Template talk:Cabinet of Donald Trump/Archive 1

Archive 1

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2016

James Mattis should be listed as being from Washington, not Washington DC. Recent edit by Marine678 is incorrect. Cashorczech (talk) 03:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. — JFG ^talk 07:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2016

Add Picture of Steve Mnuchin 173.48.253.244 (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done - please link to the image, on Wikimedia Commons, that you wish to be added. - Arjayay (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Content

There's something wrong with this template. Whenever you make a sectional edit, the entire content becomes distorted. GoodDay (talk) 14:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

GoodDay Can you show us one example of distortion? — JFG ^talk 14:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I figured out how to get around it. I just open up the entire page, instead of only a section. GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Removal of high-level positions

Someone has added high-level positions to this template which shouldn't be here. I am unable to remove them, so would someome be able to do so? Ollie035 (talk) 21:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Council of Economic Advisors

Gary Cohn is being nominated for the National Economic Council, not chair of the CEA. Please correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.173.33 (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2016

Rex Tillerson is being reported as Secretary of State: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc-news/watch/nbc-news-trump-chooses-tillerson-for-secy-of-state-829919811953 Lance386 (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Not confirmed. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

See discussion below, about inconsistency in the various wikipedia articles about the cabinet picks. Hillary Clinton was not 'officially' running until July of 2015, but wikipedia reported that she *was* running as of July 2014,[1][2] despite a lot of opposition that she was not yet (officially) running. We now say that she made the decision to run in December 2014, and announced the decision in July 2015. There are plenty of impeccable sources that report Tillerson *has* been picked, or is the "expected nominee", albeit none yet claim that Tillerson has been officially nominated. The decision has been made, but the official announcement is being deferred, to see what kind of reaction Tillerson-as-secState generates (public complaints from Rubio/McCain/Graham thus far).

• "is pick... sources say"[3][4]
• "reported pick"[5][6]
• "Trump's pick... Trump... considering [officially nominating]..."[7]
• "emerging as pick"[8]
• "expected pick / expected nominee"[9][10][11][12][13][14]
• "the likely pick"[15]
• "Trump's top choice... potential... pick"[16]

My suggestion is that we could insert Tillerson, with the annotation that he is "(unofficial pick per multiple media reports)" or something along those lines, the simplest being to say "(expected)" which is what the bulk of the media cites actually say. We could insist on official confirmation... as has been the practice on *this* template for some time... but that begs the question, what counts as official confirmation? GreatAgainDotGov and RealDonaldTrump only lists about half the nominees that wikipedia lists; why list Puzder, and not Tillerson? In some cases wikipedia is disagreeing with itself, such as McMorris Rodgers which we elide in a couple places, but list most other places. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Nominee's who are holding no position or rank

It's quite alright to show an individual as a former cabinet member & also alright to show an individual as bing retired from the military. GoodDay (talk) 04:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree. I suspect the removals were done to keep the physical layout of the table from getting unwieldy -- there is not a lot of room to spare, with the large amount of space devoted to the title&logo table-cell, and the relatively paltry amount of space devoted to the nominee's table-cell. Maybe we can combine the contents of the two, and have all the text in a single table-cell, with the logo float-left and the nom-portrait float-right? That should give us additional room for properly identifying what state the person is from (we have at least three that are 'from' multiple states... it is not really true to baldly say that Carson is "Michigan" because even though he was born there and went to school there, almost his entire adult life was in Maryland, and he now lives in Florida methinks). 47.222.203.135 (talk) 09:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2016

Rick Perry is Secretary of Energy 137.254.7.175 (talk) 13:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 14:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

– so, done.  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 14:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Perry was previously in the top-four shortlist, as of the 11th...

• The Guardian. Rick Perry could be Trump pick for energy, department he couldn't name: Ex-Texas governor failed to name department in 2011 debate ‘oops’ moment. December 11, 2016.[17]
• Bloomberg News. Perry Said to Be Trump’s Top Candidate for Energy: Donald Trump has narrowed his search for energy secretary to four people. December 11, 2016.[18]
• Chicago Tribune. December 11, 2016.[19]

...but as of the evening of the 12th he has been 'unofficially' picked as the nominee.

