Talk:Prime Minister of Canada/Archive 1

Graphical Timeline
I have added a new graphical timeline similar to the one over at President of the United States. I hope it is useful. If anyone sees any errors or if you are better at manipulating those EasyTimelines than I am... - Lucky13pjn 20:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * A timeline was already created at Template:Prime Ministers of Canada timeline. That timeline has exact dates, not just the year. I suggest some sort of merge. I'd do it, but I dont have the time. Zhatt  19:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with a merge vote.
 * but also, the 3 blues used in the current one are almost indistinguishable. --Quiddity 07:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I just checked and, in fact, they are the same colour. Zhatt  08:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Because they are essentially the same party. The difference between the historical and current Tories might present a problem though. - Lucky13pjn 04:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

books by Prime Ministers
I have created a page List of books by the Prime Ministers of Canada to list the books written by (not about) former Prime Ministers. Dowew 02:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Too soon to say Harper will be PM?
I'm not from Canada so I may have missed something along the way somewhere, but I don't understand how people have come to the conclusion that Harper will be PM. It seems to me that there are still a few seats where a handful of votes could swing the result. A Prime minister would need to be able to secure the confidence of the House. Normally in a situation where no party has a majority, parties enter into negotiations to try to secure support for a confidence vote. Wouldn't the numbers would seem to suggest that Martin could potentially secure the support of the BQ and NDP to form Government, or have the other two parties already ruled out their support for the Liberals and pledged it to teh Conservatives? -- Adz|talk 05:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

There is also parliamentary tradition that says that the party that wins the largest number of seats gets the first crack at forming a government. The one time this custom was not followed, we ended up with a consitutional crisis (see King-Byng Affair.) Also, Martin has now conceded defeat. While niether the BQ nor the NDP are natural allies for the Conservatives, all parties (except the BQ) will be expected to try to make the new Parliament work. Voters would likely punish a party that forces a new election too quickly by being obtructionist. Ground Zero | t 05:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It seems that the CBC and others seem to have accepted a Conservative Government as a given, so I guess that is the way it will be (and the fact that Martis said he will stand down), but it just seems so different to what happend in germany for example, or New Zealand, where the parties spent weeks negotiating who would be PM. Is there a precedent in Canada for a Government to change without an election? The process, as I've always understood it, is that the Governor General (or equivalent) would offer the leader of the largest party the option of forming Gov't, and if that leader was unable to do so, they would then see if another party could form Government. In 1996 in Queensland, following a by-election where the Government lost a majority, the Government faced a vote f no confidence on the floor of the Parliament, and the Leader of the opposition then formed a Government without the need for a General election. One would think that a similar process could take place in Canada without an election necessarilly being triggered when a minority Government lost a confidence vote. -- Adz|talk 06:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There are a couple of precedents for a change in government without an election: Mackenzie took over from Macdonald in 1873 following a vote of non-confidence; Mackenzie called a general election a few months later, which he won. In 1926, during the King-Byng Affair, Meighan took over from King, but then he quickly lost a confidence motion, called an election, and King won a majority. In the current case, forming a coalition with the Bloc or even an informal alliance is unthinkable for both Conservatives and Liberals, the NDP does not have enough seats to make a coalition with either of the big 2 workable, and the Liberals would quickly lose a confidence motion if they tried to continue as government. A Conservative minority with Harper as PM is the only option. He will have to get support from the Liberals or the Bloc for each of his major bills on a case-by-case basis. If this fails in the first year or so, we may indeed see the GG give the Liberals a try without another election. Indefatigable 17:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In the Ontario general election, 1985, the incumbent PC Party won 52 seats, the Liberals won 48 seats and the NDP won 30. The PC Party returned to the Legislature, and introduced a Speech from the Throne to attempt to continue to govern, despite the public knowledge that the Liberals had meade a deal with the NDP for support. The Liberals and NDP moved non-confidence in the government, and it was defeated. The Lieutenant Governor asked the leader of the Libveral Party to form a government. The government, with fewer seats than the Official Opposition, governed for two years with the support of the third party. No coalition was formed. 17:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for these two explanations. It's has helped make sense of it all from a distance. Sometimes its difficult to understand local context from far away. -- Adz|talk 23:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

PM-designate or PM-elect
I seem to recall that during other transitional periods following elections the term "PM-elect" was used rather than "PM-designate". However, during the time before Martin's swearing in, the term "PM-designate" had to be used because he had not been "elected" by the Canadian people at large in any direct or indirect way. I don't want to do any editing until I get confirmation because I'm not 100% sure my recollection is correct. Indefatigable 17:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

"PM-elect" is a term used by media people who have picked the term up from US politics where the president is elected. The prime minister is not elected. Members of Parliament are elected. It is incorrect in the Canadian context to use the term "PM-elect". "PM-designate" is not an official designation, but it is commonly used. In fact, it would mkae more sense to use PM-elect in the Martin case because he was elected by his party, which had a majority in parliament, but let's avoid importing a US term that doesn't make sense in the canadian context. Ground Zero | t 17:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "PM-designate" is the more appropriate and sensible term. Let's hope the media settle on it this time. Indefatigable 18:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Correct. As the PM is not elected but appointed, calling him PM-elect is factually incorrect. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 19:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing as a PM-elect in the Westminster system as PMs are not elected, but rather appointed by the monarch (or a Governor General in the Commonwealth realms). Also, "president-elect" in the US context is used to refer to a person who has already been elected president, but is still waiting the end of the previous presidential term in order to be sworn-in. That is really not the case in the UK, where a sitting PM normally resigns the day after his/her party's defeat in a general election and the Queen immediately calls upon the leader of the winning party to form a new government. Parliament doesn't have to be in session at the time and the new PM doesn't have to wait for a new Parliament to be convened before he can be sworn-in. I don't know how it works in Canada, but I'd suppose it should be similar. 200.177.7.127 (talk) 13:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

From the Senate
Who were the PMs who governed from the Senate? DJ Clayworth 18:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The two prime ministers to govern from the Senate were the Rt. Hon. Sir John Abbott and the Rt. Hon. Sir Mackenzie Bowell. It should be noted too, perhaps, that the Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Tupper governed for a part of his term without a seat in either house of Parliament. FiveParadox 02:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well John Turner spent his whole term as PM outside of the House, and several others Kim Campbell, King stand out in my mind have lost their seats in elections and thus been PM without a seat. - Jord 14:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Main image
Is it not a bit early to have Stephen Harper's image at the top of the page already? Technically, he is still only Prime Minister-designate. I'm thinking his image should only go up once Martin is off the scene. Riyehn 02:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Might be worth having, but it's interesting to note that in the edits in the last day or so, both Martin and Chretien have vanished. One, or both, should be restored. Nfitz 05:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

PM Infobox too big!
Infobox PM on all the Prime Ministers pages are way too big, and need fixing. SFrank85 01:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedic Language
"Too Much Power?" is kind of a charged title. I rephrased and deleted unencyclopedic language and framed criticisms more generally than the previous version, which was focussed on evaluating the Prime Minister vis-a-vis the American Presidency. If a comparison was to be made in a criticism of something like party discipline and motions of confidence, it is more relevant to use the British Parliament, where more votes are free due to different protocol regarding motions of confidence. Still, I don't think an incomplete comparison of the PM to the POTUS on the matter of party discipline is all that crucial to include. Lotusland 08:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Right Honourable Title
It seems like someone took out all the Right Honourable titles from every individual prime minister page, should this be put back up? --130.15.219.161 23:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I definitely think it should be done. I have no idea why so many of those titles were removed in the first place. The Fwanksta (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"succession"
I removed the section that was added concerning Harper's "succession" list, as I believe there was misunderstanding about both the history behind this, and the purpose. First off, to deal with the purpose, it is not meant as a list of succession. It is a prioritized list as to who can act in the absence of the PM, and is in effect nothing more than a list of alternate signing authority (ie. PM is overseas, and something needs to be signed, who do they go to). Also, there is nothing historic about Harper doing this list. It is quite standard for a PM, upon having had his Cabinet sworn in, to issue an OiC outlining those who can act on his behalf, as well as alternate ministers. As just one example, I will link the OiC from when Martin was sworn in, the only difference from the current format being that it clearly indicates the Deputy PM is first, and then proceeds down the list in order of precedence. It would appear that Harper has mixed his list up a little more, but that's it.

