Talk:Prime Minister of Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Canada / Governments (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Governments of Canada.
WikiProject Politics (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Infobox again[edit]

The previous format seems to have achieved consensus and is standardized across articles while this edit seems to imply that it doesn't. Would like more details on the dispute as it's breaking WP:BRD cycle. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I just asked the anon at his/her talk page why he/she switched infobox styles at this article and all the others about ministers. The long-used infobox template can, of course, be edited to include any additional information. The arms, however, besides being not directly related to ministerial offices, are copyright protected, anyway. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The Infobox[edit]

It appears Miesianiacal does not agree with the changes I have made to the infobox. He has told me to take it up on the talk page, so I will. I have spent three hours changing every government infobox so it corresponds with all the other political infoboxes on the English Wikipedia. This standard infobox is used by all of the world leaders, government ministers in other countries, and all other government posts. We have the exception of Canada, which I found rather odd. Canada's government ministers are the only one with a different infobox. So, I decided to change them. Miesianiacal reverted me saying that it has to be consistant with the other government infoboxes, and I thought that he simply didn't notice that I changed ALL the other government infoboxes: the cabinet posts and the premiers. But, it seems that he simply doesn't like my change.

Here are my reasons why I think we should change the infobox:

1. Every political infobox on the English Wikipedia uses it

2. They look outdated, and the one I want to replace it with looks (in my opinion) much cleaner

3. It is the standard infobox for all politicians, why does Canada have to be different?

Here are some examples of the infoboxes used across the English Wikipedia:








And those are just some. Every political infobox is the same.

I thought something like this would be a no brainer, considering I think it's just an update to the old infoboxes and consistancy is important on Wikipedia, obviously I was wrong, so I want to apologize.

