Template talk:Infobox Christian leader/Archive 2

Guidance

It would be really good if there was some guidance and examples of the expected text for the infobox_bishop, other infobox have some nomenclature explanation. For example, how to differentiate between see and diocese. When and what to wikilink. From my (limited) understanding of the Anglican church in the UK, they are the same. So when basic transcriptions are being undertaken from historical text, I sit there and rock gently trying to determine which fields you want with which.billinghurst (talk) 10:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, the see should be either the Cathedral seat of the bishop (if applicable) or the city which hosts the diocesan offices. Jared Cramer (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Multiple bishopric

With the infobox_bishop, it seems that you are limited to one active use of 'see' (the last used). I tried to use multiples, and it failed. Guidance or review of the infobox again would be useful. billinghurst (talk) 10:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Other see's are put in the other_post section. The Quill (talk) 14:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Okie dokie, which obviously precludes the need for predecessor and successor fields. billinghurst (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Why? This is how it has always been done even before I came and made the major changes to the template. The Quill (talk) 08:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I obviously didn't express myself well enough. When one uses the other post field for another position, one is precluded from 'Other_predecessor and Other_successor. Hence one position takes priority in enabling pre/succ, the other post just has to standalone. billinghurst (talk) 10:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Church ?

I think we need to add item Church as we can find in Template:Infobox clergy and in Template:Infobox Patriarch. There is religion (it appears denomination) but many Churches define themselves as Churches not as Denominations. I mainly think to Orthodox Churches. I've never edited a template so I hope some expert editor can do it. Thanks A ntv (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Signature

There is an ongoing discussion at Template talk:Infobox officeholder regarding whether we should keep images of signatures in infoboxes. MitchellDuce (talk) 18:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed modifications

I propose some modifications to this template. I've already implemented them in the sandbox.

• added "Elected", "Appointed", "Confirmed" (to respect the different way to chose a Christian leader)
• added "Previous office" (present in {{Infobox bishopbiog}}, a template that could be deleted IHMO)
• added "Consecrated by" (in order not to have the need in future of {{Episcopal Succession}})
• renamed Ordination" in "Ordinated priest", and "Consecration" in "Consecrated bishop" to be more clear (these terms are slightly differently used in different Churches)
• added "Papacy began": the papacy does NOT begin at the Enthronement, but at the election or at the bishop consecration.

Please give me some feedbacks, A ntv (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Your first problem would be better solved by having one parameter, but allowing label text to be entered. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

"Elected" and "Appointed" are mutually exclusive, while "Confirmed" can follow an election. A ntv (talk) 21:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking for some user so kind to modify this template in order to have both "Elected" and "Appointed" (mutually exclusive), having one parameter, but allowing label text to be entered as above suggested by Andy Mabbett. Actually the 99% of the Roman Catholic Bishops are appointed and not elected, and this template cannot be fully implemented in such numerous articles. Thanks A ntv (talk) 14:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Done as per WP:BB. A ntv (talk) 12:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Succeeded

I propose adding "Succeeded". A number of Catholic bishops were appointed as Coadjutor bishop before they succeeded as the actual bishop of the diocese. Their succession date is neither the appointment date or enthronement date. Scrivener-uki (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I concur DBD 20:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

In a case of a Catholic coadjutor bishop, his succession anyway requires a specific appointment by Rome at the moment of the retirement/death of the previous bishop, with a statement like this. Further the succession is not 100% sure, because the pope can change candidate. In a case of a coadjutor bishop, you could use the field "previous_post=Coadjutor of xyz" and use the usual field "appointed" stating the actual day of the succession as stated in the Vatican Bulletin. Further the proposed field "succeeded" would create confusion with field "Successor". A ntv (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You may be right about the confusion between "Succeeded" and "Successor", and so I withdraw the proposal. Scrivener-uki (talk) 13:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

Been trying to insert a Coat of Arms section to no avail. Could someone please insert this into the infobox so that it is similar to: Template:Infobox nobility but so we just have the coat of arms beneath the photo of the person with perhaps a caption? Thanks Mangwanani ^(talk) 18:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I spent quite a long time implementing the necessary changes but some dick of an admin decided that, because there were a few glitches along the way, the changes needed reverting and the page needed protecting. Basically, I did have it working and had started adding Coats of Arms to the various infoboxes but these edits will not be visible any more. Check the template sandbox. My edits are there, they just need putting back in place. Mangwanani ^(talk) 19:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Calling me a dick and douche isn't very civil. My reasoning for locking the template is that you have made several failed attempts to make changes to this and other templates. This template is used on over 1500 pages, and these changes impact the articles in which the template is transcluded. Now, if you would care to focus on your request, rather than name calling, I would be happy to help you add a parameter for |image_coa=. I am sure you realize that this image is somewhat redundant, since in most cases there is a "manner of address" box with the same image. However, if there is consensus (or no objections), I am happy to help. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, the "manner of address" box is terrible and whichever solution that could supersede it is welcome. However I consider the CoA a very secondary item for a Christian leader, but that is a subjective opinion. Almost all bishop have a Cof, so we can implement it.But may I suggest: 1) a default "imagesize=50px" for the CoA and 2) to insert it in the bottom (under the "below" item), i.e. something like the signature: otherwise the CoA would became too prominent. A ntv (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

