Jump to content

Talk:Prime Minister of Canada/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Appointed by who?

I thought Elizabeth II (as Queen of Canada) appointed Harper Prime Minister. GoodDay (talk) 07:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it's the governor general who appoints the prime minister. All the queen's powers and responsibilities regarding the federal government are delegated to the governor general. The only appointment the queen makes herself is the governor general.Indefatigable (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
That's not entirely true. The governor general is permitted to exercise most of the Queen's powers in the federal sphere; nothing has been given up by the sovereign. However, the Constitution Act 1867 does say specifically that it is the governor general who appoints people to the Queen's Privy Council, within which the Cabinet is a sub-committee headed by the prime minister. I suppose the Queen could name members of the privy council as minister for this and that, but it has, by convention, fallen upon the governor general to do so in her name. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Regarding this, it says under term "During Her Majesty's Pleasure" as the Prime Minister is appointed by the Governor-General shouldn't it be "During the Governor-General's Pleasure" or "During His/Her Excellency's Pleasure"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.118.178 (talk) 05:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Heraldic emblem

This edit inserted an image described as the "Heraldic emblem of the Prime Minister". I've certainly never seen this emblem before and there was no supporting reliable source provided either in this article or in the image's file page. If the picture is to be included, a source is needed. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Any source for this new image.. http://pm.gc.ca/ - Not use there - [1] - Not use there ..in fact cant find this anywere. Has something changed tough they used the Coat of arms File:PMO-logo.png?.Moxy (talk) 06:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Apart from that matter, there needs to be a source for the claim that this heraldic emblem is called the "mark of the premiership" (or, is it "Mark of the Premiership")? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
There doesn't need to be any source to claim "Premiership" over "Prime Ministership", it's a matter of proper english. Either way, the mark itself is now sourced, so any doubt of it's existance is moot. Fry1989 (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, there does need to be a source for the name "mark of the Premiership of Canada", especially when an already provided source affirms that the name is "mark of the Prime Ministership of Canada". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
No there does not. It is a matter of the English language. Juts because a term is commonly used, doesn't make it right. Fry1989 (talk) 19:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Can you please explain why WP:V doesn't apply here? You are overriding a reliable source with what so far appears to be your unsupported opinion. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Enough editwarring, both of you.

I have reverted the page back to where it was before either of you started editwarring. (This revision, FYI, which I know is the The Wrong Version; perhaps we can leave that aside until a consensus is hammered out).

Please, Fry1989 and Miesianiacal, write a statement below, 200 words maximum, outlining your position on these edits. This will clarify the discussion and allow others to respond. Please refrain from any commentary about each other or each others' motives; "I think X should be Y way because Z" would be a good kind of statement to stick to. I would further ask you both to refrain from any further commentary about this issue: make your positions clear and concise and let other people hash it out without you two butting heads again. Failing that, I'm reporting you both to WP:ANEW, and I'm pretty certain you'll both be blocked. Up to you.→ ROUX ₪ 20:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Miesianiacal's position

A source needs to be provided for the name "mark of the Premiership of Canada". According to the Royal Heraldry Society of Canada, which states that it is itself sourced from the Canadian Heraldic Authority, the augmentation is called the "mark of the Prime Ministership of Canada"; see the section "Arms" here, here, here, here, and here follow the links for each coat of arms shown here that contain the augmentation and regard the section "Arms". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

All five of those are the same link. → ROUX ₪ 21:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
So they are; my mistake; different pages have the same url; I should have noticed that. Post fixed. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Fry1989's position

