Template talk:Obama personnel, Cabinet-level child-template

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
WikiProject iconUnited States: Government Template‑class
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.
inactive.Barack ObamaWikipedia:WikiProject Barack ObamaTemplate:WikiProject Barack ObamaBarack Obama articles
NAThis article has been rated as NA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Cabinet vs cabinet-level personnel; should there be a note pointing out which positions are not "officially" cabinet members?

There has been some reverting ([1] vs [2]) over whether there should be a note pointing out which positions are cabinet-level vs. those positions that are actually in the cabinet. {{Obama cabinet}} makes this distinction and in the interests of clarity I think this template should as well.

Please discuss the rational for not including this information before reverting this template again. ~ PaulT+/C 22:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re article probation

I've tagged this article as partaking of the Obama series of articles' "probation." ↜Just me, here, now … 05:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're getting irrationally out-of-hand. The only person editing against consensus is you. By virtue of this tag, the next time to try to remove the cabinet-level designations without explanation or having sought and found consensus, you will be sanctioned. Therequiembellishere (talk) 05:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Therequiembellishere, are you addressing me? Namely: please provide a single diff where I've removed cabinet level designations! :^) ↜Just me, here, now … 05:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Josephabradshaw. Therequiembellishere (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Merger proposal

What is this template for

Is it used anywhere? Is it any better than

11 21:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Yes, it is much cleaner and takes up a lot less space. See discussion at Template talk:Obama cabinet#Duplicated template?.
Which one looks cleaner to you?
I think the longer template will make more sense when/if cabinet members get replaced. The smaller, more compact template will just show the current cabinet. ~ PaulT+/C 05:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer
talk) 21:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Proposal

A merger has been suggested of this template with Template:Current U.S. Cabinet or vice versa. Reason: To avoid redundancy when articles display both (since their functions and rationales for existence would appear to be fairly indentical?) ↜Just me, here, now … 13:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I personally like the other one. As I said earlier, that should be used on article for the Cabinet members, without the whole Administration template.
11 13:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually, I prefer
11 13:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Template:Obama Cabinet is the standard for Obama's predecessors; its removal would require a huge upheaval. This templates was intended to show Obama's cabinet in the order they were appointed, but it has lost that one distinction and should be deleted. There's no reason to merge it with any of the other templates because they already show what they're meant to show. This should be deleted. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Please don't confuse issues:
Template:Obama Cabinet is obviously a keeper whereas the present template's design is being offered as a merger to upgrade Template:Current U.S. Cabinet so this the latter will come to include position names and full names of cabinet or cabinet-level officers. ↜Just me, here, now … 18:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • (However, if we want to expand this discussion to include all Obama Cabinet templates, on the right margin is this template, too. Thanks.)
The Obama cabinet
OfficeNameTerm
PresidentBarack Obama2009–2017
Vice PresidentJoe Biden2009–2017
Secretary of StateHillary Clinton2009–2013
John Kerry2013–2017
Secretary of the TreasuryTimothy Geithner2009–2013
Jack Lew2013–2017
Secretary of DefenseRobert Gates*2006–2011
Leon Panetta2011–2013
Chuck Hagel2013–2015
Ash Carter2015–2017
Attorney GeneralEric Holder2009–2015
Loretta Lynch2015–2017
Secretary of the InteriorKen Salazar2009–2013
Sally Jewell2013–2017
Secretary of AgricultureTom Vilsack2009–2017
Secretary of CommerceGary Locke2009–2011
John Bryson2011–2012
Penny Pritzker2013–2017
Secretary of LaborHilda Solis2009–2013
Tom Perez2013–2017
Secretary of Health and
Human Services		Kathleen Sebelius2009–2014
Sylvia Mathews Burwell2014–2017
Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development		Shaun Donovan2009–2014
Julian Castro2014–2017
Secretary of TransportationRay LaHood2009–2013
Anthony Foxx2013–2017
Secretary of EnergySteven Chu2009–2013
Ernest Moniz2013–2017
Secretary of EducationArne Duncan2009–2016
John King Jr.2016–2017
Secretary of Veterans AffairsEric Shinseki2009–2014
Bob McDonald2014–2017
Secretary of Homeland SecurityJanet Napolitano2009–2013
Jeh Johnson2013–2017
Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency		Lisa Jackson2009–2013
Gina McCarthy2013–2017
Director of the Office of
Management and Budget		Peter Orszag2009–2010
Jack Lew2010–2012
Sylvia Mathews Burwell2013–2014
Shaun Donovan2014–2017
United States Trade RepresentativeRon Kirk2009–2013
Michael Froman2013–2017
Ambassador to the United NationsSusan Rice2009–2013
Samantha Power2013–2017
Chair of the
Council of Economic Advisers		Christina Romer2009–2010
Austan Goolsbee2010–2011
Alan Krueger2011–2013
Jason Furman2013–2017
Administrator of the
Small Business Administration		Karen Mills**2009–2013
Maria Contreras-Sweet2014–2017
Chief of StaffRahm Emanuel2009–2010
William M. Daley2011–2012
Jack Lew2012–2013
Denis McDonough2013–2017
*Retained from previous administration
**Elevated to cabinet-level in January 2012