That is correct should he die/become unable to do his job an acting prime minister would be appointed by the party. They would then hold a leadership convention, and the new leader would be sworn in as Prime Minister.
 * Not necessarily. They might just appoint a caucus member and that would be the end of it.  They would probably do what you mentioned, but there are many other things that "might" happen.Habsfannova 01:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Clean-up
In my opinion, this article needs to be seriously modified...half of it just seems to be complaining about how much power the PM has, and even factual sections are lumped in the "Criticisms" section. I think we should concentrate more on the historical gaining of power by the office then just having the complaints. Just like to see what the consensus is.Habsfannova 23:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more. HistoryBA 14:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Ellen Fairclough
Can she be footnoted here, under Diefenbaker's entry? -- Zanimum 15:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Why? HistoryBA 15:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I am assuming because she was acting PM for a two days - Jord 16:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Would we include every "acting prime minister" in Canada's history? HistoryBA 17:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I am, by no means, suggesting that, just trying to answer your question ;) - Jord 00:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I should have made it clear that I'm not posing the question to you, but to the person who first raised the issue. HistoryBA 03:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Parents of the Prime Ministers
I'd like to create an article listing the parents of the Prime Ministers, but I need to know the parents of Clark, Turner, Campbell and Chretien which are not listed in their articles. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've found them all, I just need Kim Campell's mothers' maiden name. --Curlingstub.png Earl Andrew - talk 06:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

minor suggestion
Regarding; "The Prime Minister, along with the other ministers of the Cabinet, is formally appointed by the Governor General on behalf of the Queen." Would it not be better if read "The Prime Minister and the other ministers of the Cabinet are formally appointed by the Governor General on behalf of the Queen." or "The Prime Minister is formally appointed by the Governor General on behalf of the Queen."? 70.48.205.78 01:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The best description of the system would be: "The Prime Minister is appointed by the Governor General on behalf of the Queen. The other members of the cabinet are then formally appointed by the Governor General upon nomination by the Prime Minister. " That emphasizes the important point that the PM, not the Crown, chooses who will be in the cabinet, whereas the Queen (or her GG in Canada) chooses who will be PM based on the strength of each political party in the House of Commons. 200.177.7.127 (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Can-pol w.jpg
Image:Can-pol w.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Canada Election Act 2007
Where in the aforementioned Act is it written that an early election can be called only in the event of a vote of no confidence ? As far as I read it, the 2007 act says clearly that nothing therein restricts the power of the Governor General to dissolve Parliament and call an election whenever he/she wants (in fact, any provision otherwise would be unconstitutional). Therefore, in theory, the PM is still capable of advising the GG to call an early election even in the absence of a no-confidence vote. I agree though that in practice, as a matter of unwritten convention, PMs will refrain from doing so given that the act does contain an explicit default fixed date for elections to be held in the absence of early dissolutions.

In other words, I believe that the claim that elections from now on will not be called earlier (i.e. on a date other than the default date) unless the government is defeated in the House is, in practical terms, factually correct. However, I think it is factually incorrect to say that is so because the 2007 Act explicitly excludes any other possibility. Please correct the text. 200.177.7.127 (talk) 13:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This has since been challenged in court. As a result, Harper requesting the writ being dropped before the 4 year term was vindicated. Thus, all the act really managed to do in law was to ensure an election at least once every four years, as opposed to the possibility of a five year mandate previously enjoyed by the Government of the day. Dphilp75 (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

PM Leader of Party With the Most Seats
In the opening of the article it reads: "The Prime Minister is almost invariably the leader of the political party that holds the largest number of seats in the House of Commons." Was there ever a PM who wasn't the leader of the party with the most seats? The Qualifications and selection section provides no information stating if this is possible. --142.68.189.28 (talk) 04:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes there was. The 1925 minority of William Lyon Mackenzie King. See Minority governments in Canada. -- Neil N    talk  ♦  contribs  04:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've reworked that section hopefully adequately. -- The Fwanksta (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Trudeau, Turner, Chretien, and Pearson.jpg
The image Image:Trudeau, Turner, Chretien, and Pearson.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --18:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Prime Minister not directly elected.
In comparison the US listing for US president...the US president is not 'directly' elected...however you do vote for a President...the difference is that each state gets electoral votes....?

In Canada the name of the Prime Minister does not appear on the ballot...you vote for a local MP and if he or she belongs to a party, then 'the party rep' gets a vote, based on the seat...

I hope someone finds the time and words to explain this detail on the site...

Good luck....The Truth, and not merely truths will set us free...

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Done, hopefully to your satisfaction. -- The Fwanksta (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms of Prime Ministerial Power
I've done a bit of reworking there to provide sources and remove weasel words, but there's still some more for me to do. I figured I'd get a section going here on the talk page for anyone to give me some suggestions on how that section is coming along. I also hope to work on this article in general, but I'm unfortunately a little busy at school right now. -- The Fwanksta (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Mandate
I have an issue with this section referring to the GG avoiding contradiction with an Act of Parliament. An Act of Parliament which would interfere with the GG's/HM's power to appoint a Prime Minister or drop a writ, would be Unconstitutional. This is exactly why the Canadian Elections Act 2007 stated that nothing with in the Act would remove any ability of the GG/HM to do so. This has also been the opinion of several Constitutional experts (Professor Ned Franks for one) and a Court Case brought against Harper for requesting the dropping an "early" writ was dismissed for lack of understanding of the separation of powers.

I plan on removing the reference to this unless someone can come up with a better argument? Dphilp75 (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Infobox
I think the infobox should be changed to the one that the Prime Minister of the UK and the President of the US have. It look much more professional and has more info, like the residence and website. I have tried to change it but someone keeps cahnging it back so I would like to disscuss it here and see what everyone thinks. Tell me if you like it or not. (To see what it would look like see the President of the US or Prime Minister of the UK page.)

174.7.14.105 (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you wanted more information in the box, all you had to do was change the template or ask someone to do it for you. I have put into the template used here the additional slots the other one has.
 * The template you keep deleting was designed so as to use a colour coding system to differentiate between ministers in simple states and federations, as well as between federal and provincial/state ministers in the latter. You are not entitled to bulldoze all of that out of the way because you don't like it or because of what's done on other pages (though, the infobox employed here is used on other articles as well). -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay... I still don't agree. The Prime Minister of the UK has almost the exact same job as the Prime Minster of Canada so they should have the same infobox. It makes no difference. It would look better and more professional and the info it the same. I don't care if it was designed for whatever. When something needs to be changed to something more modern and better looking we should change it. I am willing to change all the provincial and federal position that have that. I will do it because i believe it looks much better. Lets just see what everyone else thinks befopre you change it back.