So, I'd like to start a discussion. What are people's opinions? (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The infobox style used on articles about Canadian federal and provincial ministries was used on articles about ministries of other countries; at least, it used to be. Whether or not the latter were changed in time isn't of consequence here, anyway; see WP:OTHERSTUFF.
The infobox used on Canadian ministry articles is part of a colour coded series used to aid readers; federal ministries have silver and red bars, provincial ministries have silver and blue. This ties in with the articles on governors - light purple and red for the federal governor general and light purple and blue for provincial lieutenant governors - as well as the articles on monarchy in Canada - deep purple and red for the federal crown and deep purple and blue for the provincial crowns.
As far as appearance goes, what looks best is a matter of personal preference; "I don't like it" isn't a valid justification for an edit. If, though, thre's agreement that something in the long-used infobox should be changed (appearance, content), the change can be made to the template, which will the appear on all articles the template is used in, rather than changing the infobox on every single article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I realize that there is a colour-coded system, but what I'm saying is that I think we should change all of them, so that they correspond with the other political infoboxes. When I look around Wikipedia, (besides the infoboxes about the monarchies), the only government ministers that use this colour-coded system is Canada, which I then tried to change. I'm willing to change every single one, but of course I'll only do it if there is a consensus. Besides the reason of a colour-coded system, is there any other reason why Canada should be the only country to use this system for their government ministers? (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
As I said, other countries' minister infoboxes used to be the same one as used on Canadian minister articles; it was, for example, at Prime Minister of Australia (before you changed it). The monarchy infobox is used on all monarchy articles (see Monarchy of Sweden, Monarchy of the United Kingdom), as is the one for governors (at least, governors of Commonwealth realms; see Governor-General of Jamaica, Governor of New South Wales). I don't know that we're ever going to get consistency right across Wikipedia for ministy articles; there must be hundreds. Keeping it consistent within Canadian articles seems tidy enough. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I understand, but I think that all the government ministers should have the same infobox as the other political infoboxes across Wikipedia, which there isn't actually that many of them. The examples you selected are all posts related to the monarchies of various countries. I think we should let the monarchies have their own colour-coded system, but update the government ministers, which as I said, there are not too many of them, so they are consistant with all the others across Wikipedia. (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. I don't see a value in dispensing with the colour coded infoboxes on Canadian ministry articles, differentiating them from articles on other Canadian government positions/offices, just so they use the same infobox as used on other countries' ministry articles. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
By the way, I just did a quick survey of about a dozen articles on ministers of finance, foreign affairs, and defence in a range of countries (France, India, United Kingdom, Sweden, Noreway, etc.) and none used an infobox at all. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
That's not right...,, all UK government positions use them. Also, the following countries have the infobox for government ministers(if you look at the infoboxs of the leaders - prime minister, president, chancellor, etc. - they all use the infobox that I want to be used.)
United States
Russia (somewhat) (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) See:
Minister of Finance (India), Minister of Finance of Hungary, Minister of Finance (Norway), Minister of the Economy, Industry and Employment (France), Minister of Finance (Japan), Ministry of Finance (Chile), Minister of Finance (Egypt), Ministry of Finance (Greece), Italian Minister of Economy and Finance, Ministry of Finance (Russia), Minister of Finance (Finland), Ministry of Finance (Iceland), Ministry of Finance (Netherlands)
Minister for National Defence (Greece), Ministry of Defence (Netherlands), Minister for Defence (Sweden), Defence Minister of Pakistan, Minister of Defence (Finland), Ministry of Defence (Belgium), Minister of Defence (India), Italian Minister of Defence, Minister of Defense (France), Estonian Minister of Defence, Ministry of National Defence and Sport (Austria), Ministry of National Defense (Chile)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Greece), Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs (France), Minister of Foreign Affairs (New Zealand), Minister of Foreign Affairs (Italy), Minister of Foreign Affairs (Hungary), Minister of Foreign Affairs (Pakistan), Minister of Foreign Affairs (Denmark), Minister of Foreign Affairs (Norway)
There are more. Also, while there are indeed ministry articles that use the infobox you prefer, there are others that have an infobox that's neither the one used in Canadian articles or the one you like; refer to all articles on Romanian ministries, for example. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm content with the status quo. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
So, GoodDay, are you saying that you prefer the current infobox over the one I propose? (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Also, as I said before, if you look at all positions of the leaders of all countries, they use the infobox I prefer. Look at all the prime ministers, presidents, chancellors, premiers, etc. of all countries: :: (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I checked them over & I understand your consistency argument. I'm just not certain it's worth the hassle. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
The thing is, when you look at all the government ministers (not the monarch related positions) there aren't that many of them to change. I've already changed most of them, before Miesianiacal stopped me. I only have about six more to do on the Australian government ministers, and that is it. The hassle would be all mine, and I if I get a consensus to do it, I would be fine with doing it all myself. (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm surprised you've changed the Australian infoboxes. The Aussie editors are usually quite protective of articles related to their country. Anyways, I won't revert your changes nor will I revert Mies' reverts. I don't get too involved with disputes anymore - having went through a RFC/U, will have that effect. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Alright. Thanks for your input. (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
