Template talk:Politics of Canada

Template:Politics of Canada

This template was radically altered between these two edits

[1] & [2] 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)

• I noticed the change. I didn't like it but tolerated it. It was to bring the Politics of Canada in line with the international standard. Compare it to Template:Politics of India. The two Canadian versions appear to fill two different purposes so it looks like someone made the change to a template without checking the "What links here". Seems like this should be re-named "Government of Canada" as some of the linked subjects (ie. Judicial) are not politicized (I hope). --maclean25 05:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Proposed split

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)

This template is out of control

When this template was originally created, it was a small and concise navigational tool [3]. 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 [4] 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:

Does this make sense? - Jord 13:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

Canada

125px This article is part of the series: Politics and government of Canada

Constitution Charter of Rights and Freedoms The Crown (Queen Elizabeth II) Governor General (Michaëlle Jean) Cabinet Prime Minister (Stephen Harper) Parliament) Senate House of Commons Elections Parliamentary constituencies Electoral system Last election Political parties Supreme Court Chief Justice Lower Courts of Appeal Provinces and territories Regions Political culture Foreign relations

Other countries · Atlas Politics portal

Wordmark

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)

Coat of Arms usage

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)

Split

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Can-pol w.jpg

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• [Template:Politics of Australia]] image is free.
• Template:Politics of Australia sidebar also free image
• Template:Politics of New Zealand free image also
• Template:Politics of the United States Public Domain image also
• Template:Politics of the United Kingdom yet again free image
• Template:Politics of Thailand the copyright of this image is unknown, I replaced it with a free image. β^_command 22:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

wrong, an image that you used is copyrighted, thus this whole image is a derivative and is still copyrighted. β^_command 22:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Which image is copyrighted? --G2bambino 22:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Coat of arms of Canada.svg β^_command 22:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

It's a graphic. It's fine. --G2bambino 15:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Image replacement

Why does someone keep undoing my edits? The Government of Canada logo seems like it belongs at the top. Also, I'm really not a fan of the current image: it's poorly created and the text is aliased. -- _{TIM KLOSKE|TALK} 01:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I viewed here before putting the long-standing image back again.

The "logo" image a) isn't the logo of the Government of Canada and b) repeats what the template already says, which I was chastised for regarding an earlier graphic I'd put in. --G2bambino (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I replaced the image with a flag. Most other countries use a coat of arms or other national symbol. The previous image was fairly lousy/ugly.-Wafulz (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Guess "lousy/ugly" is your personal opinion. Doesn't matter though, you might perhaps find "a flag" lousy/ugly too. We can't use the Royal Arms, as they're crown copyright, and we don't need another Canadian flag on Wikipedia articles relating to Canada. What else can we use but a self-created image (as is here now) or the Royal Standard? Beisdes, there's the very stylish, and unique, Template:Politics of Hong Kong as precedent. --G2bambino (talk) 18:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The shot of parliament is cut-off and crooked, the flag is oddly placed, the text is aliased, and the combined image is doused in red and run through some Photoshop filters. It looks corny, unprofessional, and hastily thrown together. There's also no reason the flag wouldn't work, considering it's our national symbol. I've gone through the first 50 transclusions, and in most articles it's the flag's only appearance. The few times it does appear are in {{Government Departments of Canada}} at the very bottom.-Wafulz (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Just about every infobox and navbox that has to do with Canada uses the national flag. Is this just that you insist on symmetry? --G2bambino (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I can accept the shield we've got up now.-Wafulz (talk) 21:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Mm.. I thought the previous was more creative, but, I guess navboxes aren't for art. Unless they're about art. Obviously. --G2bambino (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Spacing

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)

Shield image

I've restored the shield image as the deletion nomination tag for that file has been there for months and the discussion about it has been stale since July. (Plus, as I noted in my edit summary, the crest of the Royal Arms is a bit misleading in this context, having come to specifically represent the Governor General alone.) I left a note at the Commons talk page for the shield image in the hopes that someone there will wrap the matter up once and for all, with what happens here pending. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

