Template talk:Infobox Archbishop

Religion parameter

Are there any Archbishops who are not Christian? This parameter would be better name "Denomination", or "Church". David Underdown (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think your right there are only Chritistian archbishops so I will deal with that right away. {Electrobe (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)}

Enthroned or consecrated

When does the archbishop "begin", when he is enthroned or when he is consecrated? In Thomas Cranmer's case this happened on two different dates. --RelHistBuff (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe you have been misinformed and dont actully understand what you have just said. Enthronement and Conscretion are different things and you dont even mention conscretion in your message althought that is the name you have given it. Do some more research and then try to ask your question again. Electrobe (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The question was quite clear to me. What didn't you get? -- Secisek (talk) 08:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

An archbishop begins his time as archbishop when he is consecrated. I don't mind having an enthroned field also, but it really needs our old form back. I'm now running into issues with GA and PR reviews where folks are questioning things because the box got changed out from under me. Is it going to stay stable, so if I go through and change all my parameters I won't have to go through and do it again later? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we just restore the old box? The change took place because someone felt that "Enthroned" was more elegant than "began" but did not take into account that what they did created errors. I put off making the changes you requested long enough. What do you want here? I will make it so. -- Secisek (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I really like the form the new Archbishop of York box took. I put in a Consecrated field, and it works perfect. It's elegant, collapses anything we don't have a field for, and isn't quite so magenta. And thanks, Secisek, for putting up with a grumpy ABC editor. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

So you want me to move set this one exatly the same? Say the word... -- Secisek (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think so. Do you like it? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You deal with them more than anybody else. Fine with me. I'll do it right now. Any other fields required? -- Secisek (talk) 20:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really that I can think of. The nice thing about the newer version is that I can understand and add fields on that template. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Done in a shake. -- Secisek (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

YEAH! -- Secisek (talk) 21:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Portal template

I don't think the Portal template should be included in this template. I might not look great on all pages, and currently you don't have control over its position. It would be better if you separate it and add it individually . Eklipse (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes

Can we perhaps move the "consecrated" field above the enthroned field? I don't care if we move the whole "ordination" and "consecration" set above it, but at the moment, I'm seriously thinking of switching all the medieval archbishops of canterbury and york to the plain bishop box, because for a lot of these archbishops, we don't have enthronement dates, just consecration and/or translation dates. It would also be nice to have a "elected/selected/appointed" field also. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Portals in See also

Adding a portal to this template breaches WP:ACCESSIBILITY for people using screen readers (templates go below the text in the lead), and breaches WP:LAYOUT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Venerated

At Ælfheah of Canterbury, I changed the "venerated_in" parameter to "venerated", which made the information appear in the infobox. Although my understanding of the template coding is dim, it says "venerated" not "venerated_in". So I suggest the document be changed accordingly. Art LaPella (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

New parameter needed for "alt" text

Including "alt" text for the convenience of those using screen-reader software has now become a requirement for meeting the featured article criteria. In looking at the Dunstan article earlier I noticed that it used the attributes parameter for what is obviously meant to be "alt" text". Other infoboxes, such as {{Infobox bridge}} have already been updated by the addition of an alt parameter. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

go ahead and fix it? I'm not exactly an expert in templates Ealdgyth - Talk 15:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Ha!. I just automatically assumed that the template would be protected and that I wouldn't be allowed to edit it, but I see that it's not. I'll add an alt parameter then if nobody else gets to it before me. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep the attributes, it's not really alt text, it's part of the whole sainthood thing. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I've left the attributes and updated the template. The main difference now, apart from the new alt parameter, is in the way the image parameter is handled; it now just takes the name of the image file, not the [[Image]] markup. I've been through and updated all of the articles that have images in their infoboxes. I think the overall effect is more consistent across articles than what we had before. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

PS. I've also added an alt parameter to the {{Infobox Archbishop of York}} template, and the two now are used similarly. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)