Template talk:Provinces and territories of Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canada Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
NA This article has been rated as na-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

I felt it would be easier to follow with the names spelled out. This involved some re-arrangement for visual aesthetics. Brooklyn Nellie 06:30, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Flags too much

I have removed the flags because I seriously believe they make the template way too big. Not only is it the only footer template with them (Consistency anyone?), but it is also unnecessarily bigger than similar templates that manage to have much more links like {{africa}}, {{algeria}} and becomes as big as {{United States}}, which is a bit ridiculous. Circeus 14:53, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • The provincial and territorial flags appear on each province/territory's page. They may be pretty, but they do make the template big, so I do not see the need for them here. Why flags and not coats of arms, provincial flowers, provincial birds, pictures of the premiers, or provincial mottoes? Ground Zero 15:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Actually, m'y main question is "Why images at all". I see no need to differenciate this template from countless subdivision templates in addition to the size problem. Circeus 15:29, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Ummm... my question was rhetorical. I was not actually suggesting putting Ralph Klein in the footer template. Ugh. Wouldn't that make it an ugly blot on the page? Ground Zero 15:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
My bad, I have issues with irony. I'd have to say more people are likely to know the flags (I knew a couple of them) than any other provincial symbols, like, say, the tartans. Circeus 15:52, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • The flags are a good inclusion, as they enhance the template significantly. Astrotrain 18:14, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • So having expressed your preference, instead of waiting until the issue has been settled here on the talk page, you've just decided to go ahead and revert. User:Circeus, User:Stormscape and I agree with the deletion, and so far, you, alone, are opposed. I'll just undo your work to give other members of the community a chance to weigh in. If other active editors (no sock puppets, please) are in favour of keeping the flags, then we'll put them back in. Ground Zero 18:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
      • The flags were already there, so I am entitled to revert to what they were for several months. Astrotrain 19:01, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Please cite the references in Wikipedia guidelines that "entitle" you to do whatever you want. There are several editors who have stated their cases for removing the flags -- oversizing of the template, redunancy with informatin on the linked pages, consistency with other templates, clutter, why flags over other symbols. You are the only editor so far in favour of keeping them, and you have provided little in the way of explanation, other than that you like them. you are behaving arbitrarily and aggressively. Please wait until this is resolved on this talk page before you revert again. Ground Zero 19:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I should add that this argument fallacious, consifering you originally added the flags in the first place. Circeus 20:16, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

When you added them in April, you made the template completely unreadable until another user fixed it by lining everything up. --Stormscape 08:18, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Without responding to any of the concerns that I, Stormscape or Circeus have raised, Astrotrain has imposed the flags again. Her/His behaviour suggests that s/he is determined to have his/her way without regard to what other editors think. Pity. This sort of behaviour brings Wikipedia down. Ground Zero 02:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates/Navboxes, there are 100 (± 2 or 3) geographical and country subdivision templates. Of these, 99 do not have flags of the listed places on them. One (a template that has only four listed places - England, Scotland, Wales, and N. Ireland) does. It seems clear that the convention is that templates do not have the flags of the listed places on them. Ground Zero 13:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

  • And we have another reversion by Astrotrain without comments on the arguments raised by other editors. *Sigh.* Ground Zero 20:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I can't see how you think that a template without images is better than one with them? And there are several templates with flag images including the UK and the Channel Islands templates. Not all will have flags because there is not a lot of flag images for the more obscure countries. In any case, there is no convention not to have a flag image on a template. As Canada has some well known sub-divisional flags, it is only right they are shown on the relevant pages, as an excellent link and to promote their use. And I was in the middle of writing this when you saved before me! Astrotrain 20:08, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

There is no convention not to have the flags on the template? Let me point out again that I found 99 that don't, and only one that does on the templates page. There are certainly flag images for all 50 US states, and all of the Australian provinces, but not in their templates. The reason that the simple version is better is that it does not add clutter to the article. I am glad that you have posted your comments, and will invite other editors (at Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board#Request for Comments) to respond with their views so that we can work out a consensus instead of wasting our time reverting. Ground Zero 20:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