A user has recently expressed concern with the use of the shield of the Royal Arms in this navbox template. The resoning given is that "The shield alone is never used that way, it's not appropriate". I'm personally unconvinced by that argument. The shield is that of the arms of the Queen in Right of Canada, who is - in council, in parliament, and on the bench - the government (as outlined in the Constitution Act 1867); the shield therefore forms a part of various symbols of government institutions, such as the Senate and House of Commons. And this navbox doesn't purport to give information on the proper use of heraldic elements, anyway. Further, the shield is used alone, in banner form, as the Queen's royal standard.

Still, other images might also be usable - the Queen's royal standard, perhaps? Or something unofficial, like this image? However, I don't agree with the use of the national flag, which is a symbol of the nation, apart from government, and thus has little relation to this navbox. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• The shield is, as pointed out, never used on its own. As such, it cannot be considered to represent the government. The shield is not in fact used on its own in the standard; it is defaced with the royal cipher. That too is inappropriate for use, as it is the Queen's in a more personal capacity; nobody else is permitted to fly that flag. Therefore not representative of the government per se. The Canadian flag is instantly recognisable to people around the world as representing Canada, and thus is correct for use in a template which represents Canadian politics, and does not lend undue weight to a pro-monarchist POV. → ROUX ₪ 23:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The shield is a poor substitute for the national flag. Monarchist sympathies aside, you must recognize that Miesianiacal. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Trying to bring matters of pov into this is a pointless effort. I'm not beholden to the shield image. To me, for the aforementioned reasons, it is the better of the two in the choice between it and the flag. Let's look at other options, if there are any available. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

There is the older version of the full Canadian arms; the image is copyright free. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The older version is no longer the symbol of government, as it no longer follows the correct blazon, as it is missing the annulus containing the motto of the Order of Canada. → ROUX ₪ 17:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

It is outdated, yes. As to it therefore not being now a symbol of the government: neither is the national flag nor the current shield of the arms alone, apparently. I didn't think we were looking for a proper, current symbol of the government, anyway (could any such thing be found that's free of copyright?), just the best image for a politics of Canada navbox. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

You appeared to be arguing for a current symbol of government. If that's not the case, okay. The rest of us seem to be arguing for something which clearly and quickly identifies 'Canada' to the rest of the world. The flag is, for that reason, a superior choice; the use of a symbol which is no longer in use by the government (1957 COA) is misleading, the use of HM's standard is inappropriate (as only she is permitted to use it), the shield alone is inappropriate as it is never used alone, the Canada vote stub image is inappropriate as it was internally developed for identifying particular stubs of a specific wikiproject only, and apart from a map of Canada itself I am hard-pressed to find a more appropriate or useful image than our national flag. Which is, in fact, used daily as a symbol by, of, and for the government. → ROUX ₪ 18:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

What I mean to say is that the shield is preferable because it is more associated with government than is the national flag. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Miesianiacal, you claim the national flag is not used by the Government either. Then would you care to explain it's use in government wordmarks? The flag is the only acceptable solution right now, until we have a version of the full coat of arms that is considered free use. Fry1989 (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually I don't think the COA would be appropriate even if we could get a free version. The flag is much more identifiably Canadian to non-Canadian readers. → ROUX ₪ 23:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say the flag isn't used by the government. It just isn't a symbol of the government, in any sense of the word. Both the shield and the flag are used by government bodies, as parts of other symbols: the shield in the coat of arms and the badges of the Senate and House of Commons, the flag in the generic government wordmark. Which one is more associated with state authority, though? The answer seems clear to me: the shield.