• CBS News. Donald Trump chooses Rick Perry to be energy secretary. December 12, 2016, 10:57 PM. [20]
• The Washington Times. Donald Trump reportedly to tap Rick Perry for energy secretary post. Monday, December 12, 2016.[21]
• Fox News. Trump to choose Perry as secretary of Energy, sources say. December 13, 2016. "...finalized the decision during a meeting Monday evening"[22]
• NBC News. Trump Picks Energy Department Opponent Rick Perry for Energy Secretary: Sources. Dec 13 2016, 5:16 am ET.[23]
• ABC News. Trump Expected to Name Rick Perry as Energy Secretary. Dec 13, 2016, 7:09 AM. [24]
• USA Today. Rick Perry, who said he wants to scrap Energy Dept., may lead it. 8:17 a.m. EST December 13, 2016. [25]
• UPI. Trump to nominate former Texas Gov. Rick Perry as Energy Secretary: In prior presidential campaigns, Perry advocated abolition of the Cabinet-level agency he is set to lead. Dec. 13, 2016 at 9:02 AM.[26]
• Bloomberg News. Perry Said to Be Offered Energy Secretary’s Position by Trump. December 13, 2016, 9:10 AM. [27]
• AP. Trump picks Rick Perry for Energy Department. December 13, 2016.[28]

Perry is still only the 'expected' Energy nominee, methinks. See discussion above about Rex Tillerson as the expected SecState. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 15:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2016

Stillmc (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 22:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2016

wanted to edit secretary of state with photo and template for Rex tillerson Baghul3000 (talk) 02:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 04:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Skyllfully, this is a presumably-independent repeat of the same request from above. Tillerson as SecState was 'leaked' on Dec 10th, presumably intentionally as a means to gauge reactions, similar to Wilbur Ross on November 24th (but not made 'official' until November 30th). The question is whether wikipedia ought to list "Rex Tillerson (expected nominee)" in the secState portion of this template-page, or if wikipedia ought to wait for bulletproof confirmation. This template does not list him, at present, but we have other articles on the cabinet which *do* already list Tillerson, hence my complaint in the section above that it would be nice to figure out a system that is agreed upon by a wider range of people. I suggested linking from the table on this template-page to potential nominees, but that was mass-reverted. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 09:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Already done It was made official today. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 22:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2016

Ben Carson is from Maryland, not Michigan. TrumpSRB (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Partly done: Ben Carson is a resident of Florida. I don't know why it says Michigan– Muboshgu (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh because he was born in Michigan. That was an error. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2016

Ryan Zinke was nominated for secretary of the interior so don't leave that section blank 98.215.126.42 (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: But he reportedly hasn't accepted. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2016

add a photo for Wilbur ross Baghul3000 (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: We don't have a free image available. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

was Hillary Clinton running for president in December 2014, or not?

I would like to please hammer out exactly what people think the contents of this template ought to reflect. There are several wikipedians such as Spartan7W who are taking a hard line, and insisting that only names that Donald Trump's official minions at dotGov have published, are legit, and everything else must be deleted. This seems incorrect to me, and the history-tab suggests several other people as well. There are several possibilities for how we can keep the table up-to-date, without misinforming the readership:

• for candidates that have been named in the media, we can say "Rex Tillerson (offered Dec 10th acceptance TBD)"
• for candidates that have been named in the media, we can say "Cathy McMorris Rogers (offered Dec 9th acceptance TBD)"
• for candidates that have been named in the media, we can say "Gary Cohn (offered Dec 8th acceptance TBD)"
• for nominees that were named early in the media, we can say "Wilbur Ross (offered Nov 24th and accepted Nov 30th)"
• for candidates that have been directly quoted as accepting in the media, we can say "Tom Price (offered Nov 28th and accepted Nov 29th)"
• for candidates that have been mentioned by Trump personally, we can say "James Mattis (offered Dec 1st and accepted Dec 6th)"
• add your own great idea, if I missed something

References

We could alternatively say 'finalized' instead of accepted, or 'reported' instead of offered, or other variations. We just need to figure out what makes the most sense. But I definitely think that we should try and match what the sources say, rather than just acting like greatAgain.gov is the only legit source of truth. If the bulk of the sources are reporting that person X *is* the nominee, we ought to say that, and annotate that it is "(unofficial)" possibly. If the bulk of the sources are saying that person X is *expected* to be the nominee, then we ought to say THAT, plus possibly annotate that it is "(media reports only)" or as I suggest above (acceptance TBD)" or some similar phrase.

It is causing inconsistency across the various pages and templates, to have some de facto page-specific-policy which insists on bulletproof guarantees from the government, and have other pages be more loose about when a name gets inserted. We end up with the name appearing and disappearing a bunch of times, across hours or days, spanning multiple pages, which is silly. I'd like to hammer out a good plan here, of how and whether to annotate reported-but-not-bulletproof-official names; once we get *this* template in order, maybe we can spread the system to other pages which deal with this information.