174.7.14.105 (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You've already seen what I think; per WP:BRD it is you who should cease and decist with the reverting and discuss your changes before they are implemented. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  23:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. We should stop here and see what people think. Lets leave it like this and wait for people's responses. 174.7.14.105 (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What you think is irrelevant. You cannot waltz in here and impose your will on the community, ignoring policy and guideline, together. What's there now stays for the time being because we've both reached our respective 3RR limit, and for no other reason. It will be restored to the long-standing consensus version as soon as possible. In the mean time, I'm working on the issues you raised r.e. the coloured infobox, despite your despicable behaviour and attitude. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  23:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

If you can make it so the words aren't slanted and look bold an professional like the other one with the other info then I will accept the original infobox. 174.7.14.105 (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am trying to do just that. Contending with your multiple revert wars is making it take some time longer, though. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  23:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Sorry. I've stopped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.14.105 (talk) 23:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Is it better now? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  23:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the Infobox back to its status before the edit spat. The onus is on the pro-changer to get an agreement. GoodDay (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Miesianiacal 174.7.14.105 (talk) 01:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Just ask next time if you don't know how to do it yourself.
 * Now, you're inserting incorrect information into the box, particularly about the Prime Minister's term. The constitutional maximum life of a parliament is completely irrelevant. The Prime Minister serves as such from the second he is appointed to that position until someone else is sworn in to replace him, regardless of whether parliament has been dissolved. Please restore the correct phrase, At Her Majesty's Pleasure. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  04:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Never mind, actually. I've managed to fix it. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  05:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * FWIW: ways the PM leaves office. 1) can be fired by the Queen (through the Governor General) - See King-Byng Affair as an example. 2) resign from office, which is what out-going PM's do. 3) die in office, such as Macdonald & Thompson. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * True. But, why did you italicise the date of Harper's appontment as PM? have you not inserted the date of Harper's appointment properly - in the right field and without italics? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was trying to get to match the other 'office incumbent' infoboxes. PS: The out-going PM has to resign before his/her successor is appointed. In theory, one could be PM permanently (until death, resignation, getting fired). Of course, the Queen/GG tend to bend to Parliament's wishes. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed to be in line with the other infoboxes, GD (as earlier noted to you elsewhere).
 * Now, I wonder if the anon (or his/her brother - difficult to tell as they use the same IP and seem to hold the exact same opinions) would care to explain why we should include code for an infobox field that doesn't exist. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  15:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Mandate rewrite
An anonymous user has, without edit summary, made sweeping changes to the Mandate section of this article that not only obliterated all references but also inserted various irrelevancies, assumptions, and generally unsupported claims and opinions. For instance, it is now implied that the dissolution of parliament and elections have some direct effect on the Prime Minister's tenure, when this is clearly not the case; a PM remains as such from the moment he's sworn in until a replacement is appointed, regardless of whether or not parliament has been dissolved, or even if he's lost his seat in an election. Similarly, it has been incorrectly assumed that there is confusion around the Canada Election Act's effect on the Governor General, and presumed that the act has some relevance to this article. Even with errors and original research removed, the newly composed section generally imparts the same information as before but in a more convoluted, repetitive way. The prior version should be restored and gradually tweaked to accomodate any valid concerns with it expressed here. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  07:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Former Prime Ministers
I have put the former prime minister section of the old Prime Minister of Canada page because it was removed at that info was lost. I think that info was important so i put it back. I also changed the privileges section back to what it originally was also because it was more constructive and the other one did not make sense at all. The other one talked about nothing to do with privileges so I changed it back. It is much more constructive. I also added the Death of the Prime Minister section back too. 174.7.14.105 (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A side note: You should be answering posts at you IP page, assuming you've seen the golden new messages bar. Ignoring them is 'bad taste'. GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What the IP claims is disingenuous; he has not just restored a former prime ministers section (again, because we must all capitulate to what he thinks is important), but has reverted half of the page to a months old version, inserting repeated info and erasing a large amount of intervening work in the process; generally, causing an immense mess. This is typical behaviour for this anon, and is intolerable. An edit warring/3RR report was filed at the appropriate place yesterday, it's been added to today, and I hope the appropriate action is taken. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No I haven't. All i did was add the Former Prime Minister and Death of the Prime Minister and changed the Privlides and Salery page. I did that because what i was before was terribl;e and made no sense. Also a lot of info was lost because those were talken away. They are important and they will stay there. 174.7.14.105 (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Before we deal with the content of the article and the evidence of what you have done, your attitude needs to be dealt with first. Making assertions as you do - such as "they are important" and "they will stay there" - reveal that you believe yourself to be singularly more important than the community as a whole and we must all submit to your authority. You are mistaken, and, unless you modify your present course, will find out just how much more force the community has than you.
 * You should restore the page to its consensus version and then discuss any problems you perceive so that they can be addressed in order and the article changed in a more stable manner. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I disscussed it and it makes sense. 174.7.14.105 (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This my way or the highway stance, is disruptive. GoodDay (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. "I think it should be this way, so shut up" is hardly a discussion. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  23:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the page to the version that's stood for some months. To address the anon's concerns:
 * The revert restoring the "Criticisms of Prime Ministerial Power" section repeated, nearly word for word, information already in "Role and authority".
 * The revert restoring the "List of Canadian Prime Ministers" section created a whole section for one link that duplicated one at the top of the "Qualifications and selection" section.
 * The revert restoring the "Salary" and "Privileges" sections split an earlier merge of the two, for no apparent benefit. It also reinstated trivial and unsourced comparisons of the Prime Minister's salary to "some of Canada's top corporate executives" (note weasel words).
 * The revert restoring the "Living former Prime Ministers" reinstated trivial information better covered at List of Prime Ministers of Canada
 * The revert restoring the "Death of the Prime Minister" reinstated a list of trivia and moved back there information that had been shifted to the "Privileges" section.

In all, the reverts achieved little, mostly decreasing the quality of the article. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  02:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

At Her Majesty's Pleasure
Perhaps it's my own republican attitude misleading me, but it seems that the de facto decision on whether or not the Prime Minister remains the Prime Minister lays in the results of the elections and not the decision of the Governor General. NorthernThunder (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be incorrect; Canadians do not elect prime ministers. As this article notes, a PM can even lose his riding in an election and still remain PM. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  23:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * In agreement with Mies. The Prime-Ministership is not an elective office. GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

First, I would like to thank everyone for giving me another chance in editing because I do know how many disruptive edits my brother has caused. Now I would like to ask if maybe the term "At Her Majesty's Pleasure" be changed to something else which is not as formal. In the paragraph it says that Parliament goes on up too 4 years

(The lifespan of parliament is limited by the constitution to five years, and, after 2007, by the Canada Elections Act to four years, though the Governor General may still, on the advice of the Prime Minister, dissolve parliament and issue the writs of election prior to the expiry of four years)