the fact still remains that my change had worked, and had you looked at the infoboxes where I had made the chanes, you would have seen this. If you were so concerned to improve the parameter, you would have done so rather than reverting the edits and locking the page. Coats of arms are an iconic part of, particularly, Caholic apostles, and one of the most iconic and striking emblems of the papacy. The German Wikipedia employs them well - as does the nobility infobox on this. Note how important Newman's coa was in the papal visit to the UK in 2010, the messages spawned from it and the focus it, in conjunction with Newman's teachings, has had on our current Apostolic leadership under Benedict. I also hasten to add that the manner of address box is pretty much a waste of time and all the information therein can, and probably should, be included in the Infobox. Mangwanani ^(talk) 21:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Umm, no. This did not "work". You should seriously do some reading on how template:infobox works. If the image is not specified, anything in the caption section does not appear. Plus, there is a parameter called "image2" for a second image. I am with A ntv on this one. If we add a CoA, put it at the bottom. Frietjes (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It did what it needed to. If anything all that needed adding was a |CoA = before the rest of the code to tidy it up. Mangwanani ^(talk) 17:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

How did that work out for you? Clearly you don't get how template:infobox works. Frietjes (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Clearly you're stalking me now, so rather than doing that, why don't you do something constructive and fix any issues you find rather than pointlessly commenting on them....? Mangwanani ^(talk) 17:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That answers my question. It didn't work out, which is why you reverted it after saying that was "all that needed". Frietjes (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You didn't answer my point: as someone who is evidently so clued up on it, why don't you just sort it.....? And my referral to stalking extends not only to looking up at my edit history but then also going in to see my contributions and then following them, as you did with the Faulhaber page. Mangwanani ^(talk) 17:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I've prepared some changes in Sandbox [1], which result can be seen in Testcases [2] for your review and remarks:

1) I've added the field "coat_of_arms" under signature and quite small in size (the reader can alwayas click on the image). This is obviously a proposed alternative to the use of image2 (as implemented in sandbox by Plastikspork [3])

2) To reduce the size of the infobox I've put the fields "beatified_by" and "canonized_by" under the labels "Beatified" and "Canonized" (well we have the nice "{{br separated entries", let's use it ! )

3) I've added field "previous_post" as possible alternative to existing "profession" (we already a "Occupation"). It is necessary to list the previous posts of the Christian leader (in section Personal Details), while the field "other_post" is mainly used for the secondary titles/posts while keeping his main post. It is something like "Previous bishoprics" of template Template:Infobox bishop, still to be merged here. A ntv (talk) 19:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I like this, a lot. But, where does the 'Polish Name' bracket come in to play? Minor issue but on the COA front I do like this, a lot. Mangwanani ^(talk) 19:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

well the implementation of the infobox in Article John Paul II (which I copied for testing) needs some clean-up.... A ntv (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah. But I do like the idea of a native name option. :) Mangwanani ^(talk) 21:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I implemented (1) and (2), since there were no objections. I will implement (3) soon after closer inspection (so long as it doesn't appear to break anything). Simply copying the sandbox won't work since the two were not in sync. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

And, after some minor tweaks to the "if blank logic", I have implemented (3) as well. I will add a first draft of the new parameters to the documentation. Please feel free to refine what I add. Thanks again! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

how is change in (3) altering the use of the box. With Eugeniusz Baziak as an example, would we have all those in previous post rather than other post with other post being only others that they are currently the incumbent - if that makes any sense... Mangwanani ^(talk) 22:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Good question. I implemented since there were no objections. However, perhaps A ntv can answer your question. I agree that there seems to be some redundancy between "other posts" and "previous posts". Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

well, I planned to have the possibility to differentiate between "other post" currently held under the main post (for Baziak, while he was archbishop of Lviv he was also administrator of Krakow) and the "previous posts" of the ecclesiastic carrier (for Baziak, the auxiliary bishop of Lviv). Of course the chance of implementation in each Article is left to the the editor.A ntv (talk) 07:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

(1)But we want a uniform style, so we need to agree on how the two sections will be used and stick to it.