Also, please note that I really do NOT care about layout questions: it does not matter to me whether we annotate using a parenthesized phrase, or annotate using an explanatory-note superscript, or annotate using a sentence placed in a new subsection for 'Tentative Nominees' or whatever. I'm more concerned with getting a solid idea on what exact phrase we ought to use, when reporting the factoids, and we can deal with whitespace and table-width concerns afterwards. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 13:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• Until the transition has named the President-elect's choice, the President-elect has not made an official choice. News sources can report what they like, most are probably correct, but until the official Transition Office makes an announcement, a pick hasn't been made. Ain't that complicated. Therefore, until the President-elect or his office announces his pick, said person has not been picked in the eyes of history.   Spartan7W §   06:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• I understood that to be your position, and agree with you, on the philosophical grounds... (I might quibble that their is a distinction between the potus making a choice, the potus announcing their choice, the choice accepting the job, and the formal announcement of the chosen nominee being promulgated -- which probably explains the Wilbur Ross sequence of events taking six days) ...but disagree with you on the practical grounds. Wikipedia is not supposed to reflect History with a capital letter, it is supposed to stick with what the sources say. People are trying to insert impeccably sourced info here, and getting reverted because it's "just" the NYT saying it, no word yet from GreatAgainDotGov. That will guarantee constant edit-wars. In some cases it will only be a few hours, but in two cases so far it has been multiple days. Trump personally informally announced Mattis at a rally on December 1st, but it was NOT made 'official' until December 6th. There were unofficial anonymous transition team members quoted unambiguously in the media on November 24th that Ross was the pick for Commerce, but that did not become 'official' until November 30th. Right now we have the informal date for Mattis, and the formal date for Ross.[29] So I'd like us to pick one way or the other, and then stick with it, within *this* singular template. (A similar question is whether to document Pence as being announced on the 15th when the tweet came out or on the 16th when the press conference was held.) But more importantly, to my way of thinking, is that I'd like to achieve some consistency across our various articles and templates which give lists of cabinet people, since there is a pretty constant state of inconsistency: this template usually has DIFFERENT names than are found in List of Donald Trump political appointments, and the potential-contender lists at this article are often internally contradictory (since it includes the template-page we are discussing here). There are a few other pages which list trump appointees by name,[30] that I know of. Current inconsistencies:

pg	vp	St	Tre	DoD	DOJ	Int	Agr	Cmr	Lab	HHS	HUD	DOT	Ene	Edu	VA	DHS
ga.gov	15+20	__	1 ny+ca	6 wa	18 al	no	tbd	1 __	no	29 ga	5 mi+md	1 __	tbd	23 mi	tbd	no
ttc	y	__	y	y	y	y	tbd	y	y	y	y	y	tbd	y	tbd	y
ttt	y	__	y	y	y	__	tbd	y	y	y	y	y	tbd	y	tbd	y
ttci	y	__	y	y	y	y	tbd	y	y	y	y	y	tbd	y	tbd	y
tcodc	8	__	30 ny	1 wa	18 al	tbd	tbd	30 nj	8 tn	29 ga	5 mi	29 ky	tbd	23 mi	tbd	7 ma
codt	16+19	__	30 _	1+6 _	18 al	9 wa	tbd10	24+30 fl	8 _	28 ga	y _ _	29 ky	tbd11	23 mi	tbd7	7 _
paodt	t	__	y	y	y	y	tbd	y	y	y	y	y	tbd	y	tbd	y
podt	y	__	y	__	18 al	__	tbd	y	__	y	__	y	tbd	y	tbd	__
ptodt	y	__	t	t	t	t	tbd	t	t	t	t	t	tbd	t	tbd	t
iruspe	t	__	t	t	t	t	tbd	t	t	t	t	t	tbd	t	tbd	t
twee[31]	15	__	30	~2[32]	~22	no	tbd	30	no	29	5	29	tbd	no	tbd	no

• When a new name is quasi-announced (such as Tillerson for secState), it takes several dozen insertions and reverts before everybody is happy. I notice that editors at this template have semi-protected AND started using allcaps screaming in the hidden html comments, to try and lessen the number of not-yet-bulletproof-'official'-name-insertions. Seems painful. I would prefer to get agreement on some method that works across all the articles, so they don't get out of sync with each other for hours or days, and preferably one which involves less allcaps and page-protection being used. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 14:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

