|
→Redundancy with current cabinet template: new section
|
|
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
There is a big overlap (at current 100% of the listed people) between this template and the specific current U.S. cabinet template (which is currently [[Template:Obama cabinet]]). At first glance, it appears that this template would always only duplicate information that is already in the specific template. The practice to keep both on articles however is not new, as can be seen [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Condoleezza_Rice&oldid=255550526 here]. Therequiembellishere argued at [[Template talk:Obama personnel, Cabinet-level child-template#Proposal]] in favor of keeping both: "The purpose of Template:Current U.S. Cabinet is transparent. It cuts straight through to show who are incumbent cabinet officials [...]". There may, however, be simpler ways to achieve that without having to add and maintain a whole different template. (One off the cuff idea would be adding "until 200x" to non-current members.) — [[User:SebastianHelm|Sebastian]] 02:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC) |
There is a big overlap (at current 100% of the listed people) between this template and the specific current U.S. cabinet template (which is currently [[Template:Obama cabinet]]). At first glance, it appears that this template would always only duplicate information that is already in the specific template. The practice to keep both on articles however is not new, as can be seen [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Condoleezza_Rice&oldid=255550526 here]. Therequiembellishere argued at [[Template talk:Obama personnel, Cabinet-level child-template#Proposal]] in favor of keeping both: "The purpose of Template:Current U.S. Cabinet is transparent. It cuts straight through to show who are incumbent cabinet officials [...]". There may, however, be simpler ways to achieve that without having to add and maintain a whole different template. (One off the cuff idea would be adding "until 200x" to non-current members.) — [[User:SebastianHelm|Sebastian]] 02:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
:I don't understand your "off the cuff" idea. [[User:Therequiembellishere|Therequiembellishere]] ([[User talk:Therequiembellishere|talk]]) 02:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Why is Dubya listed as a member of the Cabinet? It's HIS cabinet... POTUS isn't a cabinet-level officer, he's the head dude! Removed. —MicahBrwn (talk) 07:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's the difference between a "cabinet-level" cabinet position and someone who isn't a cabinet-level, but is in the Cabinet? MicahBrwn (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a big overlap (at current 100% of the listed people) between this template and the specific current U.S. cabinet template (which is currently Template:Obama cabinet). At first glance, it appears that this template would always only duplicate information that is already in the specific template. The practice to keep both on articles however is not new, as can be seen here. Therequiembellishere argued at Template talk:Obama personnel, Cabinet-level child-template#Proposal in favor of keeping both: "The purpose of Template:Current U.S. Cabinet is transparent. It cuts straight through to show who are incumbent cabinet officials [...]". There may, however, be simpler ways to achieve that without having to add and maintain a whole different template. (One off the cuff idea would be adding "until 200x" to non-current members.) — Sebastian 02:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
