Template talk:Infobox cabinet members

Wrapper

There is no justification for the claim, recently added to this template's documentation, that it may only be used as a wrapper; especially when the wrapping template has only one transclusions, or a small number of them. I've removed the claim. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested moves

Stuck

 – After about a month, the transclusions of the current "Infobox cabinet" template are still preventing this request from going through. Please feel free to reinitiate the request when the problematic transclusions have been migrated to "Infobox cabinet members". Dekimasuよ! 07:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Template:Infobox cabinet → Template:Infobox cabinet members
• Template:Infobox government cabinet → Template:Infobox cabinet

– The two templates' similar names already raised quite some irritation, including a merge request which was declined because they do serve different purposes. However it was stated there that the naming is a problem to be tackled.
Now, as there actually isn't something like a "government cabinet" anyway, the more general and much more used infobox, providing meta data about the cabinet's whole body, should rather go for the name "Infobox cabinet". For the, rarely used, mere listing of the ministers serving in a cabinet, the name "Infobox cabinet members" (alternatively: "Infobox cabinet list") makes more sense. For examples, see Second Valls Cabinet resp. Talk:Barack Obama Cabinet.
PanchoS (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

This would involve manually changing 100 current transclusions of the "Infobox cabinet" template, since its redirect would be taken over after the move. Assuming there is support for these moves, are you willing to replace those with "Infobox cabinet members" ahead of the switch so that the pages aren't broken? (WP:DEMAND, etc.) Dekimasuよ! 19:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry about that. I'd take care. The template is not so widely used. --PanchoS (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

You may want to get started; I've bluelinked the new target, but it would be hard to close this without the changes being made beforehand. Dekimasuよ! 20:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I see no problem with the first move, but I probably oppose the second move given the myriad of meanings of cabinet. Frietjes (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I went through the list of other meanings of cabinet and can't imagine an Infobox being created for either of them as a generic term. We can also take it as an indication that it doesn't exist yet.
Again, there just isn't something as a "government cabinet". We can call it "cabinet" or with a slightly different meaning we could also call it "government", but not "government cabinet".
Also note that this is the more important of the two proposed moves as it is also the more important template. --PanchoS (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The relevant article sits at Cabinet (government). Perhaps {{Infobox cabinet of ministers}} would be a better name? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

They're not always referred to as ministers, though. They are generally "secretaries" in the US, for example: Cabinet of the United States. Dekimasuよ! 04:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Nor are the institutions always called cabinets. This is not about content displayed to our readers, but what we call the template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but at the point where we're noting that readers won't see it, I'm also not sure why we go to the trouble to rename them. Dekimasuよ! 20:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I think PanchoS set out a clear and cogent reason for that, in the original post in this scetion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not opposing the move, either. As soon as the transclusions are shifted to the new bluelink, I'd be happy to process the request. Dekimasuよ! 01:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

There are still 75 transclusions of the current "Infobox cabinet" preventing this request from going through. Dekimasuよ! 05:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@PanchoS: if {{Infobox cabinet of ministers}} as proposed by User:Pigsonthewing is all right, we can put this through. Otherwise, the transclusions are holding up the request in the RM backlog. Dekimasuよ! 20:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• This was a disastrous move, and should've been put to a TFD. In many cases, the infobox government cabinet box is used on pages that are not about cabinets, but about governments. This changes means that it must now be removed from all government pages. A real disaster. RGloucester — ☎ 17:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • agreed, I reverted the move. Frietjes (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm confused. What happened? Alakzi (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
    • someone tried to circumvent the lack of consensus here. Frietjes (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Right, I thought I broke something; apparently not. Dekimasu's comments here left me with the impression that the only thing holding up this move was the name conflict. I did not try to "circumvent" anything; I apologise if I've misinterpreted the outcome. Alakzi (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • We don't take templates to TfD to request a move. It wouldn't have to be removed from anywhere; the name is not visible to readers. Also, how did this move make any difference to you? That template was, and now is, again, called "government cabinets". Alakzi (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

"Government cabinet" implies it can apply to either a government or a cabinet, whereas "cabinet" implies governments must be excluded. In many cases, "cabinets" and "governments" are different, and in many cases, they are the same. This template is used on both cabinet and government pages. WP:RM or [[WP:TFD are the places to request a controversial move to a template. RGloucester — ☎ 22:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

requested here as an "uncontroversial technical request". why this discussion was ignored is beyond me. Frietjes (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I linked to this very discussion. I've apparently misinterpreted the outcome and was promptly reverted; now's about time you lay off it. Alakzi (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

"Government" is adjectival; "government cabinet" means the cabinet of a government. What do you reckon the difference between "government" and "cabinet" to be, in the articles where this template is used? There was a RM right here. Alakzi (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Mislignment on mobile

On mobile, for each office, the names and terms after the first are incorrectly aligned to the left. They should be aligned with their respective columns, as on desktop. Hairy Dude (talk) 14:28, 26 December 2022 (UTC)