But in this case it doesn't matter what sources say. Yes Wikipedia relies on sources, but certain things are not source-dependent. This is one of them. Sources said the President-elect would remain exec. producer of The Apprentice, which was false, before his December 15 conference on his plans for divestiture. In these cases, whatever sources say may be true, but what matters is the decision the President-elect makes. That means until he announces it himself, of the Transition makes the announcement, the decision hasn't been made. Therefore, if a decision hasn't been made, it is not factually accurate to make said claim as an official appointment. You can include "sources say" in the subject's lead and bio, but not when it comes to pages and tables which reflect official decisions.   Spartan7W §   15:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the IP user: if reliable sources overwhelmingly say that a nominee has been picked, that is sufficient for its inclusion on Wikipedia. We had the same argument about when Clinton should be listed as the "presumptive" Demcratic nominee, and it was decided that it would be based on reliable sources saying she was presumptive rather than any specifics of the official delegate count.

That being said, there is merit in distinguishing "official" from "unofficial" announcements. I think it would be great to put "(reported)" or "(unofficial)" or something similar for those that are not listed on the transition website.

As for the date, if it's unclear which date to put, my feeling is to omit them from the table and give an explanation in the article body. The exact date the appointment is announced will not really be of anything other than historical interest once the nominations start being voted on. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 17:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Antony22, that is part of the trouble... the sources are carefully wording their headlines to attract clicks. Perry is the 'expected' pick for Energy. Tillerson is the 'expected' pick for SecState. Rodgers is less of a grey area, but if you take a fair hard line like Spartan7W, who as I said on philosophical grounds I mostly agree with albeit not on practical grounds, even the Secretary of the Interior is still as yet only quasi-official. (The ultra-hard-line would be to take the explicit wording at GreatAgainDotGov literally, and refuse to list DeVos as the Education Secretary because the website only says Trump "intends" to nominate her for that role.... so far nobody had taken the ultra-hardliner stance however :-) The practical problem, is that within an hour or two of the 'leak' to the media from 'anonymous' sources within the Trump transition team... which WP:OR suggests are decidedly intentional revelations designed to manipulate the news cycle... somebody shows up on wikipedia, having read the headline "Perry picked! (anonymous sources say)" and missed the qualifier. So while I think that saying "(reported)" or similar underneath Tillerson and Perry and maybe even Rodgers is a good compromise, it is mostly on practical grounds that I suggest it. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of why we must wait for an official announcement. Everyone was certain of Cathy McMorris Rodgers as Secretary of the Interior and suddenly it shifts to Zinke. Like I said, no decision has been made until the Transition office or President-elect himself makes an official announcement.   Spartan7W §   03:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the expected nom for SecInterior was Rodgers. Yes, the template listed her *as* the nom, without annotation, which was wrong. Yes, you deleted her yesterday. But the correct thing to do, in a practical sense to limit screwups like that, would have been to list "Rodgers (unofficial)" in the box. Leaving the box blank is just going to cause endless headaches. *That* is where you are wrong: you are insisting that the box must be *blank* until a 'final' decision is actually made. You are also wrong about there being One Single decision: there was a decision to make Perry energy-secretary which happened on December 12th, according to sources (so there was *also* a decision to 'leak' the unofficial Perry nomination). The official announcement of that leaked decision -- "intent to nominate" -- has yet to happen, and of course, Trump can always change his mind aka change his intent, by withdrawing at any time up until the Senate actually casts confirmation-votes. Obama *decided* to nominate Bill Richardson in December 2008, but on January 4th 2009 withdrew Richardson (some kind of campaign finance controversy if memory serves). Wikipedia needs to list the person that is being reported as the nominee, but we also need to mention whether that person is 'official' or merely 'reported/expected/etc'. That way, we don't have edit-wars over stuffing names into the blanks, and reverting them, AND we don't look bad when unofficial-Rodgers is unofficially-withdrawn and replaced by unofficial-Zinke. And for the record, I was also not positive Rodgers was gonna get the final nod, because as you can see from my table above, there was no tweet and no greatAgain.gov mention of her. We don't disagree that Rodgers was not 'official' yet, we disagree on whether the box should have been *blank* or should have said "Rodgers (per sources but unofficial)". I also have little doubt that Trump, like Obama, will withdraw an 'official' person at some point, so I would suggest we annotate even the 'official' names like DeVos with "(intended)" plus a footnote explaining that the potus-elect can still change his mind. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 09:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2016

Ryan Zinke has been offered the job as Secretary of the Interior by Donald Trump although it was reported that Zinke has not yet officially accepted DoMination (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Right, he hasn't accepted. So there's nothing for us to do here. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Muboshgu, my suggestion is that we list "Zinke (unofficial)". Or perhaps "Zinke (role offered)" / "Zinke (acceptance pending)". See long discussion above about whether our *only* option is to leave the box blank. We could also just put a wikilink to Cabinet of Donald Trump#Secretary of the Interior into the box here in this template for Sec.Interior, which says "(not finalized)" or something like that. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 09:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Puzder