  • In fact lots of country type templates have flags, as well as military templates (UK Military, US Military) so your argument is void. Astrotrain 20:20, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Double sigh. Astrotrain has reverted again, and included this charming comment in the subject line: "i am sure people would prefer this version rather than Ground Zero's personal Canadian template (all rights reserved)". Again, he is trying to portray this as a personal choice on my part (see Wikipedia:no personal attacks), even though I am joined in my view by User:Stormscape, User:Circeus and User:SimonP, and Astrotrain appears to be alone in his view. Of course, it was not even me who removed the flags in the first place. But he's sure that other people share his point of view and we just have to take his word for it because he will just keep posting those blessed flags over and over again. I give up for now. Ground Zero 20:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the flags are unnecessary and made the template too large and gaudy. I have attempted a compromise version with tiny flags. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I think the small version is still ugly and cluttered, but am willing to compromise in order order to settle this. Thanks, DoubleBlue, for taking this on. I hope that Astrotrain can live with this compromise so that we can all move on. Ground Zero 20:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
    • How exactly is the previous template, "gaudy"? And "too large"? It fits on my screen with much room to spare. And the flag images are now too small to even see. 20px? you must be joking! Astrotrain 20:42, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, I increased size to 30px, and added text below image so they line up correctly, yours had Newfoundland on a line on its own. Astrotrain 20:48, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
      • I believe the new version with the small flags by Ground Zero looks fine. I can see the flags and the template is not huge. If you can not see them you may want to change your screen resolution. •Zhatt• 20:47, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
        • I can't take credit for that. It was User:DoubleBlue. I see that Astrotrain has returned it to a format more to his own taste. I think that the box remains too big. Encyclopedia articles shouldn't be about template boxes with pretty pictures of flags in them, but the content of the articles. Templates should provide way for people to navigate only. I can accept DoubleBlue's 20 px flags as a compromise so that we can end this. I hope that Astrotrain will not continue to demand that it be his way. Ground Zero 20:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Astro's still makes the template ugly. And who the hell was in charge of putting them in a reasonable order? alphabetical is too confusing, plus the template is half empty. only half of it is being used. It's basicly a big empty box with a tiny bit of text. --Stormscape

I believe the inclusion of flags of any size is unnecessary and overall detrimental to this template. The flags visually complicate an otherwise simple, effective footer. The intent of footers is to facilitate speedy navigation between related articles, and the flags break up the wikilinks too much. Ground Zero's comment that "At Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates/Navboxes, there are 100 (± 2 or 3) geographical and country subdivision templates. Of these, 99 do not have flags of the listed places on them." is also extremely important as visual consistency is one of the prime strengths of readability Wikipedia has. Kurieeto 07:14, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Truth is, I am 100% in agreement with Kurieeto here. I prefer simple text links to the province pages. Clearly, however, others strongly preferred flags and I just attempted a compromise pro tem template. I would be pleased if there could be agreement to remove the flags. Perhaps, at a later point, we can. Or perhaps it's better to fight it out now and have it decided. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, since everyone else in this revert war are acting like kids, I did too. :p

I've had enough of Astrotrain's antics. He is the only one who wants flags and refuses to accept a compromise. Consensus here and standards of other templates advocate text only links. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

After looking at the competing versions of the template, I prefer the simple one without the provincial flags. The flags seem to get in the way of finding the links, and they also make the template look busy and can distract from the article at hand. --NormanEinstein 23:47, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Since Astrotrain did not accept the compromise (20px), and since there is now a pretty clear consensus of users who are not Astrotrain that there should be no flags, I guess we'll go with that. The 30px "compromise" seems to be supported only by Astrotrain and no-one else. Ground Zero 17:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

  • The 30px version is not a compromise that was accepted by any editor other than Astrotrain, so it was not accepted. The consensus is clearly in favour of no flags. Ground Zero 18:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Astrotrain: you are misrepresenting my position in saying that I accepted the 30px version as a compromise. Do not do that again. Read this page before you make false accusations again. Ground Zero 18:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

  • You accepted having small flags, you did not specify a particular size (I think the small version is still ugly and cluttered, but am willing to compromise in order order to settle this). Small flags was the agreement reached, and I stuck to that. If you meant the 20px flags, why didn't you change it back to that one? Don't worry, I'll do it for you. Astrotrain 18:37, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

"The 30px "compromise" seems to be supported only by Astrotrain and no-one else." I think that's clear. In any event, events have overtaken this discussion, and there is consensus that no flags are preferred by NormanEinstein, DoubleBlue, Kurieeto, Circeus, Stormscape, SimonP, and me. Flags are preferred by you. Sorry, you will not get your way on this. Ground Zero 18:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I think at this point a page lock or something alike might be necessary. At any rates, I have posted at Wikipedia:Requests for comments. Circeus 20:12, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I agree wholeheartedly with Ground Zero. In fact, I think even the 20px version is irredeemably ugly. My vote is for no flags. -Joshuapaquin 11:58, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
The original flag template was the