Regardless, it appears we each have our minds made up on our preferences, which indicates that this can only be resolved through numbers of yeas and nays. If nobody comes in here either with another viable alternative or the same preference as mine, then the national flag it will have to be, and we'll see how it holds up. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The shield alone is not associated with state authority as it is never, ever used that way. The flag, on the other hand, very much is de facto associated with state authority, as it is the symbol we see on the government wordmark, flying outside of every government building, usually draped somewhere inside such buildings, on every letter from HRDC and Revenue Canada (the only government missives I happen to have handy; I believe it also appeared on our StatsCan packet for the census), outside every post office, on every police officer's uniform, outside every city hall and provincial legislature, and flying from the highest point of Parliament. Whether it is a de jure symbol of the 'government' (and I find the argument that it's not somewhat baffling; symbol of the government and symbol of the nation are not mutually exclusive terms) or not seems kind of irrelevant.

That all aside, there is no requirement for this template that it have an official government symbol on it, as the template is not about the government, it is about all politics within Canada. As such, a symbol which represents Canada seems more appropriate. Given that, there are two symbols which scream Canada to the entire world: the Maple Leaf, and the flag. The latter slightly more appropriate, as it's more formal. The bottom line being, it's rather strange to use a symbol which is never used on its own anywhere as some sort of symbol for a government which only uses that symbol when it is complete. {{subst:User:Roux/sig}

The national flag is used in a symbol of the government, and can be seen in and on government property, sure. But, so too is it seen in corporate logos and in and on private property - hotels, office buildings, McDonalds, private schools, private residences, & etc. - unlike the shield, which is only ever used in symbols of government and the state (and thus also appears in and on government property). The flag is likely more recognisable, but does not, in my mind, evoke thoughts of governance and politics. Further, of all such templates in Category:Politics by country sidebar templates, only 11 for countries use flags, none of them major states; many use shields from the country's arms. A few odd ones out are Template:Politics of Singapore, Template:Politics of Hong Kong, Template:Politics of Libya, and Template:Politics of Northern Ireland. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Other stuff exists is not a particularly compelling argument; you know this. The shield of the arms is never used as a government symbol, full stop. Using it in that way is purely POV and suggests to readers that it is a symbol of the government when it is emphatically not, at least not without its compartment, annulus, supporters, and crest. As I said above, the use of the flag as a symbol by the government is not mutually exclusive with the use of the flag to represent the nation, nor the use of it in a private or business capacity. In any case, I'll be changing the template back now as there seems to be no point in further discussion. → ROUX ₪ 04:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I never said the shield is used as a government symbol. The flag is also not, by itself, a government symbol. However, with three to one preferring the flag, the discussion is indeed done, pending further developments. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Uninvolved and apparently uninformed editor here. Why can't we use the Royal COA of Canada? According to its article, it is "the official coat of arms of the Canadian monarch, and thus also of Canada". DigitalC (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The image, unfortunately, isn't free of copyright. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Image. Again.

I was under the impression that consensus above indicated we would use the flag image.

Why is Miesianiacal acting against that consensus?

Why is he saying Fry should have discussed the removal here? WP:BRD, Mies; you were bold, Fry reverted, then you discuss. Don't continue reverting.

In any case, consensus above is clear, the flag is an excellent identifier of Canadian articles. → ROUX ₪ 23:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It is my right to be bold. Fry reverted, but without a shred of explanation; it appeared knee-jerk, which is something he's been known to do in the recent past. I probably should have initiated a discussion; I can't recall now why I didn't.

