Template talk:Prime ministers of Australia

Comments

(table removed)

I have to voice my opposition to having pictures of all the PM's there: it just makes it look too crowded. I think the Canadian one looks terrible. And anyway, the pictures vary in quality etc. Slac speak up! 11:03, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it looks more logical like this. Adam 02:02, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with Slac, this looks quite cluttered. The pictures are so small that I don't think it really adds anything. You have to know what they all look like first for the pictures to mean much anyway. Think of the poor people on dialup too... --bainer 08:45, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am on dialup and it causes me no problems. Aesthetically I think it works very well. Adam 08:52, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Aesthetically it's a disaster: the photos are all different sizes, different perspectives, and most are black and white but then a few are colour! It's also less than simple to see their faces, making the photos of questionable value, anyway. I think we should abolish the photos... El T 14:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not ideal, no. Unfortunately, Australian copyright law makes it very difficult for us to obtain photographs of politicians at all, let alone high quality ones. Personally, I don't mind it much - but then, maybe that's because I'm used to it.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 14:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The photographs are horrible. Apart from what others have said, they don’t associate naturally with the names and they link to picture, not articles. Susvolans ⇔ 09:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

My only problem with the images is the issue with them not linking to the article but to the image. It'd be nice if there were a way to link an image to an article instead of to the image. Otherwise the images are great. -Locke Cole 10:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Copyright

There seems to be something of an edit war brewing here, so to get things clear: any photograph taken in Australia before 1 January 1955 is in the public domain (according to Australian copyright law, which is recognised by United States copyright law, and the law of everywhere else). This means the photos of everyone up to Lyons (except for Bruce), plus Curtin and Chifley, are all public domain since they all died before 1955. There are PD options for Page, Menzies and Fadden from during their actual terms. The problematic ones will be everyone after Menzies, that is from Holt onwards. There are PD options available for many of them, most from their earlier careers in Parliament. The photos of later PMs are not in the public domain, but my point is that more than half of the photos here are PD. Please, don't remove them all on the basis that they are "copyvio and/or dubious usability", nor add them all back on the basis that they are all safe to use. Let's discuss this. --bainer (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

If the images are PD, they should be tagged as such. Some of them are tagged as fair use, and per WP:FU#Policy, they cannot be used on templates. Others are tagged as {{AustraliaGov}}, which doesn't specify whether the images are even valid for use in Wikipedia or not. If you want to use the images in a template, please re-tag them to indicate the correct copyright status. The more recent photos will likely need to go at any rate, however. JYolkowski // talk 22:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed table above as it primarily contained non-free images, which fail WP:FUC when used in that manner. — CharlotteWebb 20:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Converting to standard form

There seems to be some resistance by one user for converting this template to a standard form, namely, {{Navbox}}. The {{Navbox}} / {{Navbox generic}} form is used by about 5000 templates in Wikipedia. The reason for standard templates is to ensure a consistent look and feel throughout all of Wikipedia, and to be able to easily change that look and feel over time (instead of having to edit each template or article individually). I am not pleased that my good faith edits are being reverted simply because someone feels that the Show/Hide button isn't necessary. I feel that this reversion could be a violation of Wikipedia's reversion policy. This button is a very small price to pay in order to achieve standardization. Good faith edits should not be reverted simply because one does not like a small part of the edit. I will reinstate the standard template form unless there is some good discussion on this page and a good reason as to why it should not be converted (and the Show/Hide reason is not nearly a good enough reason in my opinion). Thanks, and I look forward to continuing this discussion. --CapitalR 23:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Standardisation is overrated. Template:Prime Ministers of Australia showing all PM surnames should be at the bottom of every Prime Minister's page without having to click on something to see them, because a lot of people will miss it. We Australians can handle our political pages, we've done it happily this far. Oh and by the way, no you won't reinstate it if you don't find good discussion, you will reinstate it IF you get a majority consensus. Not just because you believe you should impose your standards on our work which we have been happy with. Timeshift 23:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, did my Navbox form start out in the "Show" expanded mode or the "Hide" mode? It was supposed to start in the Show mode, but if it did not I'd be interested to know what browser / operating system you're on so that I can identify and fix the problem. Also, this has nothing to do on where I/you live. And don't worry, I won't revert you, I just want to know if the Navbox is working right. Thanks, --CapitalR 23:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It shows it by default, and that's all good and well. However when you have more than one show/hide template at the bottom of a page, that's when things go pear shaped. Timeshift 23:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, what do you mean by "pear shaped"? I just tried on Safari/IE/Firefox/Opera with multiple templates and all looks well. I know someone else had a problem on Safari version 1, and I'm wondering if this is related. --CapitalR 23:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no strong views but I am not sure why one would want to have show/hide for this template - it is not big and it is quite obvious that people may wish to navigate from one PM to another ... The navbox started out with Hide for me too before the recent reversion ealier this month on the Billy Hughes page - I was using Internet Explorer.--Golden Wattle ^talk 23:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I put some code ("state=uncollapsed") in my latest version (see history to access it), that should have forced it to start in the "Show" mode always. I use IE ususally and it always seems to work correctly for me. The ability to force it to start in the Show mode is a relatively new feature to the navigation boxes. --CapitalR 23:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