(2)Is it possible also to have 'CoA =' have the same function as 'coat_of_arms =' as I did start implementing the change when I made the edit to the template but, obviously now that parameter is defunct but I can't remember what I changed and what I left..... Mangwanani ^(talk) 11:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a section could be added for ordained deacon? The ordination box currently refers to priesthood. Inclusion for the diaconate should be added, no? Mangwanani ^(talk) 11:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I concur (we could use the parameters "deaconed=" and "priested=", which are, though probably not official, common terms). However, often sources do not provide years for both, and often sources provide a year of ordination without specifying to which order. DBD 16:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

In office more than one time

There are some cases, as Patriarch Jeremias II of Constantinople, where the Christian Leader was in office more times. Now this template cannot manage this issue. We could implement something like in Template:Infobox officeholder where under the single label "term" it is possibile to list different dates separated by a newline. As I've done in Jeremias II, using the un-appropriate label "appointed". Of course if we implement new label "term", it will go as alternative to "term_start" and "term_end". Here a proposal sandbox and testcases. For your review. A ntv (talk) 22:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I concur DBD 20:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Please implement this change. Thank you. Frietjes (talk) 16:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I've accordingly updated the Template:Infobox Christian leader/doc. A ntv (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Infobox inadequacies

So I've been using the infobox now for some time and attempting to get all the College of Cardinals up to date as well as various other bishops etc etc. It has become clear to me that this Infobox neeeds some new parameters/slight shift about.

• Catholic clergy are 'installed' not enthroned. Therefore it would be good to either change enthroned to installed or add the installed parameter.
• I second the above argument for a 'succeeded' parameter for coadjutor bishops.
• Roman Curia Cease to hold their positions on the death/resignation of the pope. Therefore we need parameters for 'ceased' and 'confirmed' for when they are re-instated into that office.
• Diaconate - It would be good to have a parameter above ordination to the priesthood for ordination into the diaconate. This is also a Holy Order.
• Overhaul of colours - I think the beigey colour used for popes is a) ugly b) not really related to the papacy. I think yellow would be more suitable. See the French version. Similarly, I think Green would look nicer for Bishops, particularly as it works well with their coat of arms. Again, see here.
• Previous offices - At the moment any previous office someone has held goes in a list at the bottom. This is both unclear and doesn't help anyone trying to follow some line of succession. I think it would be better to have parameters for various previous offices with an ability to move forward and backwards between succession. Have a look at the examples given on the French Infobox template to see what I mean. This would not only mirror the previous office parameters of Officeholders (ie politicians) but also our sister language sites.
• Additional duties - the French template also has a parameter for other duties that the clergy may hold, for example that of President of a Bishops' Conference. These aren't appointed by the Holy See and are thus currently being omitted from the previous_office parameter.

Mangwanani ^(talk) 20:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

2. You could use the ended parameter and a paranthetical comment to clarify – e.g. Ended: 2005 (death of Pope)

3. On the Anglican bishops articles, we use Ordained: 1974 (deacon); 1984 (priest)

4. We use violet for bishops for a very good reason – it's the colour of bishops!

5&6. There's also the other_posts parameter, which I have often utilised for posts like you mention.

- DBD 22:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Not really sure how your numbers match up to what I've posted. Moreover you've missed what I was saying with regards to your point numbered 2. Not sure what you mean but it doesn't link to what I was saying about ceased and confirmed. I have seen use of the (deacon) (priest) but think it looks messy and cluttered. Also, violet is the colour of their trim - look at their coat of arms; look at the colour of the galero. Green is more suited for the job - look at how it is used on every other translation: French, Spanish etc. Additionally, in response to what you've numbered 5&6, please look at the French examples to see what I mean. It would be nice to be able to navigate between office holders of a certain post with the same ease as the French Wiki has. Mangwanani ^(talk) 23:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It may even be wise to set up a separate Catholic Infobox so as to avoid the confusion from terms used by the other denominations. Mangwanani ^(talk) 23:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

My responses' numbers correspond to the order of your 6 points. Of course, we can learn some things from the French RC infobox, but this is an ecumenical infobox. For instance, bishops should be violet because many denomincations' bishops wear violet, not green because RC bishops get a green hat for their helm! Sure, you could create an RC bishop infobox, but why? Why not work together to develop something which works ecumenically? DBD 23:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Church parameter

I'm a bit unsure what the 'church' parameter is used for. It seems it's being used for the christian denomination, but the 'religion' parameter covers that. The template is not just for bishops and popes, but is also used for priests, so the 'church' parameter should really be used for the actual church that the priest/reverend/minister serves: e.g. St Mary's Church, Nottingham or St Joseph's Church, Brighton. Just in the same way the 'diocese' parameter is used for the actual diocese that the bishop serves. Scrivener-uki (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The 'church' parameter makes appear among the main data the name of the Church of the prelate. It is not a mandatory parameter and it is useful particularly in case of not famous Churches (for example this Patriarch of Antioch). The parameter 'religion' makes appear the 'Denomination' field, but differently from 'church' it is into the personal details. IMHO this parameter could be modified, moving it from the personal details (it is obvious that a pastor belongs to its own denomination) to the main data, in order to be used in most of the cases in place of 'church', in the cases the relevant religious entity prefers to name itself as 'denomination' rather as 'church'. A ntv (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Native name; eductaion

