Template talk:Politics of Canada

message: This template was radically altered between these two edits
: &  with an edit summary that only said "restore to shorter version that doesn't mess up formatting across many articles".
It was not a restoration, it was a significant change.  I believe that the template in its current form is very useful, however its previous form too was useful for different reasons.  Might I suggest that we revert this to its original purpose (as it is already present in many an articles for which it is no longer relevant (i.e. Supreme Court of Canada) and create a new template to link all elections and parliaments? - Jord 04:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This template is getting a bit out of hand. "Politics of Canada" is such a broad topic that a giant template at the top of every page remotely related to Canadian politics looks ugly. I wonder if better deliniated topics would be in order. For example, why not a separate template for "elections",   "government of canada", "judicial system", and "sessions of parliament", rather than one huge template to hold it all. PullUpYourSocks 16:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a bit large, but I wouldn't seperate the list of elections from the list of parliaments.  I've found it to be very helpful to be able to bring up any one of those pages from any other page.  -Arctic.gnome 17:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that we take both elections and parliaments out of this one and put them into a new template.  I will make a demo and link it here. - Jord 18:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Template:Politics of Canada

message: Please see the following proposal for two templates: Template:Politics of Canada/proposed split.  I think this would be a good way to meet the needs without creating an large template that really over laps.  Some pages would include both templates and I've formatted them in such a way that one could be used at the bottom of a page. Please let me know your comments. - Jord 18:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed split 

message: When this template was originally created, it was a small and concise navigational tool .  It has since evolved into something of a dog's breakfast and it is so complex and detailed that I question its usefulness.  I would suggest we return to the simpler version, in its earliest days it looked like this:
Politics of Canada
Executive
Monarchy
Governor General
Prime Minister
:Cabinet
Legislative
Parliament
Senate
:Speaker of the Senate
:Government Leader in the Senate
:Opposition Leader in the Senate
House of Commons
:Speaker of the House
:Government House Leader
:Leader of the Official Opposition
Judicial
Supreme Court
Lower Courts of Appeal
Constitution
:Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Regions
Provinces and territories
I think that the current version  has gone a long way in improving its aestic appearence and adding some useful information, but I would recommend something with the appearence of the new but the content not much more than the old.
I propose the following:


Executive
:The Crown (Queen Elizabeth II)
:Governor General (Michaëlle Jean)
:Prime Minister (Stephen Harper)
:Cabinet

Legislative (Parliament)
:Senate
:Speaker of the Senate
:Government Leader in the Senate
:Opposition Leader in the Senate
:House of Commons
:Speaker of the House
:Government House Leader
:Leader of the Opposition
::Opposition House Leader
:Elections
:Parliamentary constituencies
:Electoral system
:Last election

Judicial
:Supreme Court
::Chief Justice
:Lower Courts of Appeal
:Constitution
::Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Provinces and territories
:Politics of: AB | BC | MB | NB | NL | NT           NS | NU | ON | PE | QC | SK | YT

Regions
Political culture
Foreign relations

Does this make sense? - Jord 13:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Support. However, I would remove the View Talk Edit line. It's convenient, but it makes it too easy for inexperienced editors to tinker with the template. --Usgnus 13:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, take out the "See also" section. Readers can get to the History of Canada easily enough, and Politics by country is easy to find at Portal:Politics. --Usgnus 13:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with both comments, as proposed it is still too cluttered; any ideas as to how to condense it more muchly appreciated! - Jord 14:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: "See also" and edit links cannot be removed: they are part of the  template. Circeus 15:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Support reduction.Circeus 15:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Support reduction, but keep in the edit tag (Every entry should be easily edited. I would like to remove the links in the headers. It would be like this: Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 20:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose: This shouldn't even be up for a vote. The arms as depicted in the above info box are not the arms of Canada, despite its labelling on commons. As such, it's relation to Canada is non-existent and worthless within the context of an infobox intended for use on articles regarding Canada. Far more appropriate and illustrative is the Canadian flag, which has no fair use encumbrances to avoid. --Durin 16:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment: That coat of arms is outdated.  The modern one has the motto of the Order of Canada behind the shield. --Arctic Gnome 19:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *If the coat as shown right now on this page is the outdated one, it is still likely copyrighted and its presence on commons is improper (this is not surprising given the limited oversight on commons). As such, its use in the template is proscribed by Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. --Durin 19:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This template is out of control 

message: Use of the official government wordmark is a bad, bad, idea.  It implies government sponsorship or approval of the contents of the site.  Websites have been sued for using it.  I'm going to take it off. Kevlar67 09:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wordmark 