and I think instead of "At her majesty's Pleasure" we could use something else because when people want to quickly look through info about the Prime Minister they won't know what "At Her Majesty" means and they may not want to read the whole term by clicking on it. I think we should change it the something like: 4 years. Although Parlaiment can be dissolved sooner. I would like to see people opinions on this because I personally think it's too formal. 174.7.14.105 (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Prime Ministers don't serve for four year terms. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  03:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay then. Is there any way to change it to some other form of wording other than that? 174.7.14.105 (talk) 03:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As succinct as "At Her Majesty's Pleasure"? I doubt it. "Indefinite" implies a total absence of restrictions; "undefined" sounds like nobody knows, exactly. It's just an infobox entry; the detail of how the Prime Minister is selected and dismissed is given in this article's body. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  03:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why it needs to be replaced. It is quite straight-forward. The Prime Minister of Canada is a crown appointee. He doesn't have a term of office. He enters when he is appointed and exists "at Her Majesty's Pleasure" but as to function he must have a majority in parliament (or at least not a majority against him) de facto "at Her Majesty's pleasure" means in effect "by the will of parliament". So de jure he is "at Her Majesty's pleasure" but de facto he is "by the will of parliament" and by extension "the will of the people" is all works out perfectly OK, as indeed it does in the vast majority of constitutional monarchies and parliamentary republics. Why shouldn't the correct constitutional term be used? Many political scientists describe a situation where as in Canada a monarchy confirms the public will as being in effect a "crowned republic". FearÉIREANN \(caint) 04:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am in agreement that the term "At Her Majesty's Pleasure" is perfectly appropriate. The term is well known and succinct, not to mention accurate.  One of the things I rather like about Commonwealth politics is that we are deeply steeped in Traditions.  As well, the term is also used in many other systems.  For example, the Cabinet in the United States is also said to serve "At the pleasure of the President".  While I understand the OP's Republican leanings, myself as a Monarchist, I respectfully suggest that Wikipedia is not the place to attempt to disrupt what our System currently is.  Dphilp75 (talk) 13:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Premier
I used the term "premier" at one or two points in this article, merely as a synonym for "prime minister" and to avoid repetition of the latter. It seems to be causing some contention, though. I understand that in Canada the provincial prime ministers tend (outside of Quebec) to be termed "premier" while the federal premier is termed "prime minister", but is it really so bad to use "premier" on this page? I'd hate to see "prime minister" used ad nauseum. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  15:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think so. It's not a good idea because average people who do not know many things about politcs will get confused with the Premiers of provinces. It's better to use the term Prime Minister. 174.7.14.105 (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I already noted that as a possible drawback. However, use of "premier" for the federal prime minister is not unheard of, and this isn't Simple English Wikipedia.
 * Don't revert war over this, either; leave the status quo until a resolution is reached here, should there need to be one, lest you start to look like the naughty brother you blamed for your IP's last bout of disruption. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not like my brother. I am totally fine with leaving it as it is. I was just stating my opinion and I will wait to see what everyone else think before I change it. 174.7.14.105 (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Use prime minister always, when referring to the federal government head & premier when referring to provincial government head. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Clarity - for the sake of less familiar readers. Doesn't byte - the fact that prime minister being used isn't gonna make the article too long & Accuracy - the name of the article is Prime Minister of Canada not Prime Minister/Premier of Canada. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not about "too long". It's about unnecessary repetition when other words that mean the same thing are available. Using a wider vocabulary is what sets the professional works apart from the amateur. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  03:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In this case, repetition is necessary. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with GoodDay. 174.7.14.105 (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm new at this so I don't know but I would say that it looks like the term Premier should be replaced with Prime Minister considering you are the only person that thinks it should stay like that. Therefore I am changing it. Althoguh I think the disscusion is over about this please tell me if I'm wrong because I'm not sure and i don't know when it's over or not. 174.7.14.105 (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're not new at this, but that's neither here no there. Prime Minister is used in Canada for the Federal level, Premier for the provincial and territorial level leaders. See Premier (Canada). Canterbury Tail   talk  23:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, change 'em to Prime Minister. GoodDay (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * When I said I'm new at this I ment I'm new at disscussing and I don't knwo when it ends. 174.7.14.105 (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It ends when there's a consensus to change the status quo; this is not a vote, and it is not we'll do what you think; that's your "brother's" technique. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  03:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

How does "federal premier" and "head of government" sound as more clear and synonymous? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  03:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we should stick to Prime Minister if only for clarity. However, if you wish to have an example, I can tell you that when Rene Levesque was Premier of Quebec, he had the term "Prime Minister of Quebec" put on to his door and stationary.  When Robert Bourassa was elected, he had it all changed back to Premier.  (I will find the references if you want them) Given that Premier is the standard practice in our system, it seems clear to me that only Prime Minister and perhaps "PM" should be used.
 * While I totally agree with you that Premier and Prime Minister are correctly used interchangeably, the average person reading this article, and certainly the average Canadian would not know these differences. Dphilp75 (talk) 13:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And what of the qualifier and other synonym I mentioned just above? Will people really be confused by "federal premier"?
 * At Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, the subject is referred to as "Queen Elizabeth II", "the Queen", "Elizabeth", and "Her Majesty", yet, nobody seems confused as to who is being spoken of. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  14:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ya see, even Levesque differentiated the titles. He was a seperatist & saw Prime Minister as representing an independancy. To him Premier was a subordinate title. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That's completely different, there is no mistaking the subject there for another similar position elsewhere in the same country. Canterbury Tail   talk  14:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm uncertain as to why you think this is so necessary Miesianical? I mean no disrespect, and I in fact agree with your technical point, but it certainly does seem to be the consensus that we should stick with Prime Minister for the sake of clarity.  As for your example of Her Majesty, I think it's rather obvious that when speaking in a Commonwealth Realm (Or, let's face it, most of the western world) when one refers to "The Queen", it's generally assumed one is referring to HM Elizabeth II.  However, in that case, there is but ONE Monarch, which leaves little room for confusion. In Canada, technically speaking, the term Prime Minister or Premier *COULD* be referring to any of the heads of Government.
 * This is why we have generally accepted that Prime Minister strictly refers to Federal, and Premier to Provincial. To add anything else simply leaves too much room for confusion for the lay reader. Dphilp75 (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's stick with Prime Minister at this article. No need to confuse things. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That certainly does seem to be the majority voice! :) Dphilp75 (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And majority is not consensus. However, are we really to lessen the quality of the article - repeating "prime minister", "prime minister", "prime minister", "prime minister", "prime minister", "prime minister", ad infinitum - only to appeal to the lowest common denominator amongst readers? Nobody here has given a valid reason why "federal premier" and "head of government" are not usable and non-confusing substitutes for "prime minister". -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The first ministers meetings. It would be a tad confusing if all 14 individuals were called Prime Minister, or all called Premier. PS: again, Lesevque considered Premier to be subordinate. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * GD, would you please stop confusing matters and simply answer the question: what is wrong with "federal premier" and "head of government"? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Head of government is acceptable, but federal premier is not. Federal Premier is not commonly used in Canada, that's simply how it is. There's a solution though, pipe-link Prime Minister as PM. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, but what does "commonly used" matter in this instance? "Commonly" does not mean "consistently". -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've learned my lesson at the Australia related articles, consistancy across the commonwealth realms, isn't possible. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you just affirmed my point that we need not use one term consistently in this article. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant across the commonwealth realm articles. As for within in them, that's not OK for Canada. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So you're arguing that "common" does indeed mean "consistent"? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, consistancy within this article, would have the 14 heads of govt called all either Prime Minister or all Premier. The commonality of using 'Prime Minister' for federal & 'Premier' for provincal/territorial within Canada, precludes consistancy here. PS - Ca we move this to the bottom of the talkpage? it's getting diffuclt to read. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "commonality of... 'Prime Minister' for federal... precludes consistancy here." Right, commonality equals consistency, somehow. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Continued at bottom of page. GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Afterall, we pipe link Member of Parliament as MP. Anyways, I've edit in the 'pipe-link'. See how others like it. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is repeating the same terms again and again an issue anyway? We're writing an encyclopaedia that needs to be clear in what it's saying. We're not writing a novel or competing for the Booker or Pulitzer prizes. And there is consensus on this. It's not a vote, but a discussion with a consensus with one dissenting voice who hasn't put forward a good argument for the position. Canterbury Tail  talk  16:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Because it makes for bad reading. I find it's hard to accept the argument that we're not aiming for a literary prize as an excuse to write poorly. So, I'm left to wonder exactly why ensuring the same term be repeated again and again is such an issue for the "consensus" team. I just checked Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and the words "Premiership" and "Premier" are employed there; not even a qualifier to differentiate from Scotland's and Wales' premiers. I proposed that in this article the distinguishing qualifier of "federal" be applied before"premier"; surely nobody here thinks a reader will mistake "federal premier" or "premier of the federation" for the premier of a province. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The British use First Minister for their 'constituent heads'. The Aussies use Governor for their 'state govt heads'. The Canucks use 'premier' for their provincial heads. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Putting your errors aside, this still doesn't explan how a reader will mistake "federal premier" for the premier of a province. Are there any federal provinces in Canada? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What errors? If you put premier in the Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales infoboxes & any of the Australian state infoboxes - it'll get reverted. Again, within Canada, the practice is established: Prime Minister for the Federal govt head & Premiers for the Provincial & Territorial govt heads. GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Australian states calling their heads of government "Governors". Regardless, why are you confusing matters again with infboxes? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If Canada used another title for the provincial & territorial govt heads, I wouldn't be opposing your proposal. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What province uses "federal premier" for its head of government? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that provincial Prime Minister is equally OK? GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't suggested it here, but I would elsewhere; uncapitalised, of course, as it isn't an official title. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, I was mistaken about Australia. They use state & territorial premiers (note: not Prime Minsiters). Elswhere is fine (if you mean other countries), here it's not. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Still wrong. In Australia, state heads of govermment are premiers; territory heads of government are chief ministers.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Jumpers. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You keep saying so but give no reason why. In fact, the interchangable use of premier and prime minister in Quebec says otherwise. It's bizarre to think that something may only be referred to using its formal title. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've given my reason, common usage & practice. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And then you proved why common usage was irrelevant to this matter. We're still waiting to hear what province calls its head of government the "federal premier". -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

