Template talk:Infobox ministerial office

Template use
This template could do with a major overhaul or even be merged into Template:Infobox Political post. -- Barryob  (Contribs)   (Talk)  13:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Bars
I am going to replace the image bars with text bars, because: Hesperian 01:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) They contain text that cannot be seen by users that view Wikipedia with a text browser or a screen reader, and that cannot be searched for;
 * 2) They make the infobox layout inflexible; that is, they remove the ability of the browser to determine the optimal width of the infobox;
 * 3) They are contrary to the usual look and feel of Wikipedia.
 * I put them back as a) the article titles and text are what matter in searches, not infobox graphics; b) the infobox size is matched to other infoboxes so that they always align, this is more professional than various sized infoboxes making for a jagged margin down the right hand side of the page; c) there is no "usual" look and feel to Wikipedia. The bar is a graphic, no more no less. It is part of a theme that includes the one for monarchy and for viceroys, and is, in my strong opinion, superior to the replacement, which looked unrefined. --G2bambino (talk) 01:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Reverted per Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Hesperian 05:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Restored as the talk page of MoS is not binding. --G2bambino (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I can only assume from this that you consider the MoS itself binding? Well someone (not me) has now edited this into the MoS itself: see Manual of Style. Hesperian 06:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I should also point out that the bars aren't meant to impart any information about the article in which the template is used. As can be seen in Prime Minister of Canada, the template states in text "Prime Minister of Canada." The bars are only to codify between ministers, viceroys, and monarchs, as well as federal and provincial jurisdictions. --G2bambino (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

—Apis (talk ) 06:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)''
 * Hmm, I have made a new attempt at text bars, trying to closer match the images with CSS. Hope this is acceptable? ''
 * Well, first off, they're not "text bars", they're just colour codes. However, what you've done looks okay, but it now doesn't match the two other templates that work with this one: Template:Infobox monarchy and Template:Infobox vice-regal. If we're going to go with this version, could you please "fix up" the others as well? Cheers. --G2bambino (talk) 11:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Style
Unless anyone has any objections, I am shortly going to remove the "Style" section of this template. Ministers are not Rt. Hon. by virtue of being a minister, but rather Rt. Hon by virtue of being a Privy Counsellor. Furthermore, if a Marquess of a Duke was appointed a minister, he would not be Rt. Hon., but rather Most Hon. or Most Noble. —Wereon (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I object. Regardless of how one is entitled to the style, one is used. And, in Canada at least, the Prime Minister is the Right Honourable by virtue of his being PM, while other ministers are only the Honourable. I'm sure we can accomodate other styles if they aren't already. --G2bambino (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Bump - can we either add New Zealand's PM style to the template? Otherwise it might just be easier to replace the template on the article. --Lholden (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The way to label style needs to be reviewed. Ministers in the UK are not necessarily Rt Hon.Curdem (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

This needs to be reviewed. The Chief Minister of the Australian Capital Territory does not use the title Hon. as the ACT does not have an Executive Council. (See ) - this is an exception to the rest of the Australian states/territories, but as the template stands there's no way to override it. --ajdlinux | utc 12:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Correction
Australian Premiers hold office at the Governor's and not Lieutenant Governor's pleasure. Can someone please fix this? The error appears at Premier of Victoria for example. --~ Knowzilla  (Talk)  14:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Appointment parameters
This is a template about the office, not the holder. As such, it seems odd to me that the appointed_by parameter takes the individual human who appointed the incumbent and that the governor parameter exists at all. Thus the infoboxes should look like the one on the right, not the left, except with the "as" removed:

-Rrius (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hear, hear! RicJac (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Colours