↜Just me, here, now … 18:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I'd meant Template:Current U.S. Cabinet. To rephrase:
Template:Current U.S. Cabinet is the standard for Obama's predecessors; its removal would require a huge upheaval. This template (Template:Obama personnel, Cabinet-level child-template) was intended to show Obama's cabinet in the order they were appointed, but it has lost that one distinction and should be deleted. There's no reason to merge it with any of the other templates because they already show what they're meant to show. This should be deleted.

Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The basic standard used with Template:Current U.S. Cabinet is used across the site, such as Template:Brown Cabinet, Template:Cabinet Merkel and Template:Fillon II. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't completely understand what your proposal is then. And there's no reason why the US template must copy those of other countries. If you go to the bottom of Arne Duncan, for example, there are three similar templates. One is personnel, which includes a ton of people including cabinet members, one is Obama's cabinet, and one is the current cabinet. All three are exactly the same except that the former two give positions and full names. I see absolutely no reason why all of these should be included on their members' articles. I support keeping Template:Obama cabinet because that is what other presidents have. Template:Obama personnel, Cabinet-level child-template is used within Template:Obama personnel. Reywas92Talk 21:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of

Template:Obama Cabinet is to show everyone who has ever been on Obama's cabinet from the beginning of his term until the end of his term. It may look ridiculous now, but in the long run, it will just a useful a navigation tool as all of his predecessors have. The purpose of Template:Current U.S. Cabinet is transparent. It cuts straight through to show who are incumbent cabinet officials and it's changing nature means that it'll never be on any page permanently. Template:Obama personnel, Cabinet-level child-template was supposed to show the cabinet members in order of their nominations, which it hasn't followed and is now obsolete. I don't see a reason for the newest, and most incompetent, of the three to be the surviving template. On top of it all, it was a template to be used for the transition, which is over. It is this template that has the weakest standing and it's this template that should be deleted, not the other two. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

If I'm following you right, I agree that this template is the one that should be deleted.
11 22:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

The "Child-template" goes within a larger template, which is a huge and unattractive piece of work. As I've said before, there is no point in putting that huge article on every member of the Administration and the Cabinet, when there could be one template for each. Keep the Admin-level Child template separate from the Cabinet template. Also keep the Current Template, as it will eventually show different things than the Obama Cabinet template. Also keep the infobox template, as it is meant to show the Cabinet members in a different manner, eventually as an anchor for the Cabinet article similar to

11 23:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Proposal #2

I want to put forth my proposal for consideration:

You were following me right, sorry for the hoops you had to jump through. I put a Strong Agree on this proposal. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Switch support to Proposal 2a below. Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with parts of this proposal. I will outline my view below: ~ PaulT+/C 23:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal #2a

  • Keep Template:Obama cabinet to be used on all former cabinet members of the Obama Cabinet. Once the Obama administration leaves office, this would be present on every member of the Obama Cabinet and replace any use of Template:Obama personnel, Cabinet-level child-template independent of Template:Obama Administration personnel. This template has great detail and is useful in a historical context, but it is too large and wastes too much space for regular use on current cabinet members.
  • Keep
    United States Cabinet
    article and any other related general cabinet articles (obama cabinet, bush cabinet, etc...). This extreme simplicity of this template is nice, but the lack of context is confusing for people who are not familiar with who these people are.
  • Keep
    Barack Obama Cabinet, and perhaps other articles.) However, this template should be changed back to use the {{Infobox U.S. Cabinet
    }} (single column) format.
  • Keep Template:Obama personnel, Cabinet-level child-template both as a child of Template:Obama Administration personnel and as an independent navbox. This template should be used on all current cabinet members and related articles where the parent Template:Obama Administration personnel template is inappropriate. The order of this template needs to be discussed and standardized as it is currently in a seemingly random order. The clarity and improved aesthetics of this template over Template:Obama cabinet should not be ignored.
  • Keep Template:Obama Administration personnel with all three child templates, but keep the option to hide the cabinet child template on articles where its inclusion is inappropriate. (Such as articles specific to the bottom two templates.) This template would be used on articles that span large parts of the Obama administration such as Barack Obama, Presidency of Barack Obama and other eventual shoot-offs of that article, Joe Biden, etc.. This template is extremely comprehensive, perhaps to a fault, but the ability to list and navigate to every official appointed by Obama in one place is very useful for large, comprehensive articles.