We're still waiting for Prime Minister of British Columbia, Prime Minister of Alberta, Prime Minister of Nunavut etc etc, to be commonly used. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't say anything about commonly used, you did, in trying to assert that common usage of "prime minister" be turned into consistent usage of "prime minister" lest a reader confuse "federal premier" for the premier of a province. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * See below I've merged the discussions, as they're the same thing. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Commonality & Consistancy
Continued: As long as I've lived within Canada's borders, Prime Minister has been used for the federal govt head & Premier has been used for the provinical (and latter territorial) heads of govt. Your proposal for this article, will only cause confusion. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you've been confusing official title for casual reference. "Prime Minister" is consistently used as the official title of the federal head of government and "Premier" for his provincial counterpart, except in Quebec, where only "Premier Ministre" is employed. In casual conversation, "prime minister" and "premier" are commonly used for the federal and provincial heads of government, respectively. However, commonly does not equal consistently; ergo, "premier" can sometimes be used in reference to the Prime Minister of Canada (and vice-versa for provincial premiers).
 * I've never proposed that "Premier" ever be used in some official capacity in this article unless referring to a provincial head of government; only have I said that "federal premier" can sometimes be used to give our minds a break from the relentless use of "Prime Minister" in this article. With proper context, readers with half a brain in their head shouldn't get confused in the least. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I got confused by your usage of federal premier & my doctors have always told me I had a full brain. GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm sorry; I didn't mean to imply you had less than half a brain. I thought you were only confusing official usages vs. casual usages. But, I do fail to understand what's so puzzling about "federal premier". -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No offense taken. Thus my humourous response at 17:48. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why this is such an issue for you. Again, I agree that Premier and Prime Minister amount to the same thing. But the general consensus has been to leave Prime Minister as the accepted term when referring to a "Federal Premier".  "Federal Premier" would be equally correct, but no where near as concise as Prime Minister for the average layman.  Also, your Example about Quebec is true, but also inconsistent.  Having lived in Quebec for a number of years in the recent past, I can tell you that Jean Charest does not generally refer to himself as "Prime Minister" the way that René Lévesque had. Also, the French term "Premier ministre du Québec" is generally accepted to mean "Premier of Quebec" in English.


 * Again, I understand and accept that ALL of these terms are interchangeable with "First Minister" or "First among Equals" ETC, but the term Prime Minister *IS* essentially used strictly when referring to the "First Minister of the Federal Government", not when referring to the "First Minister of a Provincal Government." Can we please put this to rest? Dphilp75 (talk) 18:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why don't you ask why it's such an issue for others; as though their opinions, despite being tangential, are somehow more valid than mine?
 * Regardless, in my researching this further, it seems like this matter could evolve into something more and even lead to a new section in the article.
 * I apologize if you took offence to that remark. I asked it because you are the only one "fighting" the issue on the other side of the coin. And frankly, if I am following your train of thought correctly, I do not think that this issue should evolve into a new section on this article, though it might well be appropriate for a "Canada" entry on the Prime Minister page. Dphilp75 (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There are other options (of course). One could re-arrange the sentences so that Prime Minister isn't overly duplicated, but still the only usage. It's something to consider. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've made (I believe) a helpful edit tweak. Check it out, folks. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm in favour of exactly the type of change you made. It does cut down on the constant use of the term "Prime Minister" with out the possibility of  confusion for a layman in the term itself.Dphilp75 (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm pretty sure this is over now and Miesianiacal sees that everyone thinks that the term Prime Minister should be used, not Premier so I am changing it back to Prime Minister once again. 174.7.14.105 (talk) 04:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And in your haste to perform your "victory" revert you neglected the simple task of removing the maintenance tags rendered unnecessary by your decision to be in charge of this debate and when it ends. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  04:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? It's not my victory and I didn't take charge of this debate. All I did was bring up the issue because I thought the term Premier should be changed and I let everyone else talk about this issue and at the end people agreed with me. And now all I said was that this debate is over, which I'm pretty sure it is, considering there has been not one person backing you up. If you looked at the whole debate i've barely said anything because everyone knew my opinion and I waited for it to be over and made a conclusion. I haven't done anything wrong, rude or disrespectful. I don't know why you're mad at me or think I did soemthing wrong because I didn't. I reviwed the whole debate and saw that everyone agreed with me and I conculed and changed it back to Prime Minister. To me this debate has ended but if it hasn't please let me now because I am new to this dissucsion thing and I don't know when it ends or not. GoodDay told me that it had ended a while before so I changed it but then you reverted that change so I guessed that it was still going on and I waited to see what evertyone thought and now I'm pretty sure it's ended. I didn't do anything wrong or disrespectful so I have no idea why you are so anonyed with me. 174.7.14.105 (talk) 05:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I brought the issue up (look at the top of the thread). You revert warred to ensure your personal preference remained over the status quo, before discussion even got under way; you were told already that what others told you wasn't an excuse for your behaviour. And you did neglect to remove the maintenance tags, even though the discussion they indicated was decreed by you to be over. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  05:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind... You'll never get it. I don't know why you dislike me or think that I did someting wrong but whatever. You can think whatever you want because I know that I did and there was nothing wrong about it. 174.7.14.105 (talk) 06:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Miesianiacal; I very much like what you did with the Style of address area! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dphilp75 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would've moved the tag, but never saw. Oh well. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed "anachronistically" from the section saying:

"While contemporary sources will still anachronistically speak of early Prime Ministers of Canada as Premier"

since it is not a clear case of an anachronism when speaking of historical prime ministers who referred to themselves as premiers. Using an historically appropriate title in an historical context is not employing an anachronism. 142.167.111.212 (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Style of Address
I wonder if it might be worth it to add a section on the proper form of address for the Prime Minister? I mention it because thanks to the pervasive amount of American media we have in the country, many people seem to think that one would address the PM as "Mister Prime Minister". In fact, this was one of the few "technical" mistakes they made in the movie "Trudeau, the Man, the Myth, the Movie". The correct term for a Prime Minister of a Commonwealth Realm (Other PM's as well?) would simply be "Prime Minister". Dphilp75 (talk) 13:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In the UK, they say Prime Minister, in the USA they say Mister President. It wouldn't surprise if Canada had a little of both. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't it official protocol in Canada to address the Prime Minister as "Your Honour"? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ugh! please don't remind me, It has a monarchial touch to it. But yes, Your honour it is. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, its only "official" protocol to refer to a Prime Minister simply AS Prime Minister. "His/Her/Your" Honour is only used to address Lt. Gov's, NOT Prime Ministers.  Just to be clear here, "Prime Minister" is the only "correct" form of Address to a Prime Minister. This also holds true for Premiers and Ministers of the Crown.  This is also in reference to when you are speaking to a PM/Minister, not when you were say, writing them a letter.


