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

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. ~ Paul^T+/_C 22:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

Merger proposal

What is this template for

Is it used anywhere? Is it any better than Template:Obama cabinet? Grsz¹¹ 21:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

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. ~ Paul^T+/_C 05:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I prefer Template:Obama cabinet.ABC101090 (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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. Grsz¹¹ 13:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I prefer Template:Obama Cabinet the most, but both can be used on the same page, as they show different things. Grsz¹¹ 13:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

• (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
Office	Name	Term
President	Barack Obama	2009–2017
Vice President	Joe Biden	2009–2017
Secretary of State	Hillary Clinton	2009–2013
John Kerry	2013–2017
Secretary of the Treasury	Timothy Geithner	2009–2013
Jack Lew	2013–2017
Secretary of Defense	Robert Gates*	2006–2011
	Leon Panetta	2011–2013
Chuck Hagel	2013–2015
Ash Carter	2015–2017
Attorney General	Eric Holder	2009–2015
Loretta Lynch	2015–2017
Secretary of the Interior	Ken Salazar	2009–2013
Sally Jewell	2013–2017
Secretary of Agriculture	Tom Vilsack	2009–2017
Secretary of Commerce	Gary Locke	2009–2011
	John Bryson	2011–2012
Penny Pritzker	2013–2017
Secretary of Labor	Hilda Solis	2009–2013
Tom Perez	2013–2017
Secretary of Health and Human Services	Kathleen Sebelius	2009–2014
Sylvia Mathews Burwell	2014–2017
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development	Shaun Donovan	2009–2014
Julian Castro	2014–2017
Secretary of Transportation	Ray LaHood	2009–2013
Anthony Foxx	2013–2017
Secretary of Energy	Steven Chu	2009–2013
Ernest Moniz	2013–2017
Secretary of Education	Arne Duncan	2009–2016
John King Jr.	2016–2017
Secretary of Veterans Affairs	Eric Shinseki	2009–2014
Bob McDonald	2014–2017
Secretary of Homeland Security	Janet Napolitano	2009–2013
Jeh Johnson	2013–2017
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency	Lisa Jackson	2009–2013
Gina McCarthy	2013–2017
Director of the Office of Management and Budget	Peter Orszag	2009–2010
	Jack Lew	2010–2012
Sylvia Mathews Burwell	2013–2014
Shaun Donovan	2014–2017
United States Trade Representative	Ron Kirk	2009–2013
Michael Froman	2013–2017
Ambassador to the United Nations	Susan Rice	2009–2013
Samantha Power	2013–2017
Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers	Christina Romer	2009–2010
	Austan Goolsbee	2010–2011
Alan Krueger	2011–2013
Jason Furman	2013–2017
Administrator of the Small Business Administration	Karen Mills**	2009–2013
Maria Contreras-Sweet	2014–2017
Chief of Staff	Rahm Emanuel	2009–2010
	William M. Daley	2011–2012
Jack Lew	2012–2013
Denis McDonough	2013–2017
*Retained from previous administration **Elevated to cabinet-level in January 2012

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

• I think Template:Current U.S. Cabinet should be deleted. It is completely redundant to the full template nd is unnecessary. Reywas92^Talk 20:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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. Reywas92^Talk 21:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

If I'm following you right, I agree that this template is the one that should be deleted. Grsz¹¹ 22:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

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 George W. Bush Cabinet. Grsz¹¹ 23:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal #2

I want to put forth my proposal for consideration:

• Keep Template:Obama cabinet to be used on all individuals ever members of the Obama Cabinet.
• Keep Template:Current U.S. Cabinet to be used on current members of the Cabinet, as well as the United States Cabinet article.
• Keep Template:Obama cabinet infobox to be used within the content of Presidency of Barack Obama and eventual Barack Obama Cabinet.
• Delete Template:Obama personnel, Cabinet-level child-template as redundant of Template:Obama cabinet
• Keep Template:Obama Administration personnel with only the Executive Office of the President and the Office of the Vice President. Grsz¹¹ 23:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

I disagree with parts of this proposal. I will outline my view below: ~ Paul^T+/_C 23:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

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 Template:Current U.S. Cabinet to be used on the 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 Template:Obama cabinet infobox to be used appropriately on articles long enough to warrant an additional infobox such as this. (IE within the content of Presidency of Barack Obama, eventually 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). ~ Paul^T+/_C 23:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

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

I'm still not sure what Template:Obama personnel, Cabinet-level child-template offers. Grsz¹¹ 00:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

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. ~ Paul^T+/_C 01:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I still think this template is very unappealing. What if we could make use a Template:Obama cabinet infobox copy with a collapsing feature. Grsz¹¹ 02:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

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. ~ Paul^T+/_C 02:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

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 Template:Obama cabinet to show the over-time composition. With these two now showing different things, I still think the Cabinet should be removed from Template:Obama Administration. If we can work out that issue, all we need to do is simplify the name on this thing. Grsz¹¹ 03:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Scratch that, I like how Template:Obama Administration personnel looks right now, using this as a child. I still would like to use this template as a stand alone, which would benefit from a title change. This can be used on current cabinet member articles, and that can be used on general articles such as Presidency of Barack Obama. We could simplify further and just use the Executive Office and VP Office templates independently on articles for those people. Grsz¹¹ 03:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

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. ~ Paul^T+/_C 06:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

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. ABC101090 (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

How is it Naïve? I am being pretty realistic. It seems you are opposing me just for the sake of opposing.ABC101090 (talk) 10:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It's naïve to assume nobody cares about the top officials of the United States! Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

TOP OFFICIALS?! Top officials are people like the secretaries heading the different departments!ABC101090 (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not responding to this drivel anymore. Therequiembellishere (talk) 17:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Driveling?! That is harsh! ABC101090 (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• I would SUPPORT deleting (1) "Obama Administration personnel Cabinet child template" and (2) the minimalist, "Current US cabinet" template. This would leave exactly one template each for either the purpose of bottom-of-the page navigation or for a table to be included in the body of text -- also limiting the number of templates having to be edited with each cabinet personnel change to only these two. ↜Just me, here, now … 00:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:Current U.S. Cabinet is absolutely not an option. It's been around before the rest of these, and is completely separate from this. It shouldn't even be brought up. Grsz¹¹ 00:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

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. Reywas92^Talk 02:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

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 United States Cabinet. I understand what you are saying though. Deleting the Current Cabinet template would need much more input, involving WP:PRESIDENTS, etc. Grsz¹¹ 02:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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. ~ Paul^T+/_C 22:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

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. Grsz¹¹ 03:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

^Y ↜Just me, here, now … 04:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

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)