Template talk:Canadian federal political parties

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

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)

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)

That seems like a fair solution. The Tom 03:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. There could be another solution to it, but still having the Green Party on the same row as the others misses out on the fact that they are federally-funded whereas the others are not. Their budget before the 2004 election was $75,000 or so, all from donations, and then suddenly it went up to about a million which is the difference between night and day. I'm not personally interested in seeing them positioned anywhere special (don't live in Canada anymore) but there should be something in the template indicating that it's somewhere in between the parties on the top and the never-mentioned rabble on the bottom. Mithridates 12:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Political Party Logos 2 Change layout according to standard 3 Images 4 Isn't it kind of... Big?

[edit] Political Party Logos

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)

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. -Royalguard11^Talk 00:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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? -Royalguard11^Talk 01:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

• It is not uncommon for people to say "They would never sue over this!", and use this as a justification for violating copyright on an image. We can not work in this manner. Presumptions about a copyright holder's intent is a treacherous path fraught with all sorts of problems. Instead, the stance we must take is that the copyright holder is interested in protecting their copyright unless we have documented evidence otherwise. As for it being too much to remove these from templates; the policy proscribes such use because we can not readily control where templates are used. They can be transcluded to userpages just as easily as they can be transcluded to articles. The use of copyrighted logos on one's userpage is in no way anything that can be defended under a fair use claim. Thus, fair use images are not allowed in templates. The purpose of navigational templates, such as this one, is not to look pretty. It is to provide navigational aids to relevant related articles. While providing visual aids is useful to this purpose, it is not sufficient reason to violate copyright nor is it an acceptable claim under fair use law. --Durin 13:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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. -Royalguard11^Talk 04:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

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. -Royalguard11^Talk 21:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Change layout according to standard

MOts party navigation templates have a similar layout. See User:Electionworld/Parties. I suggest to adopt this layout also for this template. Since there a separate election navigation templates, I suggest also to limit the template to parties. This would lead to the following layout: Electionworld Talk? 11:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

v • d • e Federal political parties in Canada
Represented in the House of Commons	Conservative - Liberal - Bloc Québécois - New Democratic
Other parties recognized by Elections Canada	Green - Christian Heritage - Progressive Canadian - Marxist-Leninist - Marijuana - Canadian Action - Communist - Libertarian - First Peoples - Western Block - Animal Alliance-Environment Voters - People's Political Power

Canadian federal political partiesCanadian federal political parties

See WP:WAX. Aside from that, I like this one better as it's more vibrant, and allows for more than just the parties in it. GreenJoe 16:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I should note that thanks to the efforts of Morgan695, every province and territory except NWT and Nunavut (since they don't have any political parties) now all have templates that follow this one. We have a truly Canadian standard. GreenJoe 22:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I personally prefer the version proposed by Electionworld. With the addition of Neorhino, I think it'll look much better and professional. Morgan695 00:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

So to continue from mine and GreenJoe's talk pages, I believe that the proposed template should be implemented. From an ease of use standpoint, the new template is standardized with the other world politics templates and can show party names as a whole (i.e.: we can put 'Animal Alliance Environment Voters' instead of just 'AAEVP'). From an aesthetic perspective, with the addition of Neorhino.ca the margins have been messed up - the new template will fix this. In addition, past precedent at Template talk:USParty shows that the proposed template is best at showing a large number of parties for a unique political system (like Canada's). Morgan695 04:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm also in support of the design above. --Cloveious 07:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the Electionworld template, because it conveys more information in less physical space.

Someone has gone to a lot of work to make a clean, unique template. But what value does it add? It adds the wikipedia "colour" for each party as a line above and below. I'm not sure this conveys any extra information. For one, the colour is not an official party colour, it is simply a "unique" colour for each party. And with all the parties that come and go, it is difficult to maintain.

The template also contains a coloured maple leaf. To me this is redundant. We know that the parties are Canadian, so the maple leaf doesn't convey any extra information. And it is unclear to me whether the colour of the leaf is designed to match the latest offical logo of the party, or the wikipedia colour above.

Finally, the template requires a shortened name for each party ("AAEVP" vs. "Animal-Aliance Environment Voters", otherwise the table won't layout very well.

Jhayman 17:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, there is the "current template" (which has colour bars and maple leaf logos) and the "ElectionWorld" template (posted above) which looks similar to other countries' templates. I believe that Cloveious preferred the "ElectionWorld" template, even though my post looks like I am disagreeing with him/her. Jhayman 18:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The maple leaves are a replacement for the logos that were removed a while back. GreenJoe 18:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Do the maple leaves serve any useful purpose? What colour should each maple leaf be? If we removed the maple leaves, would the template be better, worse or about the same? Jhayman 19:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The colour of the associated party, and sure they highlight the uniqueness of the party through colour. GreenJoe 20:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's been ten days since this round of standardization discussion have begun, and a week since a message about this topic was left at the WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada talkpage. From what I can see (aside from GreenJoe's opinon that the current template looks better), no arguments have been presented aganist standardizaion. If GreenJoe is unable to provide a valid reason for keeping the current template, I think it's safe to say that there is a consensus to standardize the template. Morgan695 21:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

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)

[edit] Isn't it kind of... Big?

That thing takes up several pages!99.226.10.146 (talk) 02:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)