Template talk:Canadian federal political parties

message: I suggest we have a separate row in the middle for parties receiving federal funding but not represented in the House of Commons. The Green Party receives over $1 million a year from the government and had 4.5% of the vote, and looks a bit silly with all the piddly little parties there near the bottom. If there's no objection I think I'll change the template in a day or two. Mithridates 00:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, one whole special row for one party, with a requisite header saying why they get to be in that row but not the one above or the one below?  That's going a bit far for what amounts to an optical game.  If anything, it's going out of our way to placate the Greeny contingent, which seems to violate NPOV.  The Tom 01:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The template is easily too big already. Ading another row would be way too much. An alternative would be to order the other parties on the basis of their share of the popular vote. This would be similar in principle to the upper line on which the arties are ordered by number of seats. This would put the Green Party first in the second grouping. Ground Zero | t 02:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems like a fair solution. The Tom 03:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: January 2006

message: I think we need to create a new license template for Canadian Political Party logos, to satisfy Wiki-Crats that political party logo's don't quite fit in the same vein as other copyrighted work. I personally think political party logo's and colors are key to Canadian's who look for party information online. I also think that Durin's reasoning for removal of the images, that logo's are required in the main name space only is not plausable when each political party can have dozens of articles related to them. I would be very much suprised if a political party would take formal legal action against wikipedia or complain, over the use of the party logo. --Cloveious 17:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I don't think it means much when they are taken out of something like userboxes, but templtes? It doesn't look at all good without the political party logos. Some people may not even know the formal names of the parties, just the very common logo. I think this is going just a little far. I also think it would be very strange for a political party to actually sue Wikipedia. Having their logo on a template would probably benefit them more then it would hurt them. -Royalguard11Talk 00:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You see the logos in the media all the time. So while I'm sure they are under copyright, I bet they don't care who uses them, so long as it's not defamatory. Ardenn 00:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly! So what can we posibly do to get this point across? I've already left a note on WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada to alert them to this. That explanation probably won't suit this user (he's also an admin). Is there anything we can do? -Royalguard11Talk 01:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could come up with a logo template of our own to satisfy those folks. However, it is still only being used under the fair use doctrine. To do more, you'd almost have to get permission from the party or parties themselves. Ardenn 01:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, I think I have one solution to this. We could bypass the template and copy the code right onto the appropriate articles. I know it's kind of redundant, but that way we are not putting logo's into template space, and the "template" on each page would look a lot better. -Royalguard11Talk 04:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *That gets around item #9 of WP:FUC, but not around item #8 of the same. Use of fair use images in that manner is a primarily decorative use, which is not permitted. Sorry. --Durin 16:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the only thing we can do is grin and bear it then. If we can't do it, then we'll just accept it. -Royalguard11Talk 21:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Political Party Logos

message: I re-introduced free images back into the article, but there isn't one yet for every party if someone wants to take the time to create more. GreenJoe 21:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: That thing takes up several pages!99.226.10.146 (talk) 02:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isn't it kind of... Big? 

message: Parties were being duplicated with sections for both the HOC and the Senate, so I eliminated the Senate section, and re-named the HOC section to Parliament. Me-123567-Me (talk) 14:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really see the need for a change. 117Avenue (talk) 02:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And I don't see the need for repeating the parties in parliament in two sections instead of one. Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The way it was before you changed it had the advantage of showing the composition of both chambers of parliament in a concise and practical way. I don't think repeating the parties represented in both chambers is such a disadvantage. — ABJIKLAM (t · c) 02:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a navigation box, not a list. Both can be listed under Parliament. I even added in the PC. If you'd like, you can put in the total numbers each party has in both chambers, though we should probably add in any Independents as well. Keep the order as the order in the HOC. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Listing PC under Represented in Parliament, is incorrect. And why limit ourselves to the number in the parliament? 117Avenue (talk) 03:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not incorrect. They have a seat in the Senate, and were listed under the Senate section. I don't care if we put the numbers of seats each party has or not, it was a suggestion. I still oppose two sections. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Could someone please explain the dispute.  I came here from the RfC noticeboard and cannot follow it.  TFD (talk) 05:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Don't think I mentioned this is done else where. 117Avenue (talk) 03:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but they have one template for all their assemblies, not just "federal" which might be an idea for us? Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it could even be divided up like Template:GPC instead of the British one so there isn't so much to read at once, if it isn't applicable. Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that idea. Would we consider simply having templates in this, the main template, or have all the info here in the one template? It could become complicated fast. Outback the koala (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest creating a new main template, perhaps Template:Canadian political parties, and basically keep them the way they are now, but all sections in the main template. Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I decided to be bold, and created the new template. Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

