Template talk:Cabinet of Australia

Template format

The template format I added for this ministry is in line with, and consistent with every ministerial page from the Barton ministry to the First Rudd ministry - Labor and non-Labor. They all came about as a massive upgrade to how it was presented beforehand (the majority of which had just been stub pages with a dotpoint list. About as bare-bones and low-effort as they come), and to bring it to a far better standard that stands strongly alongside many of its international counterpart pages. In a lot of cases, these have been in place for years without any objections. So I’m a little taken aback by attempts to revert these changes here - among which they seek to remove the constituencies each minister represents, and their honourifics titles (which so far as I understand, is not prohibited for tables to do with ministries). Some clarity and consistency would be nice, and if there are objections with aspects of these tables, then we ought to have a discussion about this and talk about where to go from here - and apply it to all ministries consistently. TheScrubby (talk) 02:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Marcnut1996:. TheScrubby (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree on a need for discussion and need for consistency. I have also alerted WT:AUSPOL to discuss here. Marcnut1996 (talk) 03:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I think there needs to be a middle-ground between the two. Having "Hon" is silly given that it applies to all of them when they're currently in office. The year of birth is unnecessary and leads to a more bloated box. I'm not opposed to the year of their election to parliament but it would be good if it could be reformatted so that it too bloats the box less. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

While that’s a fair point r.e. the “Honourable” prefix for recent ministries, what about when it comes to the ministries pre-Hawke, where the most senior ministers were sworn in to the Privy Council and were given the “Right Honourable” prefix? As for date of birth and constituency, I don’t see any real issue with either of them (and the DOB is also included for each MP on every federal Division page), and I don’t think it necessarily bloats the box at all. Though if there’s consensus to give the constituency a separate box, I wouldn’t necessarily be opposed. TheScrubby (talk) 05:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the "Right Hon" distinction is important enough to warrant mentioning it in these tables. It absolutely bloats the box - it basically doubles the size of the table in order to include information that's on the less important side (whether it should or shouldn't be included). I feel like DOB is marginally more relevant on the constituency page (and doesn't affect the table size there) but would lean more towards taking it out of those pages than having it bloat these. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, with respect, I completely disagree and don't view it the way you do at all r.e. the "bloat", and that I think the information fits neatly in the "Minister" box - as well as having the Constituency detail below the name & date of birth. TheScrubby (talk) 03:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Right, so you're not interested in any kind of compromise. There was never any discussion about this major change and nothing that would indicate since that it has any support now, so I'd be supportive of rolling it back and starting from there. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I don’t appreciate your belligerent, combative tone @The Drover's Wife:, and your insinuation of bad faith on my part. I should be allowed to express my personal disagreement with your negative characterisation of “bloating” without being accused of being unwilling to compromise - not everybody views things the same way as you. Of course if consensus sides with your view (and having just 2-3 users take one position does not constitute consensus), then I would respect that. I would just like (as the end goal) for there to be consistency with all ministry pages and for these pages to be raised to the standards of its international counterparts (before the pages began to be updated, they were in woeful shape and were little more than stubs with text walls full of dot points), and as I said for years there had been zero objections to the way the majority of the ministry pages had been formatted, which as of now is in place for every ministry from Barton to First Rudd. Rolling it all back after years of hard work is more than a little petty and vindictive. TheScrubby (talk) 02:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @WWGB: to join this discussion. Marcnut1996 (talk) 03:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with The Drover's Wife on this one. The "Hon" is definitely not needed (and should be written "Hon." anyway). I don't think the DOB is even important, but having constituency details is acceptable. Marcnut1996 (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Following my own research, I learnt that all ministers and assistant ministers have to be sworn in to the Executive Council which earns them the right to have the Honourable prefix title. Which means, including Hon in ministry tables is redundant as all of them would have the title anyway. Marcnut1996 (talk) 03:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The WP:MOS directs that "In general, honorific prefixes—styles and honorifics in front of a name—in Wikipedia's own voice should not be included" (MOS:HONORIFIC). WWGB (talk) 05:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

That was also what I said in an earlier edit summary but TheScrubby’s response is as per their first comment above. Marcnut1996 (talk) 08:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Oppose as redundant and cluttery. ITBF (talk) 10:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)