My position is that "Premiership" is the proper English-language term. That is all. Messianical and I both agree that the emblem belongs on the page somewhere, so removing it is silly. The emblem IS sourced, from multiple sources, so whether people have seen it before or not isn't relevant. It exists, and belongs here. Fry1989 (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Walter (below), per sources, we know exactly how it is used, as an augmentation of honour in coats of arms granted to Prime Ministers who seek a personal arms. This is also something Mess and I agree on. The only issue is the language. Fry1989 (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Fry, could you please try again, but outlining exactly where and how you think it should be displayed and why? Thanks. → ROUX ₪ 20:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Exactly where it was before you reverted and removed it. In the priveledges section, Mmessianiacal added the paragraph about how PM's can be granted a personal arms by the Canadian Heraldic Authority, and that this mark is an augmentation of honour for the Premiership. The mark is placed alongside this paragraph as illustration of the mark in reference. Again, THE ONLY arguement he and I have is "Premiership" v. "Prime Ministership". Everything else we agree on and have sourced, so removing it was silly. Fry1989 (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I reverted to get the article back to where it was before the two of you started editwarring, nothing more. It is certainly not an endorsement of one side or the other. I want to be totally clear, here: you two have come to an agreement on placement, sizing, everything except the use of 'Premiership' or 'Prime Ministership,' is that correct? → ROUX ₪ 20:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, the size, idk. But it appears he has conceeded that using the default thimb makes it too big, based upon his not reverting back to it in his last edit. But yes, everything except the language, we agree on. Fry1989 (talk) 20:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Can you please provide your sources for the use of 'Premiership' either in this context, or showing that it is a synonym for 'Prime Ministership'? → ROUX ₪ 21:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
The Cambridge Dictionary (amoungst others) HERE. "Prime Ministership is not a proper word. Fry1989 (talk) 21:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. → ROUX ₪ 21:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Community discussion

This is the first time I've seen the emblem and so it's really not that prominent. I can understand why it's not easy to come up with references or sources for how it's used. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The fact that it is an emblem is not at issue. The lack of prominence is or recognition by the general public. In short, it's not really that important to the vast majority of those who read the article and could be safely removed without diminishing the quality of the rest of the article. The same could not be said for the flag of Canada, the Queen's coat of arms, or several other more prominent symbols used in the nation. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 4:27 pm, Today (UTC−4)
Hardly. That it is the only common symbol of all Prime Ministers (as there is no "Seal of the PM" or personal flag like for the GG and Queen") is the very reason it SHOULD be included. Fry1989 (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Nitpick: not all; Sir John didn't have it in his arms. [2] → ROUX ₪ 20:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm aware of that. He was our First PM, and this mark is obviously a more recent thing. However, it is still called the mark of the Premiership, meaning it is a symbol of the Office, common to all PMs henceforth. Fry1989 (talk) 21:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
This isn't really relevant to the discussion related to the article, but it really isn't seen. Show me where it's on display. More importantly, walk down any street and ask someone what it symbolises and you'll get blank stares or possibly comments like "it's probably Canada's 4H logo. I will go out on a limb and say that it has no inherent association with the prime minister of Canada in the minds of 99% of the population. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I dont see any indication its now a standard or mandatory etc. We can easily say it been adopted into the coat of arms by 5 of the 22 Prime Ministers - but to imply to our readers its now the modern "symbol of the Office" is a bit much i think.Moxy (talk) 21:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Walter, the job of Wikipedia is to educate and inform. That people don't know about it is another reason why it should be included. Moxy, if you click on the coats of arms themselves, it gives you the official blazon from the CHA, which called it the mark of the Premiership. Also, you should notice, that since Prime Ministers must seek (ask) for a personal arms(rather than automatically having them granted), and not all have, that ofcourse, not all PMs will have it. If you read the paragraphj as it was before Roux's changes, you would see that it in no way suggests it's a "modern symbol of office". It explicitly describes it as an augmentation of honour for coats of arms granted to Prime Ministers of Canada. Fry1989 (talk) 21:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Can you please be specific about where the Royal Heraldry Society/Canadian Heraldic Authority calls it the "mark of the Premiership"? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Premiership, Prime Ministership, it's thee xact same office, it's simply a matter of difference in the correct adjective. Please stop splitting hairs. Fry1989 (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Fry, it pains me to have to agree with Miesianiacal here, but he is correct. We cannot ever use a fact unsupported by the reference given. In the article is a direct quote, therefore that quote must be exactly from the source as written. That's one of the most basic tenets of Wikipedia content policy. → ROUX ₪ 22:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I have no problems with agreeing with M, even though it's infrequent when it happens, and it must be referenced. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Summary