There's a creative commons image of him on Flickr, if you're interested. [33] Couldn't find any of Wilbur Ross that weren't copyrighted, unfortunately. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• The image is already uploaded here: File:Andrew Puzder by Gage Skidmore.jpg. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2016

Can you please make the table of the Cabinet back into it's two column original 139.218.199.252 (talk) 07:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Already done  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 12:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I think they might be asking for this.[34] Which was what the content looked like, before the template-page we're currently upon was created, back when the layout was one-nominee-per-row rather than two-nominees-per-row. Might have something to do with viewing the page on small smartphone screens? Can somebody check whether the Cabinet of Donald Trump page looks decent on a four inch screen, please? 47.222.203.135 (talk) 14:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you mean. I'm not sure how it looks in mobile, although I did open sandbox and test pages at Template:Cabinet of Donald Trump/sandbox and Template:Cabinet of Donald Trump/testcases to make it easier for someone who can check with an actual mobile device. I checked the Minerva skin (for mobile) and that appeared normal on my desktop, but more tests are needed to assure proper and correct accessibility.  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 15:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

•  Not done We need to reach consensus for this edit before we can implement it. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2016

Please add a picture of Wilbur Ross in the cell with his name and home state 174.97.161.118 (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  19:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Uh... the request is clear, but unfortunately wikipedia currently has no libre-licensed picture of Wilbur Ross uploaded, therefore this template of Trump's cabinet is lacking a portrait of same. 174.97, multiple folks have been working on finding a proper imagefile for Ross, but wikipedia is very stern about copyright. If not before then, by the time Ross is confirmed as SecCommerce we will be able to get ahold of a federal government photo (which is in the public domain as far as copyright is concerned). In the meantime, if you just want to know what he looks like, you can see his copyrighted-pictures here.[35] Please don't upload them to wikipedia however,we need WP:NFCC-compliant libre-licensed photos since he is a living person. See WP:FFU to upload a photo which you took yourself, originally, i.e. not from somewhere else on the web. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 12:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

Please move the documentation to the documentation subpage Template:Cabinet of Donald Trump/doc -- 65.94.168.229 (talk) 06:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  19:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

It is absolutely clear what is to be done, since it is standard template formatting. Move everything currently in the NOINCLUDE sections to the DOC subpage, as is specified in the instructions on how to write templates. This template even has a sandbox, which is not linked properly, because the standard documentation template is missing, as is the doc subpage, which it would trnasclude, like a normal template page would have its documentation -- 65.94.168.229 (talk) 06:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Saying that it is clear does not make it any clearer what exactly you would like done. Please indicate what you are referring to as "documentation" and "NOINCLUDE" sections. Using the "X to Y" format indicated in the edit request instructions would be helpful.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  06:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Template documentation explains everything; copying it all here would defeat the purpose of help pages. If you've ever written properly documented templates, the request is perfectly clear. Properly formatted templates have only template coding on the template page, and a {{documentation}} everything else goes on the documentation subpage. The template:documentation is enclosed in a NOINCLUDE section at the bottom of the page. The function of {{documentation}} is to link to documentation, sandbox and testcase subpages. The sandbox page is unlinked due to the missing {{documentation}} People with template-editor-bits on their user accounts should already understand what making a documentation subpage entails without any other hints. This page includes instructions on what to include on the template so is documentation. It includes categories, which is part of what doc subpages are used for. If you've never written template documentation, this is not a request you should answer. -- 65.94.168.229 (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done The one sentence of documentation at the top does not seem to me like it needs a full scale doc page and box, which would be overkill. Pppery 19:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

How are you going to handle the missing link to template: Cabinet of Donald Trump/sandbox then? This page is still missing {{documentation}} and as such is also missing the {{template reference list}} that comes with the subpage -- 65.94.168.229 (talk) 04:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

JFG, I believe you created this template, do you have time to fix up the subpage-structure and the categories and the other things mentioned by 65.94, according to the wiki-traditional template-architecture-helpdocs linked above? Sounds like some kind of helper-templates are dependent on the page-layout, so this is not a purely-WP:BURO-type concern methinks. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 12:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done — JFG ^talk 01:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2017

Under Director of National Intelligence, there is a typo. Former senator is misspelled. It has a b in in. Trekie Life (talk) 13:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)  Done Thanks for being so observant. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Template Change