Please sync with the sandbox; I've added two parameters, |native_name= & |education=, copied from {{Infobox person}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done, just needs the documentation updated now. Tra (Talk) 22:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Formatting tweak

Please make the honorifics and name appear on different lines to the name, as done in other biographical templates, by changing:

<code>
| above       = <includeonly>{{#if:{{{honorific-prefix|}}}|<span class="honorific-prefix" style="font-size:small;">{{{honorific-prefix|}}}</span> }}<span class="fn">{{{name|{{{Full name|{{{English name|}}} }}} }}}</span>{{#if:{{{honorific-suffix|}}}| <span class="honorific-suffix" style="font-size:small;">{{{honorific-suffix|}}}</span>}}</includeonly>
</code>

to:

<code>
| above       = <includeonly>{{#if:{{{honorific-prefix|}}}|<span class="honorific-prefix" style="font-size:small;">{{{honorific-prefix|}}}</span><br />}}<span class="fn">{{{name|{{{Full name|{{{English name|}}} }}} }}}</span>{{#if:{{{honorific-suffix|}}}|<br /><span class="honorific-suffix" style="font-size:small;">{{{honorific-suffix|}}}</span>}}</includeonly>
</code>

Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Could you give an example of another template that has the precedent you describe? {{Infobox person}} does not appear to force linebreaks between the honorific and he name and I'm having trouble finding another template that has separate honorific fields at all. DMacks (talk) 06:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

try Template:Infobox officeholder (which does not appear to have breaks) or Template:Infobox military person (which does) or ... Frietjes (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Might be useful to get wider input and a more-general consensus among the infoboxes. I'm declining this editrequest, as it's not non-controversial--I'm sure each one was set as a preference of...someone...without necessarily considering a unified style, so there's no reason to arbitrarily change one's pref to another's. DMacks (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The vast majority of our major biographical infoboxes that I know of use the proposed style; and we should encourage consistency of layout between such infoboxes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, {{Infobox officeholder}} does not use separate lines; that's why editors are forced to use manual line breaks; like Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma; that needs fixing, but we can only do so many things at a time... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It does; see Anthony Hopkins. The parameters are being copied to further biographical infoboxes, as and when instances requiring them are identified. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Other Popes named XXX link

The other parameter (Other Popes named ...) produces links to disambiguation pages by default (see Pope Marcellus II, Pope Alexander III). Per WP:INTDABLINK the template should link to the redirect ending with '(disambiguation)' instead. As far as I see it there is no option to manually change the link. In the sandbox I tried to hard code the word disambiguation. That works, but I don't if that's applicable to every article. Can someone look into this? LittleWink (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

your edit, here, looks fine to me. I am going to enable an edit request. if the 'Pope {{{other}}}' link exists, but the 'Pope {{{other}}} (disambiguation)' does not exist, then we are missing a redirect or the {{{other}}} is simply wrong. in all cases this is not an error that would need to be handled here. Frietjes (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I was going to carry this out but I see the sandbox has been reverted. Do you want to confirm that the previous sandbox revision works? If so I'll sync. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I can confirm that this edit is what should be done here. Frietjes (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Limit the tracking category to articles only

Please change

 {{#if:{{{image|}}}|{{#ifexist:media:{{{image}}}||[[Category:Infobox person using a missing image]]}}}}

to

 {{main other|{{#if:{{{image|}}}|{{#ifexist:media:{{{image}}}||[[Category:Infobox person using a missing image]]}}}}}}

to limit the tracking category to articles only. Thanks Illia Connell (talk) 00:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable - it's possible that an article is being sandboxed in user space, but that the only available image is non-free, which aren't permitted in user space, so you'd not want to display the image, yet also not categorise the page into Category:Infobox person using a missing image. Accordingly, Done --Redrose64 (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Illia Connell (talk) 14:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Capitalisation

In Office -> In office --MarchOrDie (talk) 11:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, so Done --Redrose64 (talk) 12:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Fast work. --MarchOrDie (talk) 12:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Capitalisation

Other Popes named -> Other popes named --Mika1h (talk) 23:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. I also changed Antipopes --> antipopes. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 01:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Created by

Please change: from

| label19     = Created Cardinal
| data19      = {{{cardinal|}}}

to

| label19     = Created Cardinal
| data19      = {{br separated entries| {{{cardinal|}}} | {{#if:{{{created_cardinal_by|}}}|by {{{created_cardinal_by}}}}} }}

Edwtie (talk) 08:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. It looked like a useful change, so I added it to the sandbox, checked it at the test cases page, and updated the template. For next time, it will help if you can follow the process at WP:TESTCASES. Thanks for your suggestion, though. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks you  :) Edwtie (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Saint

Would it be possible to have the colour change to yellow for Bishops who have been canonised? It seems silly having both this template and the Saint template on the same page and the saint template alone doesn't allow for as much information as this does, whereas this does allow for all the same fields to be filled out in the sainthood section. Many thanks Mangwanani ^(talk) 16:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

To make this template more accurate, more flexible, and in uniformity with the foreign-language Wikipedias (esp. French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese etc) it is requested that the following changes be made to the colour scheme of the header (ie the 'type =' section).