Okay, here's what I see:

  1. The emblem in question has been used on the arms of five of the six prime ministers who have sought an award of arms. ref
  2. The Cambridge dictionary states that 'premiership' is the appropriate word to describe holding the office of Prime Minister, or to describe the term of office. ref. Conversely, Merriam-Webster uses 'prime ministership' as an acceptable word.ref
  3. The Canadian Heraldic Authority uses 'Prime Ministership' to describe the emblem 1 2345 (note: I know these are from the RHSC website, but past experience has proven to me that they only quote verbatim from the National Register, the early volumes of which are not yet available online)
  4. The text of the article stated that the mark is called the "mark of the Premiership of Canada" ; this term is not found anywhere in the source(s) provided. The only Google result for that specific phrase is a cached version of this very article.

I believe these are dry facts, and lay out the basic dispute.

While it is true that 'premiership' appears to be the more correct usage in English (I personally prefer Cambridge over M-W), there appears to be a lack of unanimity amongst dictionary sources. It would, therefore, be impossible for us to rely solely on a dictionary definition for the use of the term. Additionally, it is incorrect to state that the mark is called the "mark of the Premiership of Canada" without a supporting reference; to do otherwise is a violation of WP:SYN at best, and an inadvertent, though understandable and good faith (we should strive for proper English usage, obviously) misrepresentation of the source at worst. According to the reference provided, we can only use the term "mark of the Prime Ministership".

I propose the following change to the text:

The Canadian Heraldic Authority has granted former prime ministers an augmentation of honour on their personal coat of arms, should they choose to pursue them. The heraldic badge, referred to by the CHA as the mark of the Prime Ministership of Canada, consists of four red maple leaves joined at the stem on a white field (Argent four maple leaves conjoined in cross at the stem Gules); to date, the augmentation has always been granted on a canton, a small square division on the upper-left corner of the shield.[1][2][3][4][5] To date, the following former prime ministers have been granted arms with the augmentation: Pierre Trudeau,[1] Joe Clark,[2] John Turner,[3] Brian Mulroney,[4] and Kim Campbell.[5]

I believe this wording satisfies all of our content policies, and I have taken the liberty of making the references more granular by linking them to the specific pages on the RHSC website ({{cite web}} details I can fill in automatically later via Toolserver). This wording also leaves room for adding the term 'premiership' as used in this context when a reference can be found for it.

