The discussion is clearly heading for a no consensus close unless agreement can be reached on how to modify the officeholder infobox to display info in the same way.

I appreciate your concerns about consistency, but many things are displayed across a wide range of bios in a consistent manager simply through editor management. If all the MK articles changed at the same time as part of the merge (which I'm willing to do) then we can ensure a consistent starting point. I have the vast majority of MKs on my watchlist so would be able to keep an eye on any changes to their infoboxes (I regularly correct incorrect usage of the existing MK infobox) and most of them (former MKs) are not edited regularly.

I honestly thing the flexible option is the way to go – it allows other uses that we might not have considered and an unlimited number of separate sections, and avoids fixing certain offices in a certain location in the infobox, which I believe will create issues in future (as would having fixed titles due to differing terminology used in different countries – having 'Party represented in parliament' wouldn't really fit for countries that call their legislature a Congress). Plus the coding required for the fixed option would be significantly longer. I've had a fair amount of experience with various infoboxes over the years, and the preference for a flexible option is based on what I've learnt. Cheers, Number 57 18:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: Not "Party represented in parliament" but "Parliamentary factions" I was talking about. Overall, ok, I agree with your amendment to the Officeholder. What is the way forward for it from now on? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]