• A category 'saint' is added with the colour gold (#FFD700) as per Template:Infobox saint.
• The category 'prelate' is added with the colour #AA0052.
• The category 'priest' has the colour changed to #8C8C8C.
• The category 'pope' has the colour changed to #FED600.

• The other requested edit is that 'ordinated_by' is changed to 'ordained_by' but the ordinated option remains so as not to damage the existing infoboxes.
• The 'native_name' and 'native_name_lang' are moved to the header to conform with the Officeholder Infobox (see Vladimir Putin)
• The heading 'Created Cardinal' is changed to 'Elevated to Cardinal'
• A 'created_cardinal_by' section is added in line with the 'consecrated_by' section above.
• A section entitled 'Confirmed' is added underneath 'Appointed'

If it is possible to add 'previous post' sections as per fr:Modèle:Infobox Prélat catholique to allow for continuity between predecessor and successor in the various other offices, that would be lovely. At the moment we just have previous posts in a list. This works, but the French model is rather useful.

Mangwanani ^(talk) 20:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

My remarks: I agree with the proposed changes except; a) 'created_cardinal_by' which IMHO is not a so critical info to be placed in infobox, b) 'native_name' stays better on personal details because the official name of cleric is their new-name, not a nick-name. On about the colour of saints, it may lead to edit wars because the sainthood is a POV of certain churches/denomination. On about the system used in Wiki French infobox, I dont oppose, but I simply see a lot of work with the risk of too long infoboxes full of unimportant info. A ntv (talk) 07:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The created cardinal by section exists apparently. It just hasn't been put in the /doc file. As for native name, their name is the same just a different language. The Latin transcription of their name isn't their official name, just a transcription into an alphabet we can read (see Vladimir Putin above). As for the sainthood, all of the information in the saint infobox is held in this infobox, it just means that canonised clerics can have the information about their sees and ordination history in the same infobox. The only difference is adding the colour to match the saint infobox. It shouldn't lead to edit wars as the people for whom it will be used already have the saint infobox on their page. Mangwanani ^(talk) 09:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Have these proposed colours been tested, with the default text colour, for accessibility? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The colours are either in use on the international Wikipedias or have been taken from other infoboxes, for example the Saints Infobox. Mangwanani ^(talk) 21:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps; but that doesn't answer my question. Please do no re-enable this request, until there is confirmation that they have been tested and comply with MOS:COLOUR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

But that's what I'm saying. They have been okayed for other infoboxes, so why should they be re-checked if they've already been given the go-ahead? Mangwanani ^(talk) 18:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

You say "rechecked". Where were they first checked? The mere fact that they have been used elsewhere does not mean that they have been, nor that they would pass such a check. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

 Administrator note Please could the proposed changes be put into Template:Infobox Christian leader/sandbox, and then reactivate the request? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Spouse/partner

Re this edit, is there any reason that this infobox doesn't support a "partner" parameter? -- John of Reading (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

update requested. Frietjes (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 May 2013

please update to this version of the sandbox, which add support for a |partner= parameter, as an alternative to |spouse=.

Frietjes (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, Done. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

and it works, just tested it on Jeffrey John. Frietjes (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Enthroned/Reign Ended

After this discussion closed, we are to merge "infobox bishop" with this template. I have been able to identify a method for translating the fields of that template into existing fields in this template (see the sandbox for that template). The only difficulty is with the language used for "term_start" and "term_end". Would it be possible to make the default label "Term start" and "Term end"? I don't think "Enthroned" and "Reign ended" are the terms used for Episcopal bishops. We already have a switch in there for different types, so this would not change the value for Popes. We could also make it still use "Enthroned/Reign Ended" if the "enthroned" parameter is used, and the person is not a pope. So, my suggestion is to make this change. Any objections or suggestions? Thank you. Frietjes (talk) 16:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I just saw the section above. If we go with that change, that would work even better, since the current "infobox bishop" does not split this field into start and end. I will withdraw my proposal in favor of the one above. Frietjes (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your support on my proposed above change. The "enthronement" ceremony, often called also "installation", is quite common in almost all Episcopal churches. However not all the bodies covered by the "infobox Christian leader" use the term "enthronement", so a nice change would be to allow as alternatives different labels i.e. "enthronement"/"installation"/"term start" (the same for "reign ended"/"term ended").