No prob ;) GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Always with GoodDay!!!) Anon, you made it sound as though there was consistency across all articles on ministries and the Canadian ones were the only odd ones out. I've demonstrated that such is not the case at all; there is no consistency. Some use an infobox, some don't, some of those that do use different ones than others. So, it's safe to say that the consistency with other articles argument is moot. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not what I said. There may be a variation of some government ministers not using an infobox, or using the infobox I prefer, or in your historical example, using a different infobox all together, BUT if you look at all heads of state and government, EXCEPT Canada and Australia, (which I changed), they all have the infobox that I prefer. That is one of my consistancy arguments. The other is that I think we should lave the colour-coded system JUST for the monarchies, and make sure the premiers, government ministers in Canada have the same infobox as the other government ministers that do have an infobox. (talk) 22:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Was asked to comment here - I also think the old version better - that said why don't we have the same template for all "commonwealth nations"?Moxy (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
That would mean changing a lot of other infoboxes, like the one on the British Prime Minister, Indian Prime Minister, etc. (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I guess its just to hard - because I would guess each country has there own standards for there articles.Moxy (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I just want to know, Moxy, what do you prefer in the old infobox, over the one that most political positions use? (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
They have the same info so the only way to judge them is by looks - I would have to say the old one is better - only because I think the coat of arms was way to big in the new version. However I do like the new layout, because I am not a fan of the to color lines under the title "Prime Minister of Canada", as the contrast does not meet our basic standers for color contrasts (My wife is color blind and she say's she sees no words in the 2 colored strips (see WP:CONTRAST). ALSO - File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg is copyrighted not sure we can even use it in this fashion.Moxy (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay, well, if I remove the Coat of Arms and replace it with the Office of the Prime Minister logo, does that mean I can get your support on this? (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
(ec)That would be a yes - BUT and a big butt at that, at this point we would need more involed before you (or me) move ahead with any changes, because the removal of the old one has been contested by a few editors. I will be honest - this will likely evolve into a long debate - if your up for it - all you have to do is prove your points and it may happen in time. Thus far here in this talk we have all good civil editors so the conversation should progress in the same manner if "YOU" are willing, because its you that will have to convince people. My only suggestion to improve the current version is to fix the color bars so all can read the text in them.Moxy (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Anon, your words: "This standard infobox is used by all of the world leaders, government ministers in other countries, and all other government posts. We have the exception of Canada..." Now you've changed it to "all articles on heads of state and government except Canada's use this infobox" (I'll assume you've just temporarily forgotten that monarchs are heads of state and their articles don't use your preferred infobox). But, that wasn't the case before you edited the articles on the Australian and New Zealand prime ministers. Plus, there are articles on heads of state and government that don't use the infobox; see Prime Minister of Afghanistan, Prime Minister of Algeria, Prime Minister of Angola, Chief Minister of Anguilla, Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda, Prime Minister of Armenia, Prime Minister of Aruba, Prime Minister of Azerbaijan, Prime Minister of Barbados, Prime Minister of Belarus, Prime Minister of Bhutan, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Prime Minister of Bulgaria, Prime Minister of the Cook Islands, Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, Prime Minister of Georgia, Prime Minister of Iceland, Prime Minister of Jamaica, Prime Minister of Jordan, Prime Minister of Latvia, etc., etc. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Um... no. First off, when I said heads of state and heads of government, I was NOT including the monarchs, as I said before, if you DO NOT count the monarchs, you can clearly see that they all use the infobox I prefer. Second, every single ony of your examples either doesn't have an infobox because no one implemented it or they in fact DO HAVE my prefered infobox. For example, we have Prime Minister of Barbados and Prime Minister of Bulgaria. (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Question what is the most used one (before any recent changes) ? As Wikipedia:CONSISTENCY is something to be considered here and WP:TIES - PS WP:OTHERSTUFF an essay does not apply here (its for deletion).Moxy (talk)
I am certain that the most used infobox template is the one I am proposing. If you look at various world leaders, (not monarchs) they all use the new template except Australia, New Zealand and Canada (I did change Australia and New Zealand and so far they seem to be okay with it). (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC) You can see what I am saying by looking at this: The monarchs are the only one with the old template. (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I feel that infoboxes for people and places are one of the things that should be standardized across the encyclopedia. However, I think that Template:Infobox minister office looks nicer than Template:Infobox Political post. Is there any chance we can consensus to add the coloured bars, smaller portrait, and section breaks into the later template? —Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 23:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Wouldn't changing the standard infobox by adding the coloured bars still create the problem of inconsistancy across Wikipedia? (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I might be commenting too late, but I think Infobox Political post is better. I see no need to colour code the ministries, and it does produce a CONTRAST issue. Infobox Political post looks more how an infobox should look, and includes fields for an emblem, and incumbent since. I think we should move to this to be consistent, and get rid of these silly colours. 117Avenue (talk) 01:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