 * Note - the same applies to Infobox vice-regal; we've agreed to centralise the discussion here, rather than duplicating it. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The colours in the header of this template, grey on grey, are highly inaccessible, being low-contrast, and fail the guidelines described at WP:COLOUR at even the most basic level. I removed them, but have been reverted, with no meaningful edit summary (just "restore"). We should make our articles as accessible as practically possible; there is no need to keep this style. The same applies to the pink/red heading in the above example. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This was already discussed above. As explained there, the bars are simply colour coded graphics that are part of a wider system that includes Template:Infobox monarchy and Template:Infobox vice-regal and indicate through coloured graphics a monarchy (and if it is federal), a vicregal position (and if it is federal, provincial, or state), or a ministry (and if it is federal, provincial, or state), so they don't seem to contravene WP:COLOR (which isn't a policy) in any way. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  23:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That five-year-old discussion does not address the matter of text/background contrast. They are not "colour coded graphics", they are text. And the text/colour clearly conveys meaning; and that meaning is not accessible to all of our readers. And that not not acceptable. And does contravene WP:COLOUR, which itself is referenced by MOS:COLOUR. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have a hard time reading those 2 coloured bars, and I have good vision! There needs to be a lot more contrast between the text and the background color, so that people with imperfect vision, color-blindness, or low-end monitors, can read the text. –Quiddity (talk) 23:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * They are colour coded graphics. There may be text in them, but they are colour coded graphics to convey exactly what I explained above. The informational text--what ministerial office it is, the incumbent, the appointer, etc.--is all plain text above and below these graphics.
 * I don't know; maybe the text in the graphic bars goes; maybe an image is devised to replace the text "minister", "monarchy", "federal", "provincial", etc.; maybe the text in the graphic bars is rendered differently; or maybe what the colours denote is expressed in another way. But, their intent is to visually show that an office is either monarchical, viceregal, or ministerial, and whether any of those is federal, provincial, or state. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  23:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yikes. Text and background should adhere to basic contrast guidelines. It's not that hard. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 08:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Why do we need colours, or anything other than text, to show such things - not least when there is no key and no documentation (how are readers and editors supposed to divine the meaning?) ? I am going to again remove the inaccessible colouring, while we discuss the final outcome. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We can discuss a final outcome, but WP:BRD leaves the long-standing status-quo in place until a new consesnsus is established.
 * The words in the bars were intended for readers to divine the meaning. Another alternative is to have the text in the bars in a colour contrasted against a light grey bar. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Are the colours based on anything in particular? Are they listed completely anywhere?
 * (The text's styling of uppercase-serif and faded-colours make it seem as if it is an "official" color/font choice, eg Prime Minister of Canada right above the official logo.)
 * If the colors/font are a Wikipedian-invention then I strongly suggest changing it to use a more default style, at least the text's colour/font. –Quiddity (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not only is BRD not binding, but it does not trump the need to make our content accessible. It's very unhelpful of you, and inconsiderate to others, to revert again to reimpose a colour-scheme that three different editors have told you is not on. Readers cannot "divine the meaning" if they cannot read the text. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * One more time: Accessibility has nothing to do with it. The name of the office, the occupant, who appoints the occupant, etc. are all there in plain text. It's been the way it is for years without objection raised until you only just did yesterday. So, it'll all be fine for the relatively little time longer it'll take to work something else out.
 * Quiddity, I don't know if the colours are based on anything in particular, except perhaps the purple for monarchies. I do, though, see your point about the appearance of the bars as being part of the official logo related to the office where one is depicted; that could probably be fixed by moving the bars to the top of the infobox. (Though, then, in the example you cited, the words "Prime Minister of Canada" would be directly above the logo and they might appear part of the logo. A separating line may be necessary.)
 * Again, I'll raise the suggestion of making the bars light grey with the words (MINISTRY, MONARCHY, FEDERAL, PROVINCIAL, etc.) in different colours that contrast with the grey. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: Accessibility (and WP:Accessibility) have almost everything to do with it. That is the technical term for that aspect of this problem (illegible text, hard to use interfaces, etc). If the text was "plain" in the sense of black-text on a light-grey/white-background, then it would be "accessible". To be clear, This is incredibly hard to read, and is therefor not "accessible".
 * The background-color and font-styling choices are a separate issue, I should've started a new thread for that, my apologies. –Quiddity (talk) 23:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The text in the bars was never intended to be the real informaion conveyor; it was the colours. The text just denoted what the colour represented.