I believe that each template has a unique use and utility. On articles where multiple cabinet templates are present, a discussion should take place on the talk page for the relevant article to decide if a specific template should be omitted (or not). ~ PaulT+/C 23:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the redistribution of the template's purposes, I'll switch support to this proposal. Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure what

11 00:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

I originally brought up discussion on this here. This template shows the current members of the cabinet and their respective departments in an efficient way. Template:Obama cabinet shows the same thing while also showing previous members of the cabinet. In order to show the previous members, the template requires much more vertical space and also wastes a lot of space. Since there aren't any previous members of the cabinet it right now it duplicates this template, but as the administration progresses the Template:Obama cabinet will become more relevant and once the administration is finished it will eventually be used almost exclusively. Each template has different uses (as explained above).
This template is also transcluded in Template:Obama Administration personnel so that only one template needs to be used to show every person appointed by the Obama administration. ~ PaulT+/C 01:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still think this template is very unappealing. What if we could make use a
11 02:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
You haven't explained why you think it is "unappealing" (if that is relevant). The infobox needs to be reverted back to use the {{Infobox U.S. Cabinet}} template and should not be used here. ~ PaulT+/C 02:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like Justmeherenow's latest format change. It now shows the current cabinet, as well as their position. I think now we've answered the various needs. We have this to show the current composition, as well as

11 03:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Scratch that, I like how
11 03:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The latest version of this template is missing the Ambassador to the United Nations post as well as the distinction between cabinet and cabinet-level posts. I'm not 100% clear on the need for the term column as this is just supposed to outline the current cabinet. The length of service isn't really all that important, especially since every post save Gates will have the exact same information for the near future. In addition, I'm not sure this information adds anything but complexity to the template. I also disagree on the need to state Gates' term as starting in 2006 and remaining from a previous administration (only one or the other should be needed). Technically he wasn't part of the "Obama" cabinet until 2009. This template clearly still needs work, but I think we have clearly demonstrated that there is a need for it. We need to shore up the deletion discussion. ~ PaulT+/C 06:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal #3

I propose that all templates except {{Obama cabinet}} and {{Obama cabinet infobox}} be deleted, because all other templates basically tell the same thing and nobody really cares who his Chairman of committee X is etc.

talk) 00:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Why delete Template:Current U.S. Cabinet? Have you read my comment explaining what each template is for? And we aren't talking about deleting the Executive Office template, which is actually a very useful template and to say that nobody cares about the chairs of the major councils is a very naïve thing to say. Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is it Naïve? I am being pretty realistic. It seems you are opposing me just for the sake of opposing.
talk) 10:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
It's naïve to assume nobody cares about the top officials of the United States! Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TOP OFFICIALS?! Top officials are people like the secretaries heading the different departments!
talk) 16:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not responding to this drivel anymore. Therequiembellishere (talk) 17:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Driveling?! That is harsh!
talk) 18:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
11 00:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't see why it shouldn't be brought up just because it's older; there are plenty of old things that should be changed. I support proposal 3. No, even when there are more people on the Obama cabinet template the Current cabinet template is still redundant. The nature of a
WP:NAVBOX is not to be changing; once a navbax is on an article it should stay there. Though do agree with Sebastian below; we can just discuss this template here. Reywas92Talk 02:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
They serve different purposes. Not right now, no, but in the future, as they did in the past during Bush's later years. Later, when some Cabinet members have changed, they will both have a specific and different purpose. Also, Current cabinet goes on
11 02:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Separate the proposals: Delete this template, discuss others elsewhere

I don't see why we have to vote on bundled proposals. There seems to be agreement to delete this particular template and to keep at least two of the others, regardless of what happens with the remaining templates. There is no reason to discuss all templates on the talk page for this particular template, of all templates.

In particular, the question if {{Current U.S. Cabinet}} should be deleted, should be discussed at Template talk:Current U.S. Cabinet. I will start a section to do that there. — Sebastian 02:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. These proposals are all related to how information about the Obama cabinet should be presented. Each template should have a purpose and redundancy should be avoided. Centralization of this discussion is important, but perhaps there is a better location for it than the talk page of any one of the templates. Perhaps on an Obama WikiProject talk page? I also disagree that this template should be deleted. Of all the cabinet templates it presents the most information about the current cabinet members in an efficient way. I will detail my rationale in the discussion above. ~ PaulT+/C 22:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Distinguishing Cabinet vs Cabinet-level

Why not put all Cabinet-level positions, including VP, at the bottom with a line between them and the Cabinet. The blue is rather hard to see and would be more difficult to put in a key or legend.

11 03:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

checkY ↜Just me, here, now … 04:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

help--horizontal scroll

Hi. i was just at Category:Obama Administration personnel. when you hit "show" to display this template fully, the ruight edge goes off the screen. however, no horizontal scroll bar appears which would enable the user to vierw the right edge. could you please fix this? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Obama_personnel,_Cabinet-level_child-template&oldid=1131406643"