message: I have replaced the coat of arms image with the flag of Canada. First, :Image:Bigcancoat.png is tagged (appropriately) as a copyrighted image used under terms of fair use on Wikipedia. Per terms of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria item #9, the use of such images on templates is not permitted. Second, the image :Image:Canada coa.png was uploaded to Commons from vector-images.com. Significant discussion regarding images from this site has concluded that the permissions granted from vector-images.com are not compatible with Commons permissions. As such, a moratorium on uploads of images from that site is shortly to be put in place and it is likely that images tagged with being 'free' because they are from vector-images.com will likely be deleted. Third, the flag of Canada is sufficient to readily identify the template as being of Canada, in fact more so than the coat of arms as few people would readily recognize it, and many would readily recognize the flag. --Durin 12:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's ridiculous. As with Australia and the United Kingdom, the government in Canada would view the use of the Coat of Arms of Canada as fair use. This template should use the (Royal) Coat of Arms of Canada and not the National Flag of Canada because the asymmetric usage suggests a substantive difference in the instance of Canada--which is entirely unwarranted--that would call for the use of the National Flag of Canada instead of the Royal Coat of Arms of Canada, as with the "Politics of the United Kingdom" which uses the Royal Arms of the United Kingdom and "Politics of Australia", which uses the Royal Coat of Arms of Australia. If all the acrimony over this usage pertains to monarchism in Canada, it is settled that the Monarchy of Canada remains until such time as all eleven Canadian legislatures amend their Constitution according to section 41(a) of the Constitution Act, 1982. Thus, as with the "Politics and government of the United Kingdom" and as with the "Politics and government of Australia" it is appropriate to use the Coat of Arms of Canada. Paul63243 (talk) 14:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coat of Arms usage 

message: I've split the provincial links out to a separate template that's linked from this one (and vice-versa), with the idea that this template will reside in fed. related articles, and the other in prov. related articles, but the link connecting the two will allow users to navigate with relative ease. --G2bambino 15:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: :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 Wikipedia: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 05:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair use rationale has been provided for the image at the appropriate location. The only "non-free" elements of the image are the Royal Arms and the flag of Canada, which are used countless times throughout Wikipedia - in fact, this template previously featured the Canadian flag, which is under Crown copyright. --G2bambino 19:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This image is not permitted to be used outside of articles, and every article it is used in needs an explanation. I've removed the image, and if it's added again the page will be protected. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs 19:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Charming. Why the draconian imposition of fair-use criteria for this particular image and not for those in Template:Politics of Australia, Template:Politics of Australia sidebar, Template:Politics of New Zealand, Template:Politics of the United States, Template:PoliticsUK, Template:Politics of Thailand, and, in fact, just about every politics template for every country, which are all also non-free? Hypocricy? Inconsistency? Not enough wiki-police to enforce the rules?  I'm interested to know. --G2bambino 15:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of those countries have coat of arms where the copyright has expired or they aren't using the official copyrighted drawing of the coat.  We could do the same by using one of those crappier looking Canadian coats above on this page.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: This image uses the very same "crappier looking Canadian coat" that was here before. Please check the links in the image's summary to see where the flag and CoA (the only potentially non-fair use elements of this image) come from originally; the other elements (tower image, etc.) are my own creation. --G2bambino 22:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay then, the elements used in this image fall under the same criteria as those ones you list above. Ergo, this image is free as well. --G2bambino 22:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: wrong, an image that you used is copyrighted, thus this whole image is a derivative and is still copyrighted. βcommand 22:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Which image is copyrighted? --G2bambino 22:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Image:Coat of arms of Canada.svg βcommand 22:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay then; I'll change it to an older, free version. (PS- You better get that non-free image off this talk page!) --G2bambino 22:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if you did not use my arms version at all, I still think this looks unprofessional for Wikipedia. I do not know who made the rule to use coat of arms, but whoever did, they never noticed the issue about vector-images.com. The arms image you are using now is slated for a deletion debate due to the license. It looks like it will be kept for now, but we still have a lot of cleanup to do. Plus, I would like a source for the top, left image of the Canadian flag waving. I see that image a lot as general clipart and could be copyrighted. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Unprofessional? My, my. What makes it "unprofessional"? The arms? Or is it all-together too amateurish? The other images within this one are mine. Actually, now that I think about it, I'm going to have to double check that; I have a few Canadian flag images on my computer at work and now I'm not absolutely positive if this is one of mine or not. Maybe this image should just be deleted; regardless of my efforts, it seems they just don't cut it. --G2bambino 02:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since it is an encyclopedia, some might see that image and question why it is there. My other question is this; why do we have the image reading "politics of Canada" when the template reads, below the image "Politics and government of Canada"? I believe that is redundant. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It's a graphic. It's fine. --G2bambino 15:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Can-pol w.jpg

message: On Queen's Privy Council for Canada there's an obvious gap above the lead section, but not above this template. I tried to remove it by removing the space in the article itself, but even with the text butted up against the "}}" with no space between them, the gap is still there. So it must be caused by this template.
Usually this sort of gap is caused by the template's author carelessly leaving a newline or two between the closing "|}" of the table and the following <noinclude> tag, which, combined with a newline after the "}}" in the article, is interpreted as a paragraph break. But there is no such newline in this template. I'm baffled as to how this extra space is creeping in. Hairy Dude (talk) 01:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spacing 

message: Does the template really need to be so wide? Compared to other "Politics of..." templates (such as "Template:Politics of France" or "Template:Politics of Germany") the Canadian politics template is very wide. You can even compare this template to other Canadian topics' templates, for example, "Template: Culture of Canada sidebar" and you will see that this size is not standard. This template actually crowds any Canadian politics-related articles because it so large - especially for users with small screen resolutions.
Having edited the template to make it smaller it's clear that the text would still fit comfortably in a template that was around 250px wide. This would also allow the flag image to be made smaller because it is in my opinion ridiculously large, and this is part of the reason many users seem to be rejecting using a flag.
Thanks Peter  (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Width of the template