Template talk:Cabinet of Donald Trump

Mulvaney in the dual role

Corkythehornetfan set the template up where Mick Mulvaney is listed once with a dual role, and I happen to agree with his arrangement.

Makes no sense to list him twice - just clutters up the chart.

This template is about the people in the cabinet, not the individual jobs.

Vjmlhds (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose he is only acting in the role as chief of staff, which is a role that doesn't need senate approval, making that box light green would be wong. also this is about the cabinet and it's positions, mulvaney has two positions so he has to be listed two times. also from a practical point of view, he is only acting Cief of staff, when a new one comes in the whole template would have to be restructured, which isnt worth it. Norschweden (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

If Mulvaney had 5 roles, would we have to list him 5 times? Use some common sense. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

the common sense is that a cabinet is made out of positions, and when someone holds two positions he is listed two times, and yes if he had 5 positions he should be listed five times, snce there are five positions Norschweden (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

It makes sense to me to include him for both roles (i.e. having his picture in the template twice). When a full-time chief of staff is appointed, it will be a smaller change to go back to only listing him once. The situation is unusual, so it's not surprising that our treatment of it is somewhat unusual (both options here are somewhat unusual). power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

My opinion is when there is a new chief of staff, we can re-create the spot for the OMB director. For now, though, it’s just taking up space. Corky 02:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

but there ae two positions, with completely different confirmation states, they should not be merged, it would confuse and lead to misinformation if the CoS spot is marked as senate confirmed Norschweden (talk) 00:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. Color removed, notes added. Corky 00:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok, the new version is acceptable. Norschweden (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I edited it a bit, the positions have now two boxes while Mulvaney has only one, the state of the confirmation process is now clear due to the coloring of the position boxes, and did not need to be written. also the OMB director title isn't shorted down this way, which i think is the better way, since not everyone who is an expert on government office short forms Norschweden (talk) 02:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I’m OK with that change. Now quit edit warring. Corky 02:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I can live with that. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

as i said dozends of times i wasn't editwarring, i restored the status quo before the controversial edit, until a consensus is found, thats how things like that are handled, but i'm glad we found one finally Norschweden (talk) 04:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Acting Chief of Staff

We already have a footnote to indicate that Mulvaney is the "acting" chief of staff in name only. He is the Chief of Staff, so there is no need to code his job as acting. Banana Republic (talk) 00:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Chad Wolf

As Wolf was declared by a court as being in office illegally, should he be removed from the table? DanJWilde (talk) 11:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

My guess is no, even though he and McAleenan are not legally acting secretaries, Wolf is still acting secretary albeit unlawfully. Maybe it could be noted in the table, or have his section recolored to a shade of red to show this? Perhaps someone else could answer with better options. Negrong502 (talk) 17:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)