Template talk:Current U.S. Cabinet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject United States / Government (Rated 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.


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)

Well, yes, he heads the cabinet but he's on it as well. Like Gordon Brown heads his cabinet but he's also on it. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Cabinet-level vs. not?[edit]

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)

Redundancy with current cabinet template[edit]

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)

I don't understand your "off the cuff" idea. Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Please don't put too much weight on that, it was just a quick idea. My main point is that, if the intent is to make it easier for readers, then having two fold-out templates with largely overlapping content is a step in the wrong direction. There have to be better ways to make it easier for readers. Having said that; I'd like to clarify what I meant. I presume I you may have been trown off by the wording "until 200x". That just meant "until (fill in date or year)". Does that clarify it? — Sebastian 04:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I also believe that all overlapping templates should be deleted. ABC101090 (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I also don't know the procedure, but I think we should go through Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Presidents and possibly Wikipedia:WikiProject United States. Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Good point! Maybe also Wikipedia:WikiProject Barack Obama. I often found that alerting appropriate WikiProjects is the best way to get such questions resolved. Since this is not exactly within the scope of these projects, how about if we keep the discussion here, and notify these projects? — Sebastian 04:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure how to go about that. I've never directly negotiated with a WikiProject, only members. And I wasn't aware of a an Obama WikiProject. Although this isn't really an Obama-specific template, would it really be their concern? Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
No worries - a wikiproject is just a group of people who may know each other a bit better. It's not a legal person. More often than not, they aren't very active, and you can count yourself lucky if you get a reply after 4 weeks. But I guess that will not be the case with these two projects. For that reason, I would like to wait till we, among ourselves, figure out what benefits each of us sees in keeping or deleting the template, before asking more people to chime in. There is no rush, as this situation has been this way for quite a while without any complaint. — Sebastian 07:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, they don't overlap. As shocking as it may seem, not everyone in the world automatically knows who the current POTUS is. If they want to find the current cabinet, this template allows them to find them all without having to blunder around looking for Template:Obama Cabinet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Therequiembellishere (talkcontribs)

I don´t want to fight you but couldn´t they just search "president of the united states"? then they could see the current pres. is Obama, so they could then ´search for Template: Obama cabinet. Just suggesting... ABC101090 (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
That's making them go through needless hoops. People don't always think logically, that's why we use these navigation templates. You know hos to use Wikipedia, not everyone does. Think of it as a completely first-time user. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the method I described is the way I would do it if I were a first-timer.ABC101090 (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what you mean by "they don't overlap". Obviously, every single person of Current U.S. Cabinet ("CUSC") is in Template:Obama cabinet; just as, last year, every person in CUSC was in Template:GW Bush cabinet. I also don't see your point about finding the current cabinet. Finding the CUSC template is no easier than finding Template:Obama cabinet, which is already in every article that contains CUSC. Regarding your case of someone who doesn't know who the POTUS is: For such a reader, a mere name such as "Chu" will be much less helpful than the name and office which Template:Obama cabinet provides. In conclusion, I am not aware of any case in which CUSC would provide any benefit. — Sebastian 07:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree.ABC101090 (talk) 14:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Some Concerns[edit]

Wouldn't ordering them by position/order of creation, rather than alphabetically by name, make more sense? Like - State, Treasury, Defense, Justice, Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, HHS, HUD, Transportation, Energy, Education, Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security? As it stands, the template gives me no idea who does what. john k (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, why are actual cabinet secretaries listed undifferentiated from "cabinet-level" appointments, which are not really the same thing? They should be separated out. john k (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed? Yes. Sworn in yet? No[edit]

We shouldn't be changing cabinet members, until the newly confirmed are sworn in. Senate confirmation doesn't automatically make one a cabinet member. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Price resignation[edit]

Sorry, I jumped the gun a bit. I heard the incoming acting secretary doesn't take office for a few hours yet. No hard feelings if anyone reverts my edit. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)