In merging the "infobox bishop" with this template, I may suggest this correspondence of fields:

• data1="religion" -> "church" (even if there is a "religion" in the "infobox Christian leader", but it is among the personal data while this field in the "infobox bishop" is a key fields comparable only to "church";
• data5="period" -> "term" (to be created as per above proposal);
• data9="reason" -> to add a new label/data in "infobox Christian leader" as alternative to the existing label/data="quashed";
• data13="bishops" -> to add a new field in "infobox Christian leader" under header "Personal details" (or to be merged with the content of "previous_post") A ntv (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Now merged. Thanks to both of you for working out the conversion. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Christian leaders do not "reign" - they hold an office - not a realm. And the office is a spiritual one, not a temporal one. The wording should be "tenure" or "incumbency" JohnArmagh (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. This language is beyond bizzare. It should be "installed" and "term ended". I get that it is hard to fix this in retrospect but it results in some very strange entries. -Aranel (Sarah) 17:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Formatting of name & honorifcs

As an example of where HTML code has been removed from a Bishop's infoxbox, it is not clear to the viewer the name and honorifics of this Christian leader. The HTML code was removed on the basis of discussions that took place here, relating to Infobox officeholder, but the HTML code has not been translated to apply for Christian leaders. I'm not that experienced with HTML code to correct the Template Infobox. Is there someone who can correct the template? And then, once corrected, a BOT would need to be established and run to clear up all those Infobox Christian leaders that already have HTML codes. Rangasyd (talk) 07:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Could someone please fix the above by copying the formatting of |honorific-prefix and |honorific-suffix in use at Template:Infobox officeholder and incorporating it here? -Rrius (talk) 07:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Not done for now: Could you update Template:Infobox Christian leader/sandbox with the appropriate code, and make a new test case at Template:Infobox Christian leader/testcases? I'll be happy to update the infobox after this is tested properly. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

That is a pretty fussy way to run things, especially if the person requesting the change doesn't have the first flipping clue how to do it. As it happens, this is a simple cut-and-paste job, so I've managed it, but I really don't understand how you expect people who don't edit templates that much to manage. And it is not enough to say that the person should request the help before making the edit request, because that was done two weeks ago. -Rrius (talk) 10:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. We have WP:WikiProject Templates and WP:VPT if users want help with their coding. {{edit protected}} is only for uncontroversial requests - i.e. changes that are trivial or that have been properly tested. Thanks for assembling the sandbox code and the test cases, by the way. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

A simple cut-and-paste is pretty trivial, and it is all well and good having those two places to go, but if no one knows about them, what is the point? Rrius (talk) 11:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

ordained_by

"ordinated" is not a word. Can we add a field called "ordained_by" and possibly have a bot sweep through and change all the existing uses to the right spelling? Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 06:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Partly done: @Elizium23: I've changed the template so that both |ordained_by= and |ordinated_by= work, and so that pages in mainspace with the |ordinated_by= parameter are tracked in Category:Christian leader infoboxes with deprecated parameters. To request a bot to fix all the existing transclusions, please ask at Wikipedia:Bot requests. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, the category might take a while to populate because the changes are waiting in the job queue. If you want to use the category to process all the articles, you should probably wait a couple of weeks before starting. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done. The error category has been cleared out, so I have removed support for |ordinated_by=. Let me know if I caused any problems. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I'll delete the tracking category, seeing as it's not used anymore. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Redundancy of Orders

Hi all. I just added to the template doc that Template:Ordination may be preferred. Would we like to consider this template's Orders section redundant/deprecated to that template? DBD 17:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Only if that template is used as a module (aka child- or sub- template) of this one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

That ordination template is way overkill for any ancient or medieval (or even early modern) bishop or other clergy - in most cases there are way too many fields that have no use for those cases (which, we must admit, comprise a large part of our bishopric and clergyman coverage). Ealdgyth - Talk 20:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I oppose the incorporation of Template:Ordination into this Template (and generally its use in Wiki articles). An infobox can only summarize key facts in the article in which it appears (ref WP:IBX). Template:Ordination contains lots of data regarding bishop genealogy, such as the list of bishops ordained by the Christian leader, which are not contained in the article, nor are of any interest for the general reader. As per WP:NOTDIR Wiki is not a Genealogical Entries (and bishop genealogy is a kind of genealogy): for example for Catholic bishops there is already a web site providing such information (here). Moreover, as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, Wiki is not an indiscriminate collection of information. So I suggest to leave this template as it is A ntv (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

A ntv, that sounds like an argument for deleting Template:Ordination. DBD 10:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

IMHO I would delete Template:Ordination. but it is not practicable. However at least not incorporate it in template:Infobox Christian leader, nor delete the few fields about consecration in template:Infobox Christian leader forcing the use of Template:Ordination. A ntv (talk) 12:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

other_post or other_posts

Currently we have the parameter other_post, described as "Other posts." I'm sure I'm not the only one who has trouble remembering what the precise parameter is – could we perhaps add other_posts as an alias to preempt mistakes? DBD 11:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Second honorific-prefix parameter?