Now that we're here, though: can Fry eludicate for us his objection to the wordmark? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll add: I see Fry did offer some commentary in his last edit summary about the flag representing the nation. That's true, but seems irrelevant. This is a template about the politics and government of Canada, not the Canadian nation. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I am categorically not getting drawn into another of your standard 'well I didn't get my way last time, so despite clear consensus on what to use I'll propose something else and make everyone repeat their arguments all over again' timewasting bits of utter nonsense. My arguments as to why the flag is the best option are above and I will not bother repeating them here. The only reason I didn't revert the change is I didn't notice it on my watchlist, and I had the clearly vain and misplaced hope that perhaps after so many years you had learned that once consensus is achieved you don't get to go attacking it again so quickly. Alas. → ROUX ₪ 15:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

There's no need to be rude, and we need not delve into your personal interpretations of consensus policy. To the point: Nobody asked you to rehash your arguments in favour of the flag over the shield. This is the wordmark we're talking about. If there's some reason you think the definitive logo of the government of Canada is less appropriate than a national flag, please explain. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The flag is the superior choice, for the reasons which I outlined above. End of story. I wasn't being rude; your tactic bat all times is to wear down your opposition until they give in. You know it, I know it, everyone who has ever seen you in action knows it, so stop being disingenuous and engage in a discussion with actual good faith for a change. Your statement above, "pending further developments," was a dead giveaway, FYI; I was waiting to see what you would try and how soon you would try it after consensus was established, consensus that you agreed to. Do you have any fucking clue how incredibly tiresome it is to have to deal with your nonsense time and time and time again? It never changes, it's been the same for years, and yet because you maintain a superficial veneer of civility (and are quite astute about when to disappear for a while until the heat dies down), nothing ever gets done and you have completely failed to learn that your behaviour is unacceptable. Your behaviour is exactly why I don't go near any articles having to do with monarchy anymore, and you know it. Your next claim, of course, is that you are not responsible for my choices--but you are responsible for your very carefully chosen behaviour, and it is frankly sickening. → ROUX ₪ 15:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

If I've committed some violation of policy or guideline, please report it at the appropriate location. Otherwise, cease with the personal attaks; it's a deviation away from the subject that should be the focus here: the appropriateness of the wordmark vs. the flag. If you really wish to reapply the same arguments you made against the shield, then I have to point out that you favoured the flag becuase it was a) a symbol of Canada and b) used by the government as part of its definitive wordmark. The questions therefore left unanswered are: a) Why is a symbol of a nation more appropriate than an available and very specific symbol of government on this navbox? And b) Why do you prefer a part of the wordmark over the wordmark itself? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

And yet you seem to think it's fine to make personal commentary whenever you like, so... well too bad for you there really. Accurate description of your behaviour as seen by many people is not a personal attack. The wordmark is specifically a symbol of the Canadian government. The flag is a symbol of the nation. The template is about Canadian politics in general, not the federal government specifically. With that, I am done; all that's happening here is you didn't get your way so now you're trying to make sure nobody else gets their way either. It's one of the more childish and depressing components of your schtick, and it is really, really tiresome. The consensus established was quite clear: to use the flag. You agreed to this consensus. And then two weeks later (!) you made good on your promise of 'pending further developments,' which can only be interpreted as a plan to then try this approach. It's what you always do: wear down your opponents until we give in. You've been doing it for years, and you are fully aware of exactly what you are doing. It's sad that you pretend that we're too stupid to see what you're doing. → ROUX ₪ 16:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Your opinions of me have been expressed already; it was unnecessary once, let alone four times. All the repetition indicates is that you're not achieving your goal here. Again, I suggest it would be more productive for everyone if you reported me at the appropriate place and see if you can reach the end you want that way.

Back to the real point: The template is about the federal government and the politics related to it. How the wordmark is not the most appropriate image to use is still not clear; it is a symbol of the federal government, the flag is not. This is why 95% of all government/politics templates use arms or logos, not flags. Had I known the wordmark was a free image back when we discussed the use of the shield, I would have promoted its use then. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Since you didn't read it the first time, let's try again:

The wordmark is specifically a symbol of the Canadian government. The flag is a symbol of the nation. The template is about Canadian politics in general, not the federal government specifically.

