that you "don't care" will not do, because you have to care about the subject to sit in judgment of its accuracy, validity and functionality. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 09:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've gone through and added links to accomplishments from Arkansas and FL whose articles that do prominently mention her; I agree that the old template was bloated with ones that didn't. The one exception in my adds is SCHIP; it should mention her but doesn't, I have made a note to work on that article. In cases where I've yanked things that you added, my edit comments give the reason. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

SCHIP mentions her right at the begining. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.116.3 (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because I added her involvement to that article subsequent to my above comment. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations to Wasted Time R! You have done a great job improving and upgrading this template. This is now a good NPOV and scholarly reflection. Thanks for your efforts. IZAK (talk) 03:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Visible name of template

At some point soon someone will probably change the visible title to 'Hillary Clinton'. This is inaccurate in terms of the template. The template includes many items concerning her actions and writings when her name was 'Hillary Rodham'. So the full name is needed to accurately give weight to the items in this template concerning Ms. Hillary Rodham. Randy Kryn 18:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the navbox should follow the article. If the article has, after great consideration, been moved, then so should the navbox, and the links should show the article titles per WP:COMMONNAME. Who are we to argue? See Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

But Randy Kryn is raising a good point, that there are items that do not include the name Clinton. The only logical name for the template, then, is Hillary Rodham Clinton - to avoid confusion. Nothing in the move discussion or decision was about anything other than the main biography title. Tvoz/talk 02:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Randy Kryn and Tvoz. She has done major things in her life under "Hillary Rodham", "Hillary Clinton", and "Hillary Rodham Clinton". The only name formulation that encompasses all of these is "Hillary Rodham Clinton". Wasted Time R (talk) 11:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I've just put the 'Rodham' back, as this talk page discussion has progressed and the name was changed after the discussion commenced. Robsinden, hi, what is the standard practice when a women has accomplishes under her unmarried name which have been reflected in the creation of many Wikipedia pages. It would seem Clinton's earlier accomplishments under only the 'Rodham' name would lose relevance and identity in a shortened title. Thanks, Randy Kryn 13:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

It should match the main article, simple as. All the arguments about multiple names apply as much to the article as to here and it's confusing to be perpetuating different names. If "Hillary Clinton" is good enough for the article it's good enough for here. For another example see Template:Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge which does not display the name "Kate Middleton" despite that being used for some articles relating to her prior to her marriage. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

There's a big difference there. The individual articles about Kate Middleton all relate to either the effect of her engagement, her wedding, her wedding dress - all things related to her relationship and marriage to William. Hillary Rodham, on the other hand, had a successful career and many accomplishments of note before she married Bill Clinton. She apparently didn't even take the name 'Clinton' until well after the marriage. Like comparing apples and golf carts, entirely different topics. Is there any comparable template, one for a woman who accomplished article-worthy notable events while single, events unrelated to her husband, and who has a template? Randy Kryn 20:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The name on the infobox doesn't have to be as simple as the name of the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

There are examples in British royalty where the display name in the template is longer than the article name, for example see Template:Elizabeth II which shows its top display name as "Queen Elizabeth II" whereas the article is titled Elizabeth II. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Franklin D. Roosevelt and Cat Stevens both have shorter article names. There's lots more, no doubt.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)I got templates mixed up with infoboxes.

I hate it when that happens. Randy Kryn 13:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Seems like a fairly ridiculous situation. The common name I hear all the time in the news and read all the time in the papers and mags is "Hillary Rodham Clinton". That therefore is the common name. The article should never have been renamed, this template page title should be renamed and the visible name on the template should be the common name – Hillary Rodham Clinton. "Hillary Clinton" is not her commonly known name. – Paine  15:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)