Last year, the honorific-prefix parameter was altered so they appear on a different line to the person's name. It works well the religious styles "His Eminence", "Most Reverend", "Right Reverend", etc, but does not work with the honorifics "Dr.", "Sir", "Prof.", "Lord", etc. (e.g. "Sir John Hotham, 9th Baronet" or "Dr Donal McKeown"). I propose a second parameter, honorific-prefix2, added to the template so the latter mentioned honorific titles do appear on the same line, and text size, to the person's name. Or alternatively, the honorific-prefix to be used for the titles "Dr.", "Sir", etc., while a "style-prefix" (or simply "style") parameter added and used for the styles "His Eminence", "Most Reverend", etc. Scrivener-uki (talk) 12:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd oppose this; the current parameter and display style is common to most if not all of our biographical infoboxes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I withdraw the proposed parameters and accept that the honorific-prefix parameter to remain as it is. However, there needs to be another type of parameter, I don't know what it could be called, for the titles "Dr.", "Sir", "Prof.", "Lord", etc. and to be displayed on the same line as the person's name. At the moment the only way to do that is to include them in the "name" parameter, but those titles are not the person's name, just titles, and so should not be included there. Obviously this issue covers most, if not all, of the biographical infoboxes across Wikipedia and so I'll see if I can bring it up on a more wider talk page. Scrivener-uki (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

That is not a withdrawal of your proposal, but a reiteration of it (the titles you list are still honorific prefixes), and I remain opposed for the reasons given. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, my mistake, I should have made a reiteration not a withdrawal. Happy with that? Scrivener-uki (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

We need fields for future jobs

Per the RFC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#Inclusion of future job positions in infobox, list, etc. I would like to propose the addition of fields for future posts. As I peruse the existing fields, the following are identified as needing (current) and (future) versions: "archdiocese", "province", "metropolis", "diocese", "see", "appointed", "elected", "term", "enthroned", "began", "term_start", "ended", "term_end", "predecessor", "successor". That should do it. Please implement these quickly because new bishops are being appointed on a regular basis and I dislike having to revert the factual errors thus introduced every time. Thanks! Elizium23 (talk) 03:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

 Administrator note I'm not sure I see any consensus at that RfC. Indeed some editors disagree with your position and suggest that "future" is not the inappropriate word. I'd like to see some more discussion and hopefully agreement before making this change, but in the meantime you are welcome to put your proposed code in Template:Infobox Christian leader/sandbox as this might help the discussion. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Infobox Saint

Hello, I want to first say that I posted a similar comment on "Infobox Saint" and do not want any battling, as it is never my intent. That being said, I believe Saint Jude had parents, which is listed as "Clopas" and "Mary of Clopas." In addition, I heard from an unverified source that Saint Jude had 1 child. If this is all true, and the Infobox Saint dialog does not support "family members" is it necessary to change Saint Jude to the same infobox as Saint Peter? Or, I'd also like to see if your group can speak with the developers of the other, so that it can be sorted out. Thank You and God Bless! Twillisjr (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

"previous post" field

This with the singular "post" looks rather daft on the page when a senior cleric has half a dozen previous posts before his final one. Can this field be made flexible to be "post" or "posts" as appropriate? Tim riley talk 00:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to put in an exhaustive list here? Why not just the immediately previous post? The infobox is for quick access to the most relevant information. If you want to tell a story then it can go in the article prose, and people can easily look for it there. Infoboxes should contain only "at-a-glance" data. Elizium23 (talk) 02:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

multiple boxes

it would be nice if A. Donald Davies could use one infobox, similar to what is done with template:infobox officeholder? 98.230.192.179 (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I've merged the multi infoboxes into a single one, which has been edited to include previous posts, plus have added succession boxes. Scrivener-uki (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Definition of leader

It has been raised in an article that I was editing a while back that this infobox is not applicable for the lower ranks of the clergy, i.e., priests. Looking at the description, it's not so clear to me. Has any formal determination on this been made? Daniel the Monk (talk) 03:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

You can use it for priests. See John Zuhlsdorf as an example where this is done, for one. Mangwanani ^(talk) 22:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Mangwanani. I had used it a number of times, but some of my edits started to be reverted by another editor who insisted that it applied only to bishops, etc. That's why I asked if there was some set policy. Daniel the Monk (talk) 01:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

No, just add "priest" to the type and then the box will go black rather than purple. Mangwanani ^(talk) 20:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Mangwanani. It is what I had been doing for a while. Just wanted to check on a consensus about this. Daniel the Monk (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

previous posts

Is is possible to move "previous posts" up into the top section so it sits just under "other posts"? To me, it makes sense that "other posts" is used to include only appointments held concurrently with the main one (IE that which goes in the "title" parameter). It then makes sense to use "previous posts" to list previous notable appointments. At the moment, "previous posts" sits in the "Personal details" section of the infobox. Also, is it possible to change it to a plural "previous posts" as it is currently singular. Thanks, Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 16:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