Perhaps now you will read it. → ROUX ₪ 16:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I read it the first time. Here's my response again: The template is about the federal government and the politics related to it. How the wordmark is not the most appropriate image to use is still not clear; it is a symbol of the federal government, the flag is not. This is why 95% of all government/politics templates use arms or logos, not flags. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you re-examine the template. Provincial politics are not federal, thus the logo of the federal government is inappropriate. The Supreme Court is not part of what is commonly understood as the federal government (i.e. the legislative bodies). General discussions of Canadian political culture, political movements, officeholders from the municipal level up, and municipal politics and structure are not part of the federal government. Once again:

The wordmark is specifically a symbol of the Canadian government. The flag is a symbol of the nation. The template is about Canadian politics in general, not the federal government specifically.

→ ROUX ₪ 16:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The courts are considered one of the three branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial. And I did say the template is about the federal government and the politics related to it. But you do have a point there about the presence of the provincially related links. That, though, just leads one to ask: what does the Canadian flag have to do with the provinces? Or, alternately, is it right to have the government and politics of the provinces in this navbox? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The flag represents the entire nation and its constituent parts. The governmental wordmark applies solely to the federal government. Providing a broad link between all political issues in Canada is the obvious justification for this navbox. What are you going to nitpick next, I wonder, so you can gain the satisfaction you must obviously gain from 'winning' Wikipedia? → ROUX ₪ 17:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you lodged a complaint about my nitpicking and need to "win" Wikipedia, yet? Or, is this still just more hot air coming from your direction? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you learned to stop being a total hypocrite yet? Have you learned how to have a discussion without snide commentary yet? Have you learned what a repellently abrasive person you are? Wait, of course you have, and you very clearly rely on it as many people have indicated over the years. Ah well. → ROUX ₪ 01:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

This is not the venue for your griping. Report my offences at the appropriate location. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for so neatly and succicntly proving my point. You are incapable of characterising anything anyone else says without snide, nasty use of language implying they are stupid and/or anything they say is without merit. It is disgusting how you treat people, and it's even more awful that you have learned not a single lesson about better interaction with people in your years here, not to mention your RFC/U. The worst part--carefully calculated by you, of course--is that you colour just inside the lines enough that you drive other people to anger, while remaining superficially within the rules yourself, thus avoiding any serious action taken against you. If any admins had balls you would have been banned years ago for your relentless POV-pushing, if nothing else. → ROUX ₪ 01:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Please report my offences at the appropriate location. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

There's no point. You just weasel out of any actual self-awareness of your behaviour, and you very much weasel your way out of an sanctions for your disgusting, abrasive, and uncollegial attitude. → ROUX ₪ 01:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• I, for one, would prefer the Maple Leaf flag image, as an international symbol of the country. PKT(alk) 17:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think there is an image the represents the politics of Canada. The government logo represents the Government of Canada, which is not the same as the politics of Canada. The flag image represents Canada as a whole. I would much prefer to use the shield, however that is not an option. Out of these two choices, I would say that the flag image is more suitable - although it is not ideal. DigitalC (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The flag is much better than the wordmark. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Alright, then; with five to one in favour of the flag over the wordmark, the flag wins again. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I wonder what you're going to try to change it to next. → ROUX ₪ 01:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Spend your time as you please. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Finally got my internet back, but I can see the decision has already been made. Good. Fry1989 (talk) 14:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

My first question, upon hearing about this discussion, was about the copyright status of the wordmark. I would be extremely surprised if, as a government trademark, it didn't actually fall under Crown copyright — but that would require some clarification, since the existing file claims (but doesn't actually prove) public domain. At any rate, I have to agree with the existing consensus: the wordmark is a symbol of the federal government, but this is not a federal government template per se — it's a template that covers federal and provincial and municipal politics, and therefore the graphic needs to be broadly inclusive of a lot of things that aren't appropriately covered by the wordmark. So flag it is. Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The wordmark would actually be PD because it is basic text, and the flag is PD as well. However, it's inapropriate for this template for other reasons stated above. Fry1989 (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Width of the template

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)