I changed the template to include senate committee confirmations (blue) and full senate vote confirmations (green). I also added red in-case a person is rejected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Figfires (talk • contribs) 03:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Could we wait and add a color in-case a person is rejected only if/when that happens ? Hektor (talk) 13:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from but it looks like DeVos will be rejected. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• I think the rejected line should be removed as the proposed nominee slot will become vacant. Classicwiki (talk) 07:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Nobody was rejected yet… — JFG ^talk 21:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Took Office Spacing

Minor detail but the "Took Office..." do not line up. I looked through the code and couldn't quite figure out how to fix it. Don't know why its happening but it would be a nice visual fix. Classicwiki (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Format was improved since your remark. — JFG ^talk 21:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2017

Please change Former Governor of Indiana to Governor of Indiana Mike Pence because he was a sitting governor, like Nikki Haley, and unlike Rick Perry or Sonny Pedue during the 2016 (previous) election cycle. 107.0.32.31 (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: He is not current governor. Similarly, Jeff Sessions is mentioned as "former senator" although he was senator until his confirmation hearing. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 20:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2017

The White House issued a statement on February 8, 2017 listing Donald Trump's "cabinet." https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/02/08/president-donald-j-trump-announces-his-cabinetMveshop (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC) It includes the Chief of Staff and heads of OMB, EPA, ODNI, and USTR. it does not refer to "cabinet-level" or "cabinet-rank" officials. Just the cabinet. Since there is no formal definition of "cabinet" in US law, it is entirely up to the President to say who is in the "cabinet" and who, if anyone, is "cabinet-rank" or "cabinet-level" but not in the Cabinet per se. Therefore, this page should be adjusted per the February 8, 2017 White House memo to show only Trump's "cabinet," including all of the people listed in the WH statement, and delete the section on "cabinet-level" people.

mveshop Mveshop (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Interesting point. I'm not well-versed enough in US law and custom regarding the composition of the Cabinet. Can we find secondary sources discussing this change in addition to the White House announcement which is a primary source? — JFG ^talk 21:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I tend to think that a WH announcement on that subject is good enough for sourcing (though more sources are better of course). If the "cabinet-level" denomination has no legally binding effects, it is in effect unfalsifiable by the opinions of constitutional scholars out there. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  17:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2017

Change the color of Mick Mulvaney's picture to light green. 136.244.15.73 (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Done – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2017

Please replace the light blue background around Mr. Mulvaney's portrait with a light green one like the rest of the confirmed cabinet nominees. I believe that the user who edited this page left out this important step. Grizzliesrule888 (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

done by User:Muboshgu. Signed off by Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2017 (Changing the Order of the Cabinet-level Officials)

The order of the Cabinet-level officials seems to have been arbitrarily chosen. A non-arbitary one would be the order used by the White House in its announcement of which non-Department-head executive officials were going to be included in the Cabinet. That announcement is here.

The order used by the White House is (1) White House Chief of Staff, (2) US Trade Representative, (3) Director of National Intelligence, (4) UN Ambassador, (5) OMB Director, (6) CIA Director, (7) EPA Administrator, (8) SBA Administrator. I suggest that this should be the order used in Wikipedia's template. 107.145.77.108 (talk) 01:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Done Classicwiki (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2017

Need to fix Wilber Ross thing, who was just confirmed100.33.11.172 (talk) 00:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC) 100.33.11.172 (talk) 00:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Done Seems to be done. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2017

Ryan Zinke has not yet been confirmed. The Senate voted last night to advance his nomination, not to confirm him. The actual confirmation vote will not take place until tomorrow. As such, his color coding should be blue, not green, and he should not have a date for taking office. 147.226.153.126 (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Done Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

|ans=no

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2017

Ben Carson has been confirmed as HUD secretary. Change his background to light green please. Grizzliesrule888 (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Already done - Happysailor ^(Talk) 18:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2017

Dan Coats was approved by committee vote today and therefore his background color should be changed to blue 40.138.17.33 (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 06:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2017

Two minor points: (1) Since the infobox does not include the originally proposed but withdrawn Labor nominee Andy Puzder, and since the vast majority of the nominees have now been confirmed, the title should be changed from "Proposed Cabinet" to just "Cabinet." Puzder was proposed but is not included, and calling this "proposed" when 90% of the people listed have been confirmed seems to be denying reality. Plus the template itself is actually named "Cabinet of Donald Trump" (check the top of this page) which suggests that the infobox should have that same title. (2) The key for the grey shading color should be changed from "Individual officially confirmed with no Senate consent needed" to "Individual assumed office with no Senate consent needed." There is no reasonable sense in which Vice President Pence can be described as having been "confirmed" for his position as Vice President, and very little sense in which that term could be sensibly applied to Chief of Staff Reince Priebus. Pence won an election and was sworn in; Priebus was appointed by the President and added to the payroll. The simplest and most accurate description which covers both of them is that they "assumed office" without the need for Senate confirmation. 107.145.77.108 (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I changed the title to Cabinet of DJT. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2017