Fry, I recognise and applaud your desire to use correct English on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, we cannot assert that X is called Y when the source used states that X is called Z. → ROUX ₪ 22:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b http://www.heraldry.ca/arms/t/trudeau.htm
  2. ^ a b http://www.heraldry.ca/arms/c/clark.htm
  3. ^ a b http://www.heraldry.ca/arms/t/turner_j.htm
  4. ^ a b http://www.heraldry.ca/arms/m/mulroney.htm
  5. ^ a b http://www.heraldry.ca/arms/c/campbell_k.htm
Actually, we can. An example would be that a recent study showed that about 30% of legislative texts inadvertantly used American spelling instead of Canadian spelling. Mistakes are made all the time, that doesn't mean we have to encourage them. Premiership is the proper term, Prime Ministership is not a proper word. I must and will insist on Premiership. Fry1989 (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry Fry, but no we cannot. We cannot ever assert that a source says something which it does not say. Please reread WP:V; "verifiability, not truth." I agree that 'premiership' is the correct word in English usage. But there's no source supporting that formulation which I can find. Likewise, if we were to quote those 30% of legislative texts, we would have to quote the American spelling even though it's wrong. → ROUX ₪ 22:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Quote the words, not the spelling. Canadian spelling is still in effect, just because the person who wrote the text is indifferent or ignorant doesn't obligate us to encourage such behaviour. Now, in directly quoting it in the paragraph, I have no problem with Prime Ministership. However, in the discription of the illustration itself, Premiership must be used. Fry1989 (talk) 22:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Quoting the words is exactly what we are doing when we say that we must use 'Prime Ministership.' And in any case, no; quoting means repeating the source verbatim. One can elide bits by using an ellipsis, change capitalisation or pronouns by the addition of square brackets, or even include [sic] to indicate misspelling. What we cannot do is change actual words. It is deliberate misrepresentation of the source to do so. Again, verifiability not truth. And no, we can't use premiership in the image caption either, because (again) that usage is not supported by any sources. Again, the only hit on google for that formulation is this very article. → ROUX ₪ 22:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but it's not acceptable. Wikipedia is not meant to misinform. I see absolutely no reasons why we cannot use Prime Ministership in italics in the paragraph, and leave Premiership in the file discription. It's nonsense like this that is leading to the death of proper Canadian English Fry1989 (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
We can't, because there's no source supporting that usage. If you have one, please share it. But if you don't, we can't. Come on, you've been around here long enough to know our content policies; everything has to be cited to reliable and verifiable sources. You know this. I understand and agree with your concern about the death of Canadian English (frankly, I'm old enough and have absorbed enough American media through my life that I have hardly a clue anymore which is which, and this disturbs me), but Wikipedia is not the place to fight that battle. Facts must be sourced. Period. Why do you insist that this one doesn't? → ROUX ₪ 22:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I have told you why, and if you want to ignore the reasons I gave you that's too bad. I see no reason why we cannot, in th eprargraph directly quote it as "prime ministership" in italics, and in the image description, use premiership, which is actually a word and the correct term. Fry1989 (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
"Mark of the Prime Ministership of Canada" is clearly the name given to a specific thing, a proper noun. It would therefore not be correct English usage to change that designation to something else. It isn't up to us to decide what this emblem is called; the CHA has decided that, and it is to be called the "mark of the Prime Ministership of Canada". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Because, Fry, there is simply not a single reference to support your usage. What part of this is unclear?→ ROUX ₪ 15:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Roux, I have given you my reasons for my stance on the matter. If you don't like them, that's too bad, but don't get snippy with me. Fry1989 (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not being snippy, I'm being clear. Policy is clear on the matter. There are no references supporting the usage you wish to use. We cannot use facts which are uncited. Your personal feelings, no matter how much I may agree with you concerning proper English usage, aren't really relevant. → ROUX ₪ 20:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Do you have a reference, one that we can look at, or do we simply have to rely on your word? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I already gave a source Walter. Now, just add the damn thing and I'll leave it alone, but when you use terms like "what part of this is unclear", that is snippy. Fry1989 (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not adding anything. For the record, I didn't I never used the phrase "what part of this is unclear". Thanks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
That was clearly in reference to Roux's post. I'm not being difficult, I said add the thing to the page and I'll let it be. Fry1989 (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't being snippy, I am honestly baffled here. There is no reference supporting the use of 'mark of the premiership' as a term. Not a single one. I am trying to understand what you don't understand about our content policies so that we can fix your misunderstanding and move on in a productive manner. I'm going to ask you some questions, and I would appreciate simple yes or no answers. 1) wikipedia content policies require that all information be sourced. yes or no? 2) the term of art 'mark of the prime ministership' is sourced, yes or no? 3) the term of art 'mark of the premiership' is sourced, yes or no? → ROUX ₪ 00:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I think Roux's proposed wording is perfectly fine, except for one very minor point: eliminate the repetition of "to date"; perhaps the words "to date, the augmentation has always been granted on a canton" could be modified to "the augmentation has, so far, always been granted on a canton", or something to that effect. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