You're not late at all. Thank you for your comment. I'm glad that people are starting to see the issues that I have with this infobox. I mean, there are a number of issues with this infobox, including the contrast issue, but for me at least, the main problem I have is that it's not consistant with the other infoboxes all across Wikipedia. (talk) 01:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
There is no consistent use of infoboxes across Wikipedia. This fact has been demonstrated to you with tangible evidence. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
There absolutely is. The infobox I prefer is the one used by almost all political officies that do have an infobox. The only exceptions are the monarchs (which I don't count as political figures) and Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, (which I changed Australia and New Zealand and they seem to be fine with the change). That leaves out Canada. That fact can be clearly demonstrated by the link I provided above that looks at heads of state and heads of government. And by the way, if you only look at heads of government, it's very hard to find one that has an infobox and does not use the one I prefer. (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Here is the link again: (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
So, not all political office articles have infoboxes, and of those that do, not all, just most, use the same one. As I said: inconsistent. Canada, therefore, isn't "left out" of anything except maybe the majority of articles that use infoboxes. But, even if that is the case, so what? We have an infobox system that works and has been accepted for years. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
And it's been accepted for too long. I'm glad you have finally admitted that the majority of of articles that have an infobox use the one I prefer. Consistancy is very important on Wikipedia, and I think it's time that Canada joins the rest of Wikipedia in implementing an updated infobox that does have the number of issues brought up above by me and other users. I think the choice is very clear: we need to have a consistancy across Wikipedia, and the only way to do it (and it would be an improvement) would be to change the infobox to the standard political infobox used across Wikipedia. (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'm all for consistency, but I think that this is going to turn into a popularity contest of sorts: which infobox is favoured by the most editors? To settle that, I think you're going to have to take this discussion to another, larger forum, and get a lot of input. WP:CANADA might be a place to start. What happens after that depends on what the majority of Canadian editors want. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I disagree that this should be a question of which is liked better; I think that being standardized provides more atheistic benefit than looking nicer.. In my opinion, the default should be standardized infoboxes and that we should only use a different one if (1) the standardized one lacks a feature that would provide important encyclopedic information for Canada, and (2) that feature cannot be or won't be implemented in the standardized template. —Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 20:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I meant which infobox is used consistently will be decided by which is liked better. On the other hand, there could be some hybrid of the two. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I think that is an excellent point. In this case, it is clear that the political infobox (my preference) is the standardized one used across Wikipedia. And the exceptions do not apply here because not only does the standardized infobox provide the same information as the old one, but it provives EVEN MORE information.
This reason, along with the fact that (in my opinion and others) the standard infobox looks better and does not have any colour contrast issues, make the choice very clear. Now, Miesianiacal, is it possible that with the level of support for the change, you can allow me to change these infoboxes? I'm new here, so I do want to know: does it look like a consensus has been reached? (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
You do not have consensus. Please see WP:CON. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, from what I see, there are four (including me) who support the change, and one who doesn't: you. That may not be a consensus, but I think it shows the level of support is high. (talk) 00:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I see only one other user firmly in favour of your proposal. I also don't believe this is a decision to be made between only five editors. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Question? You talking about this one page or all pages? Because if you/we are talking about all of them we here are a small group (see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). If you are talking about them all you should ask for more input before changing them (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment). The process to ask for more input is actually very easy (its automated) see this. Plus is there consensus here yet?Moxy (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm talking about all the pages for Canada. You see, I've already changed the infoboxes for the Australian prime minister and the New Zealand prime minister, and people seem to be fine with the change. The Cabinet of Australia already has been updated to the new infobox by someone else a long time ago, and the New Zealand Cabinet doesn't have any infoboxes. The rest of the heads of state and government ALL accross Wikipedia (not including the monarchs, which I DO NOT want to change because they are not political figures), already have the same infobox, which is the new one I am proposing. The only infoboxes that need to be changed are that of the Cabinet of Canada and the prime minister of Canada. So, the only changes that would be made would be to Canadian political offices, so they match the political offices all across Wikipedia. The change ONLY applies to Canada, no one else. (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Why do you want to only have the infoboxes for political offices look the same? I thought you were seeking consistency in appearance. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, first off, I wanted the political offices to have consistantcy considering the infobox template is called "political office", so I didn't find it appropiate to also change the monarchies' infoboxes. Second, if we were to include the infoboxes of the monarchies, then this discussion would have to include users from Australia, Norway, Denmark, Japan, and anywhere else that a monarchy is present. It would get just too big. The thing is however, when you look at the government leaders (i.e. NOT the monarch) infoboxes of each of the countries I have mentioned, they all use the infobox I prefer. I absolutely want consistancy, but I want consistancy for all political offices. The monarchies can have their own infobox because if we tried to change that, the dicussion would have to include WAY too many countries. (talk) 01:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm even less in favour of the idea now, then. The infobox used here is part of a series themed in such a way as to differentiate different types of government office while also graphically linking together all articles on government posts, which sovereigns and her governors are. I think it would be rather odd to have colour coded boxes on monarch and viceroy articles but the articles about ministries using something completely different. Again, I'm open to some kind of hybrid. But, also again, I believe this discussion is going to have to move to a bigger forum. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
That "series" where the government ministers and the monarchs and their viceroys use the same template only includes Canada... We should make it consistant with all the other articles on Wikipedia. What you're saying means you think what Australia, Denmark, Norway, Japan, the United Kingdom, among others is "odd". Every single one of them have their monarchs using your prefered template and their heads of government, using the template I am proposing. Why should Canada be left alone? And why would it be "odd" for Canada to do this when all the others are doing the same thing, and it looks perfectly fine...? (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
What looks "odd" or "fine" is obviously a matter of personal opinion. I was only expressing mine. I've no idea what motivated Australian, New Zealand, or other editors to do what they did; I do personally think it's messy, though and could be improved one way or another.
I'm intrigued to think if there's a way to merge the coding - whether coloured or not - into the political office infobox you prefer. The ones for monarchs and viceroys could then be changed accordingly. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Although I prefer they simply be changed to the standard infobox so they truly are consistant, I am willing to accept your proposal because that would ensure that the infobox template , would be the same everywhere, but it would adhere to the coding you like on the old infobox. I'm not someone who can do that, however. Are you experienced enough with this kind of stuff to do it? (talk) 01:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I mean to have the template appear to be part of the same series everywhere; presidents with one indicator, prime ministers with another, federal, provincial, and state, etc. I might be able to that, yes. But, a discussion will have to be had first at Template talk:Infobox political post. Further, there might be objections from those who edit the monarchy articles (though I doubt there'd be much protest).
Alternately, all coding is obliterated from all infoboxes, for everyone: politicians, monarchs, viceroys alike. I think that would be a loss, though.
Fixing what you perceive to be mess is just going to create what others might perceive to be other messes, I'm afraid. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, then I think the easiest way to resolve this is simply to do what I proposed. If you are willing to withdraw your objection and be okay with it looking "odd" to you, then this whole thing would be delt with. Is there any way you can withdraw your objection. I mean, it's not like you are deeply opposed to it, right? You just think it would look odd. So in the name of consistancy and as a favour to a new editor, do you think you could let me do this? I'd greatly appreciate it... (talk) 02:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