178.220.114.242 (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 17:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2017

The key for the grey shading color should be changed from "Individual officially confirmed with no Senate consent needed" to "Individual assumed office with no Senate consent needed." There is no reasonable sense in which Vice President Pence can be described as having been "confirmed" for his position as Vice President, and very little sense in which that term could be sensibly applied to Chief of Staff Reince Priebus. Pence won an election and was sworn in; Priebus was appointed by the President and added to the payroll. The simplest and most accurate description which covers both of them is that they "assumed office" without the need for Senate confirmation. 107.145.77.108 (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. — JFG ^talk 08:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

"Date announced / confirmed"

The table itself indicates (at the top) that for each nominee two dates will be given, the date of the announcement of their nomination and the date of their confirmation, but in reality the dates given are consistently for the announcement and for taking office. So, it seems to me that we should either change what the table says it's going to give us, or replace all of the "took office" dates with confirmation dates. I would favor the former. Anyone else? LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The former sounds easiest, so I would say go with that, although personally, I would prefer the latter. Classicwiki (talk) 05:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, for most of them, the day they were confirmed is the day they took office. Do you think we should try to include all three when they're all distinct? We could combine "Confirmed and installed" when those are the same day? Or do you think we should just switch to Announcement & Confirmation dates? LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I mean, relatedly, it's kind of weird that we're providing the "announcement" date rather than the "nomination" date (none of which could be earlier than January 20), since announcing you're going to appoint someone is informal and nominating them is an actual official act. But I'm not sure what I think we should do about that. I just think it's a little weird. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 19:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I would support "Announced" and "Confirmed". Intent is key: "announced" shows intent by the Trump administration, "confirmed" shows intent by the Senate. Whether they actually take office on a Monday because they were confirmed on a Friday doesn't matter. By the same token, if formal nominations had to wait until Trump was sworn in, the announcement dates prior to the inauguration are a lot more relevant. — JFG ^talk 00:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Please pick one of three options: So it seems to me like we have three options: (1) Change the header to say "Date announced / installed" since those are the dates that we're actually displaying. (2) Change all of the dates in the table to be the correct dates the various cabinet members were confirmed, rather than the ones they took office (most of these will be the same, but they will all need to be double-checked because at least a few of them are different). (3) Add confirmation dates and update everything to reflect this, with "Date announced / confirmed / installed" at the top, three date lines for individual cabinet members where necessary, and a combined "Confirmed and installed" when those two dates are the same. (We could also use "took office" instead of installed, I don't really care, but "installed" makes a better parallel with "confirmed" and "announced.") So I think the best thing might be for the people involved in this conversation to all indicate which is their preferred option. It sounds like nobody is really in favor of option (1). If we have some kind of consensus between (2) and (3), I'm happy to make the change, but let's see where we're at first. I think I probably favor option 3, but I could go either way. Or if there's a better option I didn't think of, feel free to mention that. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 01:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Titles for Everyone?

Is the goal to have a "former" title for everyone in the Cabinet? I was surprised at some of the ones that have been added, like Lighthizer's "Former Deputy Trade Representative." I went ahead and added Mnuchin and McMahon's former CEO titles because they seem at least as appropriate as Tillerson's, but what about the others? Should we identify Ben Carson as "Former Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital"? Wilbur Ross is a "Former Second Gentleman of New York," and Betsy DeVos is a "Former Chair of the Michigan Republican Party" as well as a "Former Republican National Committeewoman." I honestly can't tell if these would be appropriate to add or taking it all a bit too far, so I'm asking over here. Thoughts, anyone? LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 01:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it is gratuitous to dignify each person's previous position. I believe this conversation has happened once before for this template. I think previous positions should only be listed for government honorific positions: Rep./Sen./Gov./Sec./Gen./US Attny; not CEOs/Dr. Classicwiki (talk) 05:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

To expand a little, when Sen./Rep./Gen. retire the media will still refer to them as Senator, Representative, Governor etc. Classicwiki (talk) 05:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