 * Found the reference I've been looking for at http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/ceem-cced/prtcl/address2-eng.cfm . This is from the Heritage Canada's website, so I don't think we can get more authoritative than that.  Note the specific mention that "the term "Mr. Prime Minister" should not be used" Dphilp75 (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the section. I'm happy to have anyone play with the wording or to discuss the terms used ETC. Dphilp75 (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your earlier thanks. (This is starting out as a very Canadian conversation; all we need now is to apologise for thanking each other so much!) Anyway, despite your earlier skepticism, you essentially made the section I earlier mentioned I was thinking of. Do you think, though, that the form of address for opposition members is relevant to this page; I know it has some link to the PM, but is it enough? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To me, it just seems relevant to note what happens to a Prime Minister who's party loses an Election, but he does not lose his seat. Thus he goes from being (To paraphrase) "The Right Honourable Prime Minister" to (generally) "The Right Honourable Leader of the Opposition" or a myriad of other possibilities.
 * I submit that it should remain, but perhaps we can word to more to show what happens in the case of a PM's party losing an election, but the "former" PM remains in Parliament. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dphilp75 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Okay, then. I've condensed the wording further, but, yes, perhaps some select elaboration would help. (PS- don't forget to sign your posts.) -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I took a look at what you did, and I think it might be sufficient on its own. I'm certainly not opposed to a little more explanation if you like, but I suspect that it's concise enough now? Dphilp75 (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I wonder, though: It speaks of those in opposition who hold the style The Right Honourable, but what of those not in opposition, such as one who ceased to be PM because of a party leadership change but remains an MP for his party (i.e. Paul Martin)? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (I deleted my last comment because I mis-read your statement) But to answer your question, this happened in Brian Mulroney's cabinet.  Joe Clark was a "Right Honourable" as a former PM, and Mulroney was a "Right Honourable" as the current Prime Minister. In that case, Clark's "title" was "The Right Honourable Secretary of State for External Affairs". (As an example of his first job in Cabinet) Dphilp75 (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The confusion is my fault; I raised the wrong example; yours of Clark actually fits what I was trying to get at. Should we then mention such a scenario in the article? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not... The same logic hold true in both cases. Knock yourself out? LOL  Dphilp75 (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep, a former PM (no matter his future office), is always got the 'right honorable' thingy. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Former Prime Ministers paragraph
Hello. I am new to Wikipedia and this is my first discussion. I would like to propose a new paragraph about Former Prime Ministers. Considering I am a new user to Wikipedia I don't think I can make a paragraph as well as more expieienced users so I would like to ask if soemone else could. Please tell me your opinions. I would like to see what people think of my idea. Thanks and I hope I can be a great contributor to Wikipedia. Nations United (talk) 03:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, welcome! But, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by a "paragraph about Former Prime Ministers" [sic]. The article already has paragraphs on what former PMs did after their time in office, and how some died, and we already have a List of Prime Ministers of Canada. So, what is it you think is missing? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  04:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, I was thinking instead of having the info about Former Prime Ministers scattered around in the article, we should put all of it together into one section called Former Prime Ministers. All of those things you listed, I thought could be put togther into one section. Nations United (talk) 04:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's possible... But, that would mean a fairly significant restructuring of the article and potentially repeated information. I don't see the benefit, yet. However, perhaps others can point out the value. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  05:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize how much editing would be involved. Well, I won't push for it because it is a big task but if anyone likes the idea, please go ahead and do it. Nations United (talk) 06:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting idea for a whole new list. Former PM's and what they became, if anything upon retirement.  Can't say as I would be bothered to complete it, but it might be an interesting read...! Dphilp75 (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

New Picture
I replaced the Harper G8 photo with the new one that is on Stephen Harper's page. I like it but I'm not sure if it's better so I would like to see what everyone else thinks. Nations United (talk) 06:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally, I have no preference on the picture. I'm fine with either. Unless of course you can find one of him with horns, a tail and a pitchfork... I think THAT would be as close to the real Harper as you can get! ;) Dphilp75 (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Either image will do. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

List of Prime Ministers of Queen Elizabeth II
I really like this addition, but I wonder if we shouldn't add the other Monarchs that have reigned over Canada? I mention this because the article is about the Canadian Prime Minister, so it seems to me that if we are going to have mention of our current Monarch's PMs, then it would be appropriate to add all the Monarchs since Confederation? To be totally honest, I am ignorant as to if such lists exist in Wikipedia. (I suspect that going all the way back to French Colonial Canada might be even more over kill!)20:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Dphilp75 (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * List of Prime Ministers of Queen Elizabeth II covers it. GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry Goodday, I'm a little lost.. Do you mean that List of Prime Ministers of Queen Elizabeth II is sufficient for the article? Because that list certainly doesn't cover the list of the PM's of all the Monarch's since Confederation.
 * If you think the one list is good enough, I'm certainly not married to the idea of including the rest, it was just a thought..! :) Dphilp75 (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I forgot the others, List of Prime Ministers of Queen Victoria, List of Prime Ministers of King Edward VII, List of Prime Ministers of King George V & List of Prime Ministers of King George VI. You're free to create List of Prime Ministers of King Edward VIII. -- GoodDay (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice man! Do you think it's worth adding them, or would that be overkill? Again, I'm not married to the idea, but to me it makes sense that if we have our current Monarch, we should have the rest back to Confederation. Dphilp75 (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Even though according to the 1931 Westminister Statues, Victoria to George V (pre-1931) weren't Canadian monarchs, but rather British monarchs reigning over Canada? I'd no prob with having them all added, since the Canadian PMs are in all those articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yuppers.. That's why I was careful to use "Reigned over Canada" or "Monarchs since Confederation" rather than Canadian Monarch! ;) I'll give it a day or two in case anyone else wants to ring in, and then add it if there is no objections! Thanks man! Dphilp75 (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No prob. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we need an article List of lists of prime ministers of Canada's monarchs and like to that. ;) -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Those current lists will do. Whether (for example) the individual was a British monarch reigning over Canada or a Canadian monarch, the Canadian PM was still appointed by that individual. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was joking (hence, the semi-colon smiley face). But, I added the links. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't notice it. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Template Update
I would like to change the template for the Prime Minister of Canada's infobox. I think it's very outdadted and most countries have changed and updated the look. An example would be The United Kingdom, The United States and also New Zealand which I have shown an what they have done below. I will change it and if anyone diagrees with it, please tell me and we can have a discussion. 2010 rules (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Nothing has changed since the last time you brought this up. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  03:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Tail chasing
''It is not actually clear as to whether there are age or citizenship restrictions on the position of Prime Minister itself, as it is not necessary for the incumbent to be a sitting Member of Parliament (MP). However, this is more of an academic question since the constitutional conventions involved in selecting the Prime Minister make the appointment of anyone ineligible for election to the House an obvious infeasibility.''


 * This seems to be chasing its tail somewhat. Since the office of Prime Minister does not even exist at a constitutional level, it's futile to talk about what the eligibility criteria might or might not be.  Constitutionally, there's nothing to prevent the GG from appointing her 9-year old niece as Prime Minister.  I suggest the words I've selected above be simply removed from the article, as they're engaging in mindless and pointless technicality for its own sake. --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   03:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm good to go either way. I think its an interesting academic exercise in regards to what the qualifications would be, but you are completely correct in saying that its tough to have an encyclopedic entry on qualifications for a position that doesn't constitutionally exist.  My thought is that if you feel that strongly about it, feel free to make the change, but you'll want to wait for others to weigh in. (Though, I would point out that convention(ly) speaking, there certainly are Constitutional restrictions on Her Excellency appointing her 9 year old niece as her niece is very unlikely to command the confidence of the house! ;) ) Dphilp75 (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Old talk
In this Interregnum between the elections and the sworn in of the next government. Paul Martin is the PM and Stephen Harper is the PM-designate. They both conserved thier style. Actually, Paul Martin has not resigned, he has advised the GG his intention to resign, it's not the same!