My objection stands; I am quite deeply opposed to it. If you can get consensus at WP:CANADA, I'll have no choice but to concede, of course. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I, for one, would support the standardized infobox having some quick reference colour or icon to show if the person is monarch or elected, executive or legislative, national or regional. —Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 02:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Do you think we could win over hearts and minds at Template talk:Infobox political post, though? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You know what, the more that I think about this, the more I want to go through with changing the actual template. A reference colour or icon to show the type of office would be informative to everyone on Wikipedia and would solve our problem, and it would solve the consistency issue because it would be the infobox for all offices on Wikipedia. I know this is going to be a rough road and considering it involves all of Wikipedia, it is going to take a long time to reach a consensus, but I'm up for it! Are you guys in? (talk) 03:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea. Colours are a MOS:ACCESS issue, and icons are a MOS:ICON issue. Why use either when words work? Can we not say "Prime Minister of Canada" or "Premier of Western Australia" without using colours to say it? 117Avenue (talk) 05:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
How is colour automatically an access issue? There's colour all over Wikipedia. WP:COLOR even tells us exactly how colour can be used. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 06:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
We can't colour code. A blind person should know it says "Prime Minister of Canada", they don't care if it is written in grey or red. I shouldn't have to see to know what ministry it is. 117Avenue (talk) 07:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
We can't make visual cues the only source of information, but we can use it as a guide. We do that all the time when we put the official colour of political parties beside their name. However, because we already use colours far parties, I would rather use icons to identify roles—for example, a monarch icon, a lower house member icon, a cabinet member icon. However, that kind of system would require an encyclopedia-wide discussion. For the matter at hand, I would be willing to switch to the standardized template regardless of whether it implements a quick visual guide. —Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 07:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I don't think the idea was ever to use colour or symbol coding in place of text, but to augment it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Miesianiacal (talkcontribs) 2012-02-06 15:58:26
Well, I'm in support of using icons. I agree that we shouldn't use bars or colours, but icons seem like a good idea. But, in the mean time, considering if we do decide to pursue this large discussion, what about changing the infoboxes to the standard template? I once again see that four people are in favour and one is not. (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Can you name the four and quote their words of support, please? Because, I see only one in firm favour of changing the templates. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
1. Arctic.gnome - "For the matter at hand, I would be willing to switch to the standardized template regardless of whether it implements a quick visual guide."
2. 117Avenue - "I might be commenting too late, but I think Infobox Political post is better. I see no need to colour code the ministries, and it does produce a CONTRAST issue. Infobox Political post looks more how an infobox should look, and includes fields for an emblem, and incumbent since. I think we should move to this to be consistent, and get rid of these silly colours."
3. Moxy - (After me asking if she would support me if I would implement her requests)"That would be a yes - BUT and a big butt at that, at this point we would need more involed before you (or me) move ahead with any changes"
4. And as I said said before, including ME it would be four people supporing the move.
There you go, four people and their direct quotes. (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I see Moxy as being not entirely supportive, asking for, as I have, further input. Arctic.gnome originally stated Template:Infobox minister office looks nicer than Template:Infobox Political post. GoodDay was fine with the status quo, though didn't mount a passionate defence of it. So, I really only see two with strong support. Regardless, I still think you should be taking this to WP:CANADA to get input from the participants of that project, who oversee the improvement and maintenance of Canadian articles. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the Canadian one is better. I prefer the look of it because of the colour coding, the more striking horizontal line between sections, and the smaller image size. I also prefer the wording "appointed by" rather than "appointer", and "first" rather than "inaugural". In fact, the only thing I don't like is that the answer to "appointed by" is the individual who appointed the incumbent, rather than just the office held by that individual. The infobox is broadly consistent with the one used elsewhere, and the differences are (aside from the one) good ones. Consistency should not be imposed for consistency's sake. If there is a benefit to a different version of something, then there is no reason to change just because most places do it differently. -Rrius (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I completely disagree. Consistency is absolutely key for Wikipedia, and the fact that Canada is the only country that uses this infobox for its government ministers does not make any sense at all. The only place the old infobox is consistant is for Canadian articles. We need to be consistant across Wikipedia, not just for Canada. For more information, please look at my post at WP:CANADA. Thanks for your input though. (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Why is consistency "absolutely key" for Wikipedia? That is a huge statement with absolutely nothing to back it up. Canada uses a different infobox for its political offices, as apparently do several others; this is freely admitted. But what precise benefit is gained by making Canada consistent? -Rrius (talk) 00:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Agree on that point. The Governor General articles do not use a consistent date format. Each article may stand on its own. However, consistency is good with infoboxes because it's a form of user navigation and you don't want your navigational aides to be changing frequently. That's a concept from publishing. Unlike with date formats, where you can have only a few different ones, infoboxes can come in too many shapes in colours, and so consistency may be better. