Template talk:Infobox incumbency

Proposed changes

Colonestarrice, can you please expand upon your reasoning for reverting my limited adjustments to the appearance of this template, which were made in good faith? I'm open to making any corrections to the former revision, just can you please specify what issues you have with the changes and how you would like them resolved? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 02:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Is this better? To take note of and accommodate the issues you took issue with in your summary, I have rolled back the removal of "space that aids in the reader's visual orientation", while cutting back on the "excessive amount of superfluous dividers" that I will concede was a bit too bold on my part; I apologise for not discussing this design change beforehand. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 06:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Neveselbert: Please revert the predecessor and successor parts back to their original design and I will accept the current version as it is. Colonestarrice (talk) 14:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Colonestarrice, Ravenpuff implemented the present design with this edit. I think we should give him a chance to chime in first beforehand. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 14:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Neveselbert and Colonestarrice: My sandbox edits were admittedly a bit of an unfinished test aimed at improving the design of the predecessor/successor lines – the old version imitated the appearance of horizontal lists with a middle dot, which wasn't great for accessibility and didn't quite look right in cases where only one side was present. My original intention is broadly in line with the current version of the infobox, with predecessors and successors aligned to the left and the right edges respectively, although I don't mind giving these lines a little more prominence (e.g. larger font sizes). Thanks. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 14:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Ravenpuff, thanks for the feedback. I'm inclined to agree. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Mobile display

In at least some circumstances, this template does not appear to display properly on mobile, and left-justifies several elements that ought to be centered. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Donald_Trump. Could someone fix? Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb: I've reworked the code so it should look better on mobile. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Neveselbert, awesome; thanks! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Monarch/Monarchs

The field "Monarch" assumes only one. Yet Premiership of Liz Truss overlapped two monarchs. Should the field be "Monarch(s)"? CT55555 (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

CT55555, this question would be better directed at Template talk:Infobox officeholder, which this template derives its fields from. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:52, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

And yet, it doesn't, because this template doesn't really "use" the |monarch= parameter from {{infobox officeholder}}. I think this template should be updated to actually use parameters that exist in the template it's calling. Primefac (talk) 07:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

That seems like a very agreeable reply. I don't have the skills to make such an edit, but I hope this might be the solution that someone implements. CT55555 (talk) 13:06, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't know why this template uses the syntax that it does, and without knowing that I'm hesitant to just overhaul it, but it should be fairly uncontroversial if/when I get around to it. Primefac (talk) 13:10, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

@CT55555 and Primefac:  Done ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Neveselbert, that's... one way to fix it, but since the template is already calling {{infobox officeholder/office}}, why not just use the |monarch= parameter? Why muck about with {{labeldata}}? Primefac (talk) 08:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

That's a good point Primefac, I'll test such a change. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

 Implemented ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

FDR bug

In the 2 articles discussing FDR's presidency, Presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, first and second terms and Presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, third and fourth terms, the image in the infobox links to the page "Franklin D. Roosevelt, [first/third] and [second/fourth] terms". I realize that this is a unique situation since the infobox is programmed to automatically link the image to whatever comes after "of" in the page title, but I was wondering how this bug could be fixed. Perhaps an option to set the default link to what it is currently, but also have an option to override this with text in a new parameter? -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I can see at least two options. First would be a param that disables linking entirely (e.g. |image_link=no), second would be adding a parameter to link to a user input (e.g. |image_link=Franklin D. Roosevelt). Not sure which if either I prefer, but thought I'd throw them out there as options. Primefac (talk) 12:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed. Thanks for bringing this up, Politicsfan4. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Image link

This template has an active parameter for "image_link=", to be used to override the automatic link created from the article title. But it doesn't appear in the documentation. I only found it by experimenting at the article Presidency of Castelo Branco, because the image was linking to the disambiguation page Castelo Branco. Can this be added to the documentation so others will know it's there? —ShelfSkewed Talk 16:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Go for it. Primefac (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Wrong image links

User:Neveselbert, something in your edits on 22 August 2024 caused an incorrect image link in examples like Anthony Eden#Prime Minister, 1955–1957. There, the image links to the non-existent article Ny Eden instead of the Commons file, the expected target. — Goszei (talk) 07:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I think I see the intention, but I'm not entirely sure how to fix it, so I have just rolled it back for now. Primefac (talk) 12:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)