Template talk:Green parties in Canada/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Standardize

Given our past standardization debates, I feel like a broken record - so I'll just copy and paste the past justifications for standardization.

• the new template is standardized with the other Canadian political party templates, specifically Template:Major Canadian Liberal Parties, Template:Canadian Conservative Parties and Template:NDP
• the new template conveys more information in less physical space
• unfortunately, your unique template adds very little context and does not convey any extra information
  • in addition, the maple leaf is redundant - we know that the parties are Canadian, so the maple leaf doesn't convey any extra information
• past precedent at previous standardization has consistently ended in favour of standardization - with no opposition (aside from you) from any editors or Wikipedia:WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada

Let's avoid another pointless debate and just allow the template to be standardized. Morgan695 (talk) 03:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

See WP:WAX. GJ (talk) 05:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:WAX is about that line of argument being used to delete something. It has no application to formatting changes. Bearcat (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe in doing anything "just because." Sorry, I cannot allow this to go undefended. GJ (talk) 05:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Still not buying it. GreenJoe (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Your argument itself boils down to "let's not standardize, just because", so you're doing the same thing you claim to be combatting. Do you have an actual reason why this should stay as is, or are you just asserting ownership? Bearcat (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

template standardization

{{RFCpol}}

{{RFCstyle}}

Current version:

Green parties in Canada
Federal: Green Party of Canada
Provincial: Alberta - British Columbia - Manitoba Nova Scotia - Ontario - Prince Edward Island - Quebec - Saskatchewan
Municipal: Winnipeg

Proposed version:

Discussion

Green Party of Nova Scotia looks really unprofessional down at the bottom: 4 navboxes, all different styles. Standardization will solve this problem, preferably with boxes that are short in size and the same width so they stack well. The proposed version serves this function much better. –Pomte 05:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. After most of the templates already standardized to the "navbox" class of templates, having this one as the odd one out just make the articles look unprofessional and disorganized. Standardization of templates, especially in this case, will help the articles look more professional and much more organized. nat.utoronto 15:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I also agree, for the reasons stated above and the reasons I listed under "Standardize". Personally, I believe the inclusion of Image:Maple leaf -- Green.svg is unnecessary, but I suppose that will be the compromise. Morgan695 (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Standardization for the sake of standardization isn't a reason to do it. I have yet to see a good reason to convert it. GreenJoe (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No one is proposing "standardization for the sake of standardization". Many arguments for standardization are being presented, but it seems you are choosing not to consider them. Morgan695 (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Go with the proposal. "Standardization for the sake of standardization" isn't really on the agenda here; it's "standardization for the sake of making Wikipedia look as consistent and professional as possible", which is a different thing. GJ may have yet to see a good reason to convert it, but I have yet to see a good reason not to. Bearcat (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks professional as-is. I don't think standardization will change that. GreenJoe (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about the image of professionalism across Wikipedia as a whole, not just one template. The professionalism of a project includes consistency of design and presentation among related topics and templates. Bearcat (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The deed has been done. RFC will now be archived. nat.utoronto 13:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Major overhaul

I got to thinking that the provincial parties could use their own templates. But rather than do one for every party, I've incorporated it into this one. Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Alberta Greens

The Alberta Green Party has been deregistered, so I have removed the links to it from the list of active provincial parties and active provincial leaders. Perhaps there should be a new category for defunct/deregistered provincial Green parties, which could also include a link to the Terra Nova (Newfoundland and Labrador) Greens? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbie dee (talk • contribs) 04:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

117Avenue

So what's the issue you have with the changes I made? Me-123567-Me (talk) 06:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:NAVBOX: Red links should be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles, and even if they do, editors are encouraged to write the article first. 117Avenue (talk) 13:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha. I can unlink any redlinks. Better than throwing the baby out with the bath water. It's something you could easily have done. Me-123567-Me (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It is what I easily did. 117Avenue (talk) 02:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Dude, Victor Lau has an article. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Now it does. 117Avenue (talk) 03:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Current provincial & territorial leaders

So this wasn't showing up as wikified as a group title, so I de-linked it and added it under the see also section in the overview section. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

What? Do you mean clicking on it didn't work? Or it wasn't the colour you expected it to be? 117Avenue (talk) 03:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The title on the left was supposed to wikify, but it wasn't showing as wikified despite what was in the source.

|group3 = [[List of green party leaders in Canada|Current provincial & territorial leaders]] |list3 = [[James Beddome|Beddome]]{{·}} [[Kristina Calhoun|Calhoun]]{{·}} [[Sharon Labchuk|Labchuk]]{{·}} [[Victor Lau|Lau]]{{·}} [[Jack MacDougall|MacDougall]]{{·}} [[John Percy (politician)|Percy]]{{·}} [[Claude Sabourin|Sabourin]]{{·}} [[Mike Schreiner|Schreiner]]{{·}} [[Jane Sterk|Sterk]]

This is how it was. The title beside group3 was wikified, but it wasn't reflecting in the saved template. You couldn't click on it and have it lead to the list. Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It worked for me. Why wouldn't it? 117Avenue (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

When I looked at the previous version in the history, it seemed fine. Odd. When I looked at it before, it wasn't liking. Whatever the problem was seems to have solved itself, so I revered myself. Though perhaps the see also is the more appropriate place? Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It is appropriate for the see also section, but since it can be applied to a group header, I don't see why it wouldn't linked there. 117Avenue (talk) 05:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Coding

I'm not sure how to code the template, but I'd love it if for example, on the Green Party of BC's article, the template section of their would be uncollapsed. How doable is that? Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It's doable. Would it only be for the party articles, or every article in that section. 117Avenue (talk) 02:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking just the party articles, but we could have all BC Green Party articles have the BC section be expanded. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. But I realized something, this navbox can never be set to autocollapse. Even if it is the only template on a page, there are still navboxes inside it, and the wiki detects that there are multiple navboxes on the page, and collapses it. 117Avenue (talk) 04:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)