That's actually not true. Trudeau's arms had the mark in a chief, not a canton. Fry1989 (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Then change "the augmentation has always been granted on a canton" to "the augmentation has been granted either on a canton or in a chief". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Why do we have to specify it? Isn't saying that it's an augmentation of honour in PM's coats of arms enough? Most people wouldn't know what a canton is anyways, nevermind the even less common term "chief". Fry1989 (talk) 05:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't need to be specified, I suppose. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I am just catching up on this thread now, however I might point you towards this discussion (a request to delete Premiership of Stephen Harper that ended up resulting in the page being moved to Prime Ministership of Stephen Harper.) I think that the situation here is that while premiership is the correct term in UK English, it is not used to describe the federal prime minister in Canadian English. I suppose that this may be a result of us having both premiers and prime ministers and that one might want to ensure that they distinguish between the two offices. But that is just a theory on my part. However, while there seemed to be consensus in that debate that one uses prime ministership rather than premiership in Canada, no source was provided to demonstrate as such. - Pictureprovince (talk) 11:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

This & the other Commonweath PM Infoboxes...

...needs to be changed, so that only the office of Governor General is shown as the appointer. This article is about the office of Prime Minister, not the individuals who held it or the individuals who appointed them. GoodDay (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. Current prime minister is relevant. Past are as well. Not sure what the exact issue is. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Agree with GoodDay, it should be about the office. 117Avenue (talk) 04:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Infobox again

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

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:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_the_United_Kingdom

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minister_for_Foreign_Affairs_%28Australia%29

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PM_of_India

5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_of_Defense

6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China

7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_France

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? 174.7.90.110 (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? 174.7.90.110 (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. 174.7.90.110 (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... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chancellor_of_the_Exchequer, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_of_State_for_Foreign_and_Commonwealth_Affairs, 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.)
Australia
United States
Germany
China
EU
Iran
Russia (somewhat)
174.7.90.110 (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? 174.7.90.110 (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: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_heads_of_state_and_government ::174.7.90.110 (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. 174.7.90.110 (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. 174.7.90.110 (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. 174.7.90.110 (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. 174.7.90.110 (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? 174.7.90.110 (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? 174.7.90.110 (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. 174.7.90.110 (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). 174.7.90.110 (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC) You can see what I am saying by looking at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_heads_of_state_and_government. The monarchs are the only one with the old template. 174.7.90.110 (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 (talk • contribs) 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? 174.7.90.110 (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. 174.7.90.110 (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. 174.7.90.110 (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Here is the link again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_heads_of_state_and_government 174.7.90.110 (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. 174.7.90.110 (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 (talk • contribs) 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? 174.7.90.110 (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. 174.7.90.110 (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. 174.7.90.110 (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. 174.7.90.110 (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...? 174.7.90.110 (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? 174.7.90.110 (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... 174.7.90.110 (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 (talk • contribs) 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? 174.7.90.110 (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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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. 174.7.90.110 (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)
Absolutely:
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. 174.7.90.110 (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. 174.7.90.110 (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. 174.7.90.110 (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. 174.7.90.110 (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, 174.7.90.110 (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. 174.7.90.110 (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

"...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)

Role and Authority Clarification

"Further, the prime minister plays a prominent role in the legislative process—with the majority of bills put before parliament originating in the Cabinet—and the leadership of the Canadian Forces." -> This seems to suggest that the Prime Minister leads or is head of the Canadian forces, which they are not. The Governer General does both, though on advice from the Prime Minister. I might suggest the alteration to, "...originating in the Cabinet—and advising the Governer General on the leadership of the Canadian Forces." Physicsguy2 (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Prime Minister of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2015

Prime Minister is now Justin Trudeau, changed name, page image, and party details. DraftyHead (talk) 02:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not. If there is to be a new prime minister, it will not be until the Governor General has appointed that person as such. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

 Not done I'm sorry. Until Mr. Trudeau has been sworn-in, the prime minister is still Mr. Harper. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2015

Change Prime Minister to current Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, preceded by Stephen Harper. Change the image as well to this one: http://www.obj.ca/media/photos/unis/2014/02/27/2014-02-27-02-46-00-Official%20Picture%202012%20low%20res.jpg

Stenzor (talk) 04:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

 Not done I'm sorry. Until Mr. Trudeau has been sworn-in, the prime minister is still Mr. Harper. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, that image cannot be used as it is copyrighted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2015