Good night

A thought as I watch the results of the January 2006 election come in: the article states "If a general election gives an opposition party a plurality of the seats, the prime minister's party is still given the first opportunity to continue as the government. The incumbent prime minister may attempt to gain the support of another party (a coalition government), or he/she may resign and allow the party that won the most seats to form the government." I do not know if this is true in law or if this is a governmental tradition, but would this not suggest that Paul Martin could continue as Prime Minister, perhaps again with the support of the NDP? The NDP and Liberals, at current counts, have a combined total number of seats greater than the Tories (102+31=133 vs. 123), so such a potential coalition government would better represent the desires of a larger number of Canadians. In any case, it seems premature to be declaring Stephen Harper the new Prime Minister, even if the Conservatives do indeed have the plurality of the seats. V. Mulligan

How 'bout that. They're speculating about just that right now. Well, it'll be interesting to see which way this goes... V. Mulligan

However valid the arguments in this article may be, they are not neutral. They are entirely intended to support one point of view - i.e. that the prime minister has too much power. Ezra Wax

Do you feel that it's a bit more neutral now? Please respond. Also... All Prime Ministers have lived there since Prime Minister Louis Saint Laurent. That's a bit awkward. We should be mentioning the year, not whose term it was. I was going to put down 1948, but for all I know, he could have only started living there towards the end of his term. --cprompt


 * I think it's still lacking in NPOV re: the power of the PM. For instance:


 * Over time, the role of the Prime Minister of Canada has undergone some modifications but he/she today has the most personal and absolute power of any elected leader of any full democracy in the world.


 * ...this is true only by a strict reading of the constitution. Indeed, Canada's (essentially unicameral) parliamentary system combined with our world's strictest system of party discipline (outside of sham parliaments in various dictatorships), combined with the (deprecated) power of disallowment over the provinces, would suggest that the PM has near dictatorial powers.


 * In practise, however, the power of the PM is greatly restricted by the power of the provinces (Canada is one of, if not the, more decentralized federations going). It doesn?t mean a lot to say the PM can do whatever they want within the areas of federal jurisdiction when a lot of the most important stuff (health, education) is either held entirely by the provinces or only involves Ottawa to the extent that they write the cheques.


 * As for this whole bit:


 * Unlike the Presidental system of government used in such countries as the United States, an elected member of the Canadian House of Commons cannot vote in accordance with the will of his constituents.


 * How exactly does a representative vote 'accordance with the will of his constituents'? Canada has a first-past the post system remember. Mose of that members constituents likely didn't even vote for the member, and the idea that even a convincing majority of them will agree on anything is unlikely. Therefore, 'according to his/her own preference' would be much more realistic.


 * While Canada's strict party control does put individual members on a tight leash, it also prevents the type of pork-barrel politics that plague the US and many other democracies. Members (i.e. parties) are forced to consider the national, rather than the purely local, interest.


 * It's also arguably more democratic considering most voters have some idea what a party stands for, but absolutely nothing about a candidates personal beliefs.


 * When I have more time (exams!) I'll try and add some balance to this article. -- stewacide 08:22 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

The article says "In contrast to the British government, in which members of parliament have long tenure but Prime Ministers have relatively short tenures, the Canadian Prime Minister typically has a long tenure except in cases where there is a minority government."

Considering Thatcher and Blair, I don't think UK PMs have relatively short tenures. Vicki Rosenzweig 20:43, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Strictly there is no limit on the length of time a PM can serve, they just have to call an election every five years. Anyone disagree with this? DJ Clayworth

It says "The Prime Minister is also restricted by two usually powerless branches of government", but it only mentions one branch, the Senate...

The "Jr." (as in Paul Martin, Jr.) has been removed--ref. Chicago Manual of Style. When the elder member of a family dies, the "junior" designation is usually dropped. While there is a trend to keeping the designation in the U.S., it generally isn't done in Canada (check CBC or Globe and Mail websites if you need to confirm this). Sunray 04:20, 2003 Dec 18 (UTC)

Canadian PMs do not appear to have long terms. Since 1970 Britain has had five PMs, while Canada has had 6 (not counting Martin). What is unusual is the extremes. Three of the Canadians had terms of ten years or thereabouts, while two had terms of less than 1 yr. Go figure. DJ Clayworth 06:56, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * A bit of trivia: Actually it is three PMs since 1970 who had terms of less than one year: Clark, Turner and Campbell. Turner and Campbell replaced a retiring PM (Trudeau and Mulroney respectively) and then lost the subsequent election.  Clark is unique.  He led a minority government in 1979, but lost a non-confidence motion over the budget.  An election was called and he lost. Sunray 21:56, 2003 Dec 19 (UTC)

I'd like to see the prime minister's salary on this page. Just for fun.

I've posted the PM's salary for 2004, according to the CBC. In 2004, Paul Martin made $284,000 (CAD). --Mattthemutt 15:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

the picture
Can somebody get a better looking picture of this guy? Harper's expression is identitical to that of someone who's just smelled a bad fart in an elevator with another 30 floors to go before he can get off.

Oath of Office
Maybe someone could add the oath of office, where the prime minister has to plege allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II.