text: They're all relevant, because a reader outside Canada might not know the provinces have seperate parties. That doesn't happen too many places. In the US, Australia and UK, most of the federal parties are either the only parties, or they're the top of the chain for affiliation. Me-123567-Me (talk) 14:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A navbox that is titled "Provincial political parties in province", will tell the reader there are provincial politics. I actually think combining them into one list will cause the reader to assume incorrect affiliations. 117Avenue (talk) 03:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: They're still broken down by province, but instead of several separate templates, we have one template. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting look at things, non-Canadian readers may not know, but the real question is do they care? Personally, I was completely unaware that Australia did not have a similar system in place, with different parties at the state level, and it seems odd to me that they do not. So if I were I non-Canadian reader I would most likely think our system is odd and want to investigate further. I think it's a good idea because of this. But it is so big, I agree, purhaps collapse the territories into one? Or maybe regional break down (West, Atlantic, Central...)?Outback the koala (talk) 04:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In the meantime I don't think Template:Canadian political parties should be used until we agree on how and where to use it. It may be out of place right now to use it in place of existing templates. Outback the koala (talk) 04:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: NWT and Nunavut have no parties, but we could do Federal + say 3 regional groupings, and under the regional groupings have the sections for those provinces. Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The box is too long, and unusable. I think this is a case of WP:TCREEP. 117Avenue (talk) 05:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, but if you wish to change it back, go ahead and go through all those articles and change the templates back. Took  me about 2 - 3 hours to do it. Me-123567-Me (talk) 06:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That is underhanded and wrong. We are supposed to build consensus and then act upon that, rather than place the onus of undoing your edits which were out of place on us, it should be you who goes and undos those edits. We were all giving input into the issue and "resolving" it your way alone is not cooperative. I urge you to rethink your stance. Outback the koala (talk) 07:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It was not, I was being bold. At the time that's the way the consensus was going. Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

text: And he's invalidates his own argument, thus we can combine the HOC and Senate sections into one. Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Keep in mind if you do decide to change it back, you're invalidating your own argument which you use the UK template as an example. Me-123567-Me (talk) 06:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

text: You have steped outside the boundaries of BOLD. You should have created the template, for arguments sake, then garnered the consensus to use it. By going around to the hundreds of articles, you essentially deleted a template, without going through the proper procedures. I am well aware of how to revert the changes you have made, I just wanted you to say "go ahead and change it back". So that you don't see the edits as being against you. 117Avenue (talk) 02:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. I did up the template, and then went ahead and put it on the applicable article's pages. Just be sure you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater if/when you do revert, some of those articles didn't have a template on them before and/or I made other changes as well. Not to make it harder to change back, but because they needed them. Honestly, I made the changes because I thought the template worked. I still do think it works, well. It achieved what was being set out to do, create a template like that of its UK counterpart. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Nominate them for TfD, see if others agree. 117Avenue (talk) 04:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good idea. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Also agree. Outback the koala (talk) 19:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parliament 

message: Earlier today I edited the template to change the way the parties and caucuses in the Senate section of the template were displayed, in this case putting all parliamentary groups equally rather than putting all three after a dash beside "Independent" and the total of those senators. User:Me-123567-Me reverted my change saying that those groups (Senate Liberal Caucus and Independent Senators Group) were not parties.
Given that the template has previously shown caucuses/members who have listed an affiliation that is not related to a current political party (such as the Independent Conservatives that occurred during Harper's term) on par with political parties, why can't we do the same for the current senators in the SLC and ISG? I understand they may not be political parties registered by Elections Canada but for all intents and purposes they are parties within the structures of Parliament.  04:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. Let's not be so nit-picky with the distinction between parties and caucuses. Plus, the SLC and ISG were already included before, which means we've had non-parties in this template for a while now. Your change makes the template tidier. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 12:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

text: Perhaps they should be small cased under Independent? Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that putting them under independent makes the template look more confusing, and doesn't present an honest image of the arrangement of the Senate. Perhaps if we put a superscript cross beside both and at the bottom note that ISG and SLC are parliamentary groups not affiliated with a political party? Or something to that effect, at any rate.  22:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Better yet, the article Senate Liberal Caucus says the caucus is also referred to as "Senate Independent Liberal Caucus". Let's just use that name. It makes it clear the caucus calls itself Liberal but is officially independent of the Liberal Party. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 15:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't actually find a reliable source that uses "Senate Independent Liberal Caucus", only a few news articles from Postmedia that mention "the Senate's independent Liberal caucus". On the other hand the Library of Parliament makes reference to Terry Mercer as the chair of the "Senate Liberal Caucus".  20:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh alright, then we should use "Senate Liberal Caucus". I'm okay with using a footnote to indicate independent groups, but I don't think it's necessary. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 13:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've already updated the article with the name. So should I make the change to the template as above, you think?  22:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I think it would be a good idea. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 14:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

text: The discussion above makes sense only in a parliamentary context. ISG and SLC aren't registered with Elections Canada as political parties and as such shouldn't be listed on an article called "Federal political parties in Canada." Either they should go or the title should change. Madg2011 (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm okay with changing the title of the navbox to "political parties and parliamentary groups" or something similar. It's better than the alternative to group all non Conservative senators as independents. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 00:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm all in favour of having an RFC. And there is some precedent: the only other parliamentary caucus unaffiliated with a party that has occurred in the Canadian Parliament (the Democratic Representative Caucus which split from the Canadian Alliance in 2001) is treated on equal footing with parties in other parts of Wikipedia (i.e. List of federal political parties in Canada, :Template:Canadian Conservative Parties, List of Canadian politicians who have crossed the floor) despite never having been registered with Elections Canada.  16:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listing of Parties/Caucuses in the Senate 

message: If we're including all the currently represented groups/parties in the Commons, surely the sole MP who currently identifies as CCF should be included, too? Eilidhmax (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  CCF