Stephen Harper is no longer Prime Minister should be changed to Justin Trudeau, as the Conservative Party should change and be replaced with the Liberal Party. These changes need to be fixed since Justin Trudeau recently won the 2015 election. Rosewoodslies (talk) 04:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

 Not done See the two sections immediately above. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2015

Please change the Prime Minister of Canada to Justin Trudeau of the Liberal Party of Canada given the Canadian Federal Election on this night of October 19th. Sources can be found on Elections Canada on the morning of the 20th

Bossaer (talk) 04:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

 Not done See the three sections immediately above. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2015

-snip- read above Nickinpie (talk) 05:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

 Not done --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2015

I am sorry I did not see there were previous answers. Baumanre (talk) 05:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Privileges

Some clarification required regarding the last two sentences of the first paragraph. It suggests that the total remuneration is $163,700 part of which is an MP's salary. This is not the case, an MP's normal salary is $163,700 and there's an additional salary for the role of Prime Minister. I'd rather discuss the change before making it. So very Canadian I know ... gfreeman (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

If you have sources to back it up, feel free to insert whatever relevant material you have. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Prime Minister-designate

Following Stephen Harper's win in 2006 the into section was edited clarifying the difference between the current PM under the caretaker Government and the designated-PM. I think this should be added, if for nothing other then to stop people from editing the page until he is sworn in. 192.0.170.74 (talk) 12:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

We use one PM at a time. Also, Canada doesn't use the caretaker government terminology. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
"Caretaker government" and "designated-PM" are informal terms, so not clearly defined. TFD (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Duration of office

As has been several times in edit summaries, the need for an election does not limit the term of the PM's office. Think of it this way, a US president is limited to two terms, a Canadian can have multiple terms, and, as with Macdonald, Meighen, King and P. Trudeau, can be defeated and re-elected. No such thing as a term. I'm removing the parameter to avoid this edit war. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

See list of Prime Ministers of Canada and King was PM over six elections and was in office for more than twenty years! Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I can see where you and 117Avenue are coming from. I suppose my only issue is that the term "At Her Majesty's Pleasure" is difficult for the average reader to understand. I know it is not exactly a "term length", but I thought I would add the information on federal elections as they provide some information as to what is required for a prime minister to continue with his term; and considering this information is posted on the articles of other Westminster offices, I did not see a problem with adding it in. Having said that, I can see where the inaccuracy in including the information may arise, so I will not push the issue. Someone may want to edit the information boxes on other prime ministerial articles, as I would think the same issue would be a problem there as well.
Best, Nations United (talk) 06:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't like the term either, but technically, the electorate only assist the crown in the decision, and the PM must address the crown before dissolving parliament. Technically, the crown may determine that an election need not be called and instead the opposition should rule. It was suggested several years ago, but I do not know that it has ever happened. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
With that said, the infobox should summarize the contents of the article. If terms are not sufficiently explained in the article, that, and not the infobox, should be fixed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

There seems to have been an attempt or attempts to pack an awful lot of inapplicable or only broadly applicable info into the infobox. For instance, according to the definition of "seat", the prime minister cannot have one. Also, "Government of Canada" is a term under which a number of people fall, how many depending on the use of the phrase. Thus, the benefit of it being in the infobox (or its place therein, at least) is unclear. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

One serves as Prime Minister of Canada until one resigns, dies or is dimissed by the governor general. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, neither the rules of election and parliament set out in the constitution, or the elections act, affect the office of Prime Minister. The Governor General can keep or dismiss the Prime Minister, with or without the dissolution of parliament, and with or without the drop of the writs. The infobox is correct in that the Prime Minister's term is within the discretion of the monarch. 117Avenue (talk) 03:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
It's not incorrect, it's unnecessarily vague. The crown has not arbitrarily removed a sitting PM in Canada since the BNA act was instituted. Having to click through to the article to understand (in part) what it means isn't particularly helpful. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Arbitrarily? No, the crown has never made a decision arbitrarily. But there is no legislation requiring him/her to remove the Prime Minister. 117Avenue (talk) 03:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Suggesting there is legislation, is original research. 117Avenue (talk) 05:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • In today's world there has to be a limit for any elected official's term such as a PM in office.Obviously there is a reason behind it as with any other law that they limit such a term.The most obvious would be the corruption that comes with power.If needed a new legislation has to be introduced and like most democratic countries eight years or two terms should be the maximum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.152.149 (talk) 13:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
But as has been pointed out, there is no limit. Your personal analysis notwithstanding. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Mention should be made to fixed election dates created by the 2007 An Act to amend the Fair Elections Act. Edits to this effect have been denied despite need, proper referencing, and considerable effort.