Regardless, what if they looked something like this:

Alternately, the headers could be white text contrasted on a coloured bar:

I don't know. Just some suggestions that attempt to deal with the contrast issue while still maintaining the colour coding. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  23:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "The text in the bars was never intended to be the real informaion [sic] conveyor; it was the colours" - and our accessibility guidelines, and the ISO/ WCAG guidelines, tell us not to use colour alone to convey information. "The text just denoted what the colour represented" So the text does convey information; it therefore needs to be accessible. Someone should remove the inaccessible markup immediately while we resolve this.   Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not primary infomation. But, whatever. I've given the text a strongly contrastng shade with the bar background. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether the information is primary, secondary or even tertiary is irrelevant, and the styles to which you have changed still fail WCAG guidelines at AAA level (for both grey and red, on the examples in the preceding section). Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not helpful. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed it isn't - so why did you do it? Do you intend to fix it? Will you again revert anyone who changes from your preferred styles? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That isn't helpful, either. The earlier unhelpful comment was cearly signed by you, not me.
 * The contrast issue was dealt with. What, exactly, needs fixed now, according to WP policies? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * My comment was very helpful, because it told you that the contrast issue was not dealt with, and why. That is what needs to be fixed now. Or you could just remove the inaccessible markup as I did, and which you previously reverted. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, your comment wasn't helpful at all; it didn't specify in any way how the contrast now doesn't meet WCAG AA level (which is all that's required by WP:COLOR) or suggest how the supposed violation can (other than by obliterating the colour coding scheme) be rectified. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * change the text to white, and I believe the problem is solved. Frietjes (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That was what I suggested in my lower row of proposals above. Though, what I'd changed the text actual template to seemed very light, some almost white, and highly contrasted against the background. What is the difference to accessibility in the minor tonal shift to white? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * greater contrast, which is always better for WCAG. by the way, if you want to do the letter spacing, it is better to do it in CSS, to avoid creating problems with screen readers. I personally would prefer to see the colouring introduced through 'border-left' and 'border-right', which eliminates all potential problems with contrast. Frietjes (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Quite apart from the inaccessible colours, what is the point of the words "MINISTRY FEDERAL" above Prime Minister of Canada? or "MONARCHY FEDERAL" above Monarchy of Canada? Why are they capitalised (and not rendered thus in CSS)? Why are they not shown as columns with labels, such as "type", in the infobox, below the image? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Deleting this template
I do not quite understand why the conservation of this infobox is so important. After scanning the articles of various political officials in various countries, it looks like articles on Canadian and Australian government officials are the only ones where this template is used. Even within Canadian and Australian government posts, there is inconsistency with its use. For example, while the article on the Australian prime minister does indeed use this ministerial infobox, it looks like the cabinet members do not; instead their pages use the standard political infobox. I can also see that this infobox template is used in monarchy-related pages such as articles about the Queen of Canada and the Governor General of Canada. Other than that, however, it seems like every other article about any world or regional leader, whether it be a political post, business post, or international post, uses the standard Template:Infobox Political post. Furthermore, while I understand the argument that the colour-coordination makes it easier to differentiate between the federal governments and the state/provincial governments, I do not think it is really that necessary. For example, there is no such differentiation between the U.S. federal government and the state governments. The title is stated in the infobox and the introduction to the article explains the jurisdiction (federal or state). I do not understand why the same cannot be applied to Canadian and Australian government officials. The limited use of the ministerial infobox, along with the unnecessary components, like colour-coordination, and of course the contrast issues mentioned above, begs the question of why this infobox is so important to keep. Deleting this infobox on the few articles that use it and replacing it with the widely-used standard political post would have no impact on the understanding of readers who look at these articles. The only result of this change would be that it would make Wikipedia more unified, as all political posts would use one template. Nations United (talk) 07:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)