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. Consistency needs to be maintained especially for infoboxes of the same subject. It's common sense. We need to make sure Wikipedia is professional, and if we have the same infobox for all the other world leaders, and one is left out, it looks odd and unprofessional. Look at this. Find one of these leaders (who is not a monarch) that uses the old template. Canada is left out, and I'm simply proposing that we make sure Canadian articles are consistant with all the others across Wikipedia. (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
That point would make sense if the infoboxes in question weren't so similar. The differences are subtle, and I defy you to find a way in which the differences somehow impede the navigational needs. The information is there and in substantially the same place on each one. How exactly is someone going to find themselves confused by these minor differences? -Rrius (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
When did I say people are going to be confused? I said it is going to look odd and unprofessional. And how can you say the differences are subtle? They're not. By the way, please look at WP:CANADA; I think you owe me an apology. (talk) 02:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Rrius, it sounds like you find little difference between the two infoboxes, and wouldn't care if the other one is used. WP:IBX doesn't want us to duplicate templates, so why don't we delete the one with 53 transclusions, in favour of the one with 1,387? 117Avenue (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I see subtle differences, and think the one used here is better, and better suited to articles about Canadian offices. The number of transclusions is entirely unimpressive to me. -Rrius (talk) 02:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
If there are subtle differences, than how can one be explicitly better? 117Avenue (talk) 04:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support in theory 117Avenue idea of delete the one with 53 transclusions, in favour of the one with 1,387? But guess we would have to nominate it formally fro deletion.Moxy (talk) 05:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm fine with it, if we can merge some aspects of the one into the other. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't know what transclusions are? What are they and what are people proposing to do? Thanks, (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
A transclusion is a page being placed into another page, this is how templates work on wikis. To see how many transclusions a template has, click on "What links here" then "Transclusion count". 117Avenue (talk) 04:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Rrius made a good point on getting more people involved in this debate at WP:CANADA. I think we should help him out tomorrow. (talk) 05:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
You could also post a message at Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates as they ae well informed about this type of topic.Moxy (talk) 09:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm thinking this discussion should shift to Template talk:Infobox political post where we can discuss possibly merging aspects of the one template the anon doesn't like into the other. Notices of where the discussion is taking place could be sprinkled around all the relevant places Wikians tend to converge. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Executive powers being 'vested' by the Constitution[edit]

"...charged with advising the Canadian monarch or viceroy on the exercise of the executive powers vested in them by the constitution."

I think that this sentence is misleading as it seems to imply that these powers are bestowed by the Constitution, and not the other way around.

S.III.9 Constitution Act 1867 "The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen." The ref used to support the sentence does not vest authority in the Crown, but rather acknowledges the fact of the sovereign's already established authority and its continuation. If you look at this historically, it was the personal will of successive absolute monarchs which formed the unwritten constitution, whereas it was the sovereign who created all forms of the written constitution by signing them and bringing them into law. While the constitution limits and governs the use of such powers, these rules were brought into force by the Crown itself to create a constitutional monarchy (and obviously almost always under extreme pressure from elected representatives). Further, there are many facets of of this power/authority relationship between the PM and the Crown that are not governed by the Constitution at all, but rather by convention. Perhaps something like 'outlined in', or 'governed by' would alleviate the confusion. Trackratte (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)