Considerable effort seems to have recently gone into an attempt to have the article say the Elections Act limits a prime ministers time in office. But, no proper referencing was provided to back that up. (Likely because it simply isn't true.) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The duration of parliaments is limited to five years under the constitution and four years under legislation. But the Prime Minister stays in office during an election. If they win the election, they continue to govern with the same ministry number without any interuption. If they lose, they stay in power until the new PM is finally sworn in. Nothing limits a PM's term length other than the GG saying so. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Why are you using bullets to reply? It's not the governor general who has the say so, it is the people of Canada. No GG would interfere with the will of the people since that was done in the 1970s in Australia. The rest of what Ħ and Arctic Gnome say is true. There are not limits to term office. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
If Govenor General David Johnston had refused Harper & Cabinet's resignation & thus refused to appoint Trudeau & Cabinet to office (which he could have done), it's likely that the Canadian monarch (who resides at Buckingham Palace, in the UK) would've ove-ruled Johnston & accepted the resignatons & made the appointments. GoodDay (talk) 06:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
We're off-topic now, but do read 1975 Australian constitutional crisis. Johnston could not have refused either and stayed in his post. It would have likely also have caused a referendum on being a constitutional monarchy. Walter Görlitz (talk)

Infobox: concerning length of term

An observation: Should we include the House of Commons role? see Prime Minister of Australia & more so Prime Minister of New Zealand, as examples. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The Prime Minister stays in office after dissolution of Parliament, so Australia's wording is misleading. It would be more accurate to say something like "so long as they have confidence of the House, which faces re-election every four years". —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
That's a bit too much for an infobox. The infobox is only supposed to summarise the most basic facts about the subject of the article.
Also, the commons doesn't necessarily face election every four years; parliament can be dissolved and an election called pretty well any time before four years past the last election. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Parliament can be dissolved before 4 years, as Harper (who brought in the 4 year rule) did in 2011 or beyond 5 years as in 1917. And Parliament's role in choosing the PM is unofficial. TFD (talk) 08:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually, a snap election was called in 2008. The Harper gov't was pushed into an election in 2011, via the opposition defeating them on a non-confidence motion. GoodDay (talk) 13:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Qualifications

The statement "There are no age or citizenship restrictions on the position of prime minister itself" seems to need referencing. Surely there must be some citizenship restrictions? 1305cj (talk) 06:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Anyone can become PM. However, practically, it is an MP, so the person must be at least 18 and a citizen. PM is not an elected position, but an appointed one, the governor general asks someone to form a government. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I kinda figured that, but the way it was worded isn't clear. Just as a point, with no citizenship restrictions -is Ted Cruz eligible to be Prime Minister of Canada? 1305cj (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
If he, or anyone, can get the confidence of the House yeah. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC
Two prime ministers have been senators, and I believe between 3 and 5 were prime minister at some point while they were not MPs, one of which was not part of parliament at all (not part of the Commons nor the Senate). Nowadays though, if a PM is not an MP, an MP from their party would be expected to vacate their seat in a "safe riding" for the PM to run in a byelection. trackratte (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
John Turner, frex, was neither an MP nor a senator during his term as Prime Minister; he was said to have "governed from the hallway", and didn't actually hold a seat in the House until the election in which he lost the prime ministership. Bearcat (talk) 21:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Prime Minister of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prime_Minister_of_Canada/Archive_2&oldid=1146655891"