My first take is that those previous posts are part of the individual's past history, not connected to the position given at the top of the infobox, so their current placement makes sense to me. Daniel the Monk (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion of "eparchy"

In the Orthodox church, the term "eparchy" is used for the bishopric, in the Catholic Church known as "diocese".--Zoupan 17:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

That can be addressed simply by the name of the diocese used in the field. Daniel the Monk (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes

There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

honorific-prefix/suffix

At the moment |honorific-prefix= and |honorific-suffix= are formatted to appear as bold and small. This is contrary to other infoboxes, where those parameters are simply smaller; eg Template:Infobox officeholder. Personally, I think the other infoboxes look much nicer. The current bold formatting of this infobox means that often a template is used with the honorific-prefix/suffix to make that entry smaller and therefore making it doubly small because the bold formatting makes it difficult to see that it is actually smaller by default. I suggest that the bold formatting is removed so that this infobox reflects the formatting or other infoboxes (IE just making the text smaller). Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 15:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

...or we could also get rid of the hard-coded smallness so that the double-smallness can't occur (and there is some sort of editorial discretion)? DBD 11:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Colours

I know this has been done before, but I noticed (not for the first time) that the contrast between the a hyperlink and the header background colour for a priest (e.g. James Atwell) is poor. It comprehensively fails contrast testing: [4] (foreground: #0645a8, background: #808080). I request we change the 'priest' background colour to #bdbdbd (which passes three out of four without becoming too pale.) Alternatively we could do something with bold dark borders like e.g. Template:Deans of Winchester. (PS: the cardinal colour #ff66666 also fails; #ffa4a4 is the closest that passes.) DBD 10:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

This is a good idea. I am a fan of the block colour. Moving to a lighter shade for accessibility purposes gets my vote. Well spotted! I think the lines would be distracting (if that makes sense?). Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 19:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I was going to suggest this. Good idea! Please improve it! Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The Very Reverend James Atwell

The Very Reverend James Atwell

The Very Reverend James Atwell

The Very Reverend James Atwell

His Eminence Vincent Nichols

His Eminence Vincent Nichols

His Eminence Vincent Nichols

Indeed the "set" using the navbox 'bold borders' idea:

The Right Reverend Tim Dakin

The Very Reverend James Atwell

The Venerable Peter Rouch

The Reverend Canon Sue Wallace

Pope Francis

His Eminence Vincent Nichols

Thanks, Gaia. In that case:

Edit request

I request, for the above reasons, that the colour #808080 be changed to #BDBDBD and #FF66666 to #FFA4A4. DBD 22:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear is it row 5 with |abovestyle= that should be changed or something else? So :

| abovestyle  = background-color:{{#switch:{{lc:{{{type|}}}}}|priest=#808080|pope=#F7D79C|cardinal=#f66|#default=plum}};

is being replaced with :

| abovestyle  = background-color:{{#switch:{{lc:{{{type|}}}}}|priest=#BDBDBD|pope=#F7D79C|cardinal=#FFA4A4|#default=plum}};

or is there something else as well? Qed237 (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@DBD: forgot to ping editor who made the request. Qed237 (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that row, and subheaderstyle. Thanks DBD 19:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Done Qed237 (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

These changes have caused the cardinals colour scheme to be changed from 'red' to 'pink'. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Pink is a kind of red? :P Look mate, I know cardinals are red, but is that as important as legibility? DBD 14:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Category:Infobox person using a missing image

There appears to be an issue with this template. Multiple pages are being added to Category:Infobox person using a missing image that do not use a missing image. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Ethnicity

An useful and interesting parameter would be ethnicity. This is included in Template:Infobox Muslim leader.--Zoupan 18:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support per arguments stated. Chicbyaccident (Please notify with {{SUBST:re}} (Talk) 17:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think this is a necessary change, and I believe that the reason it's in the Muslim infobox is that it's inheriting that. I don't see how knowing their ethnicity is important to the information about a Christian leader. Jerod Lycett (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Important, maybe not, but how is nationality, residence, parents, spouse, children, etc, "important" information about a Christian leader? The parameter is one of the common ones. For example, there are plenty of "multinational" and "multiethnic" churches. A diocese/bishopric might be in a specific minority region (as is common in communities in Asia and Africa). A church leader might be of an ethnicity other than the majority of adherents, etc.--Zoupan 20:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 November 2016

Please remove

{{#if:{{{ordinated_by|}}}|[[Category:Christian leader infoboxes with deprecated parameters]]}}

. There are no pages in the category Christian leader infoboxes with deprecated parameters and the {{{ordinated_by}}} is no longer supported by the template so this is no longer needed.

Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)