This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
Template:Active politician is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use ((edit template-protected)) to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. This template does not have a testcases subpage. You can create the testcases subpage here. |
Is there a reason the template can't simply say "this article is about an active politician" rather than explaining that maybe they're running for office or maybe they're in office or maybe they're in some sort of scandal? Simple is usually best -- Ockham's Template Razor, if you will. JDoorjam Talk 01:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
This is not very useful as all info has been intergrated into Template:WPBiography. Can't we get a bot in here to replace ((activepolitician)) with ((WPBiography|living=yes|activepol=yes)) Hbdragon88 04:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Is there a tag for a dead politician whose legacy is still active. There are many articles where people are contributing POV. How can that be tagged ? --Mqmpk 15:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
We may wish to add alt text to this, for example adding |alt=Ballot box icon
to [[File:Ballot box current.svg|40px|alt=Ballot box icon]]
. --23:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
It's hidden from most viewers on Talk, is ignored by casual editors, and fails to inform the general reader that a page may contain poor information. I think it should be used on normal pages :) ! KenThomas (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Currently the text is "This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism."
I propose changing/clarifying this to "This page is about an active politician who is running or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism."
This is motivated by the discussion here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zac_Goldsmith#he_is_not_an_active_politician_now One editor was so overjoyed that Goldsmith lost his election on Thursday (thus probably ending his career) that he wanted to have the activepol=yes immediately changed. But the increased traffic and visibility obviously does not stop immediately. Talk:Hillary_Clinton still has her as activepol=yes - because the reasons to have the tag there didn't magically stop when she called Trump to concede.
P.S. Is the "and campaigning for re-election" necessary? Term-limited politicians or politicians who have announced they will not recontest the next election are just as visible and controversial.NPalgan2 (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm not sure if there is an existing consensus either way, but I think it would be beneficial to restore the talk box back to its original colour, rather than overriding the standard colour with the ghostly cream it currently uses. I assume it's this way for emphasis, but I believe that |type=content
has enough emphasis (especially considering that more important boxes like ((American politics AE)) don't break the standards). ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 01:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)