This sounds about right to me. Keep the titles that were actually titles, as opposed to just jobs. This would involve removing a bunch of the ones that are already in there, such as for Priebus, Tillerson, Acosta, etc. I think you and I are more or less in agreement. Is it time to be WP:BOLD? LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I think former Cabinet-level titles also clearly qualify to be kept, such as for Elaine Chao. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 19:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I also think Pruitt is misleadingly identified as "Former Attorney General." I appreciate that the wikilink makes it clear that he was only a state attorney general, but I think that title either needs to go away completely or be clearer in the text that is visible. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Due to the nature of this Cabinet including several non-politicians, I believe it is important to preserve their prior job titles. Hiring CEOs in the nation's Cabinet means something. No need to add minor titles, however. — JFG ^talk 00:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

But where do you draw the line? What titles (if any) should be supplied for Ben Carson, Betsy DeVos, and Wilbur Ross? And what about the point raised above that this template should offer only titles that were actually titles (i.e., part of how you would address these people) rather than mere job descriptions? LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 01:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed on the Pruitt point, it used to state attorney general in previous iterations. I'm ok with leaving non-conventional titles as per JFG's reasoning. Classicwiki (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

If the distinction we're going to make is to leave out "minor titles", then it seems to me that state attorney general (Pruitt), deputy trade rep (Lighthizer), and under secretary (Shulkin) are all minor, along with whatever titles we might come up with for Carson, DeVos, and Ross (who currently have none given). Moreover, it's not clear to me that Mnuchin and McMahon's CEO titles aren't minor either. OneWest is not a global brand or a nationally well-known name. WWE kind of is, I guess, but it's a much smaller company in terms of assets/revenue. Also, I feel obliged to point out that this template is not really the place for pointing out what kinds of alternative qualifications Trump's nominees have; there are places to do that in the article. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 18:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Shading for Elaine Duke

Isn't it misleading to have an acting secretary shaded the same as actual confirmed cabinet secretaries? I realize she was confirmed for the position of deputy secretary, but she's in this template as "Acting Secretary" which is not something she received Senate confirmation for. I would suggest adding a new shading color for her. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

She was confirmed as it is in the order of succession. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

But she was not confirmed as "Secretary of Homeland Security" or as "Acting Secretary of Homeland Security". She was confirmed for a different job. Look, compare to the current shading on Secretary Kelly: he's being shaded grey for "assumed office without Senate confirmation" even though he was actually confirmed by the Senate for his previous job (as Secretary of DHS). The shading indicates how people got to their current role in the Cabinet. Duke is an acting Cabinet secretary, and was not Senate confirmed to be so. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Don J. Wright

Don J. Wright is from Virginia not Texas https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/09/29/statement-press-secretary 96.36.68.29 (talk) 00:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

ghosts

I mentioned that Rex Tillerson leave office at the end of the month. It's official and should stop people like me from wondering why it wasn't mentioned. Arglebargle79 (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

This edit adds too much clutter to the table. It's cluttered enough as it is. Corky 19:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Mulvaney has 2 titles, so may as well list them both

OK...should Mick Mulvaney's other gig as CFPB Director be listed here too?

I say yes, as he does have 2 titles within the administration, but @Corkythehornetfan: disagrees.

Love to get a tie-breaker here to settle this.

Thank you.

Vjmlhds (talk) 04:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Adding CFPB to Mulvaney's section

Vjmlhds has added the Acting Director title for the CFPB under Mulvaney's section. I disagree with this for several reasons: A) It is not a Cabinet-level position, B) there is still disagreement to Mulvaney being the Acting Director of the Bureau, C) It's not important to list in this template and can be found on Mulvaney's article if people want to know is other duties, D) Other Cabinet members and Cabinet-level members hold other duties within the Executive branch and we don't include them, and E) the formatting causes the template to be too wide for the left side. What are others' opinions? Corky 04:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

We couldn't have timed this better if we tried :) Vjmlhds (talk) 05:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Guess I didn't make myself clear... I completely object to the addition of the CFPB title. Corky 22:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

RFC: Adding CFPB title to Mulvaney's section

Should Mick Mulvaney's title as "Acting Director of the CFPB" be added to this template? Corky 01:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose for several reasons:
  • It is not a Cabinet-level position
  • There is still disagreement to Mulvaney being the Acting Director of the Bureau
  • It's not important to list in this template and can be found on Mulvaney's article if people want to know his other duties
  • Other Cabinet members and Cabinet-level members hold other duties within the Executive Branch and we don't include them
  • There is no real good formatting for this due to him leading two different agencies and we use their logos

Per the reasons above, I don't believe it should be added. Corky 01:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)