Mandate (again)
It's currently written that when a Prime Minister loses an election, he is REQUIRED to resign, and then it goes on to talk about minority Governments. I wonder if I would be taking things too far to remove/change the word "required" since the PM is ONLY required to resign when he loses confidence of the house. There is nothing (Outside the GG/HM) stopping a PM from ATTEMPTING to Govern even if his party loses all but his own seat. I agree that its certainly a convention for him to resign, but conventions are actually legally enforceable. I am going a little too far on the "correctness" of the article in this train of thought? Dphilp75 (talk) 16:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Seeking consensus to remove tags around
User:Miesianiacal has added tags around. He claims that it helps the spacing between the lines when viewed in some browsers. It appears that he feels that since no one has removed them on this article that it has reached a level of approval. I would like to open the discussion and state that it's unnecessary formatting and is non-standard. The vast minority of articles have been changed to use this convention. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:CONS has been brought to your attention on more than half a dozen occasions in the last 24 hours; specifically the words "If other editors accept your changes, then this silent acceptance is, itself, sufficient proof that your changes have consensus..."
 * I see smaller inline ref tags as necessary to maintain a consistent line spacing, which improves the readability of the article. For everyone's benefit, could you perhaps be more specific as to what particular problem the formatting is causing? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not at all clear that it is necessary for that purpose. What steps have you taken to solve the problem on your end? More importantly, why is it necessary to have consistent line spacing. It might be preferable, but why is it necessary? As for why we oppose it, WG has told you more than once, as did I months ago when I tried to discuss it with you: it makes the links too small. On some displays, that might not be an issue, but it is on mine. Your browser is changeable; my display is not. Your problem doesn't make it hard to physically use the page; mine does. It simply does not make sense to have a special Mies rule for any article you edit and a separate rule for the rest of the project. -Rrius (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Walter Görlitz. It is telling that of all the articles I've ever edited on Wikipedia, the only ones with refs wrapped in small tags are the ones Mies edits. Mies's aesthetic issues should not trump usability. What's more, it does not make sense to have a portion of Wikipedia with an idiosyncratic style that is a result of one editor's preference and that find themselves lumped together not because of a common problem, but because one particular editor edits them. -Rrius (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * x2 You say the inline ref tags are too small and I say they're too big. My browser is not changeable, I cannot change browsers, and I find it straining to have to read lines of text that are different distances apart. I can't be the only one, given that the near-universal standard throughout publications - even the most amateur ones - is to have consistent line spacing, not irregular. It therefore is not simply an aesthetic issue, though appearance can't be discounted as a consideration.
 * I'm all for finding some compromise solution to the issue; the inline tag can be as big as possible before it starts to push the line above upwards. How that can be achieved is another matter all-together, though. For the time being, there's nothing barring the use of formatting around ref code. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to say that WP:CONS is a red herring as it refers to content not formatting. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * x2The references are content. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's me who misunderstands. I always thought that the tags and tags are formatting while the content is all of the text around it. Aren't the refs simply a way to help us verify the content? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * For everyone's benefit? I see no benefit by adding the additional tags. The only people it benefits are those who use out-dated browsers and who are unable to apply appropriate javascript files to their profiles to overcome a perceived flaw in displaying in said browsers. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * x2How about you come down off your high horse and offer a hand to us impoverished and computer illiterate individuals, then? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm in the mud with you, which is why I offer Firefox. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not possible. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not possible? Are you at a job where the employer has locked your computer down so as to not permit you to install "untested" software? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I not permitted to install software, period. Regardless, I'd rather see some solution that doesn't require users - not only me - to get new software just to read Wikipedia without inconsistent line spacing. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Since there is no problem for modern browsers, this will eventually go away as people upgrade to these modern browsers. At that point, what are we to do with all the extra encoding that you have added (that makes the reference number too small in the same browser)? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Who's to know when every computer on the planet will be uprgaded. I'd imagine there's a way to deal with the problem before that time, though, and, should a solution be found, I'm fully prepared to replace or remove all the formatting from around refs - those I know of, anyway. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * However if it's about every computer on the planet, it will be never as I have several old computers that I will not upgrade. They are happily running Mosaic 1.0. I suppose a better metric would be when the computers of those who think it's actually a problem, in which case it could be only one or two. Also, should I infer that you're an immortal and will be around to do implement the change when it's time? Where I work (and I do work) we have a "bus" rule: don't assume that what you're doing will be understood by anyone after you're hit by a bus on the way home today. Note: I'm not wishing ill on anyone. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe I was clear in expressing my hope that there can be found a solution that doesn't involve waiting for software to become obsolete. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There is. It was put before you already. "You can add  to your monobook.js." --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I had a larger concern for improving readability in general, not only on my computer screen. Other language Wikipedias have managed to make ref templates that don't create the same issue English Wikipedia's do, so it seems entirely feasible that the ref template code here can be altered so that line spacing is even for everyone, not just me. That was always my ultimate goal; the formatting was a temporary measure that, though not perfect, I really believed helped in the meantime and could be later removed (by me).
 * Regardless of all that, I did look into the monobook thing when it was first brought up and had no idea what was going on: Do I just put that code in and save and all is well? Will that mess up other things? Can it be undone if I screw it up (which I likely would)? & etc.
 * I'm starting to think now that if someone can show me how that works, and it works, then I'll live with that and then try to get that option added in a prominent place, so that anyone else who has the same problem with ref tags/line spacing can easily find a solution. Either that or continue to get the ref template code altered to be more like French Wikipedia. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  14:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it will "mess" anything else up, but you can remove it the same way. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Click on "my preferences".
 * Click on the "Appearance" "tab" (its not really a tab, it's just a link).
 * Click on "Custom JS".
 * Paste in the custom javascript.
 * It seems to have worked, for now. Thank you. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  14:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Will you be undoing the small tags in all articles where you added them on your own or should a task-force be created to assist you? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just relax. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  15:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am relaxed. The "need" for the additional tagging has now been eliminated. I merely asked if you were going to revisit the articles where you imposed this formatting or if you wanted a group of us to assist you. How about you take until Victoria Day to make your decision? How relaxed is that? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * (note - I was asked by Walter Görlitz to comment here) I support removal of this non-standard formatting on all articles. We can put it to a community wide (yes/no/meh) poll followed by a bot request if necessary, if that's what it takes to settle the issue once and for all, because from what I've seen, having become aware of it a few months ago, the claim that this formatting is accepted simply by silence, is dubious at best. Ignoring the silent masses, I cannot recall anybody except Miesianiacal (and of course the silent masses), defending it, either by comment or reversion. MickMacNee (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for notifying me. I do appreciate it, and am interested in the outcome of this discussion ever since I brought it up on Mies' talk page. All my arguments are found there; I did not push the issue that aggressively since I was on a wikibreak for nearly two weeks soon after that discussion. For the record, I am against using the extra tags put in place by Mies, as well. And, do note that I am also a web developer. Gary King  ( talk ) 21:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting point. There are templates that also affect line spaces. The one that immediately comes to mind it . While there are currently none on this article, it would require either a change to that template (and other others that superscript) or for editors to modify those with tags as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with the removal of the peculiar formatting as well. The Manual of Style seems to imply that changing the text size is something that should only be used when absolutely necessary, and the unaltered ref tag appears to work perfectly well elsewhere.-- Ibagli ( Talk ) 03:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Even if you are absolutely stuck with IE7, your problem only makes it annoying to read; our problem makes it physically more difficult to click down to references. It is baffling that you think you are entitled to your own corner of Wikipedia that looks just the way you like. -Rrius (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You know, I otherwise respect you as an editor, Rrius, but these ceaseless insinuations that this is nothing more than my Wikipedia decorating hobby, while your complaint about the inline tags being too small is valid, are really starting to become grating. I said numerous times I'm willing to work out some other solution, one that satisfies everyone's concerns. Belittling my grievances certainly isn't helping. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  01:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Miesianiacal, I hate customisation, I run vanilla default on everything, and previously said that your goal of even spacing was admirable (having previously thought it was an issue for everyone), while the solution was not, especially not as it is used on a tiny amount of articles. Well, I can confirm that it takes all of two seconds to implement the workaround given above, it took one edit to the monobook, and just started working. I believe that even eliminates it as an issue for people logging on from several computers. That leaves it as an issue solely for logged out readers using old versions of one browser. So, in all seriousness, do you honestly think anybody is going to bother looking for a solution better than that? Really? MickMacNee (talk) 11:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, well see my response to Walter Görlitz above. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  14:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Man! I can't believe what an issue this has become! I'm softly on the side to keep the current formatting as I have never had an issue myself on any of the machines I use to access Wikipedia.  I'm not married to the idea, but have learned to trust Miesianiacal's efforts on formatting.  I'm sorry to be so wishy washy about this, but it just doesn't seem to be that big a deal (for me anyway!) so I'm happy with the Status Quo. Dphilp75 (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't state or imply that it is a decorating habit. However, your problem is that you don't like the way it looks because the lines are different distances apart. That is an aesthetic problem, not a usability problem. It is bad enough for people like me, but for people with reduced vision, it is a significant hindrance. -Rrius (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How about this as a compromise: I will fix the problem for you, Mies, and Walter Görlitz (if he will join me) and I will join you in trying to get someone to listen about changing the ref code? -Rrius (talk) 01:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You do imply such a thing when you dismiss my complaints about usability. That said, I hope I've already been clear on this, but I want to say it again to be sure: I'm not dismissing your complaints about what I did to fix the problem I see. I'd be very pleased to see something done to address the issue(s) on a wider scale, and any help is appreciated. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  14:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Does that mean you're accepting my proposal? -Rrius (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

As to what Template:smref does, it just makes it easier to write, instead of. I saw the small ref tags used on Monarchy of Canada and thought they looked better than Wikipedia's normal size tags. Hgrosser (talk) 07:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So what you're saying is that you've made it easier for anyone to screw-up Wikipedia's references? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Did Hgrosser do anything to you to warrant that kind of tone in response, Görlitz? It isn't helpful. WP:AGF. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  14:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is helpful. He made a grave error. It's not an offence to me, it's an offence to the majority of users and editors of Wikipedia. He isn't helpful. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And when did you become the representative of the majority of users and editors of Wikipedia? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  14:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)