As an example, Andrew Fisher has two collapsable templates at the bottom now, and previously one or both would always start off collapsed. I'll leave it and see how it goes - but ultimately, why is there a need to potentially bust some browsers/configurations over standardisation that doesnt make any difference to the front-end/end-user? Timeshift 23:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Well I'm actually not in the business of converting non-standard templates to a standard form, believe it or not. I was only converting all templates that used {{Dynamic navigation box with image}} (which are already in a standard form) to {{Navbox}} (another standard) due to a bug in the former. This template was listed as using {{Dynamic navigation box with image}} (which it did in a recent version), so I converted it to {{Navbox}}. Of the 500 or so that I converted, only 2 were reverted...one back to Dynamic navigation box with image, and then this one to a non-standard form. That's the only reason that it came to my attention. I wasn't pleased to see my good faith edits reverted, which is the reason I started this discussion, but it really doesn't matter to me much anymore (hence, I won't revert), except that I want to ensure that Navbox is working correctly. --CapitalR 00:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It's rather strange that the ALP leader infobox displays fine but the PM infobox doesn't on my Nokia E65 on it's internal browser over wi-fi... it displays like it codes. Each PM is on their own line on the very left hand side, but is mainly a huge box of white. Timeshift 00:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• We've been using {{Navbox generic}} (on which Navbox is based) for a while now and it has about 5000 templates that use it. No one has complained much that it isn't working properly, so that's the reason we keep using it (complete with the Show/Hide feature). You should upload a screen shot of any errors to its talk page so people can see if there's a bigger problem at hand in it. --CapitalR 00:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If I knew how to take a screenshot on my mobile I would :P All I can say is that it looks like it codes... all PMs on their own line on the very left, with blank white filling the box to the right. Like rather than:

Barton | Deakin | Watson | Reid | Fisher | Cook | Hughes | Bruce | Scullin | Lyons | Page | Menzies | Fadden | Curtin | Forde | Chifley | Holt | McEwen | Gorton | McMahon | Whitlam | Fraser | Hawke | Keating | Howard

It shows as:

Barton |
Deakin |
Watson |
Reid |
Fisher |
Cook |
Hughes |
Bruce |
Scullin |
Lyons |
Page |
Menzies |

etc, with a large amount of white space to the right to fill up the rest of the space in the box - that's why I said, it looks like how it's coded. As for my browser, not sure sorry, it's the generic one that comes with my Nokia E65. Timeshift 00:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Fisher Deakin Fisher

Was there a reason that we changed the template to non-consecutive term-holders multiple times? My recollection was that we decided against it at WP:AWNB. Slac speak up! 07:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Protection

Given the recent happenings in Canberra tonight this template is receiving Good Faith edits, but until Kevin Rudd is sworn in by the GG, this most likely wont occur until after he's faced a no confidence motion on the floor of parliament tomorrow. Once he has been officially sworn in then feel free to either remove the protection and make the changes or request this be done by placing the template {{edit request}} with the requested change below, please for convenience of the responding admin include a link to news site confirming he has been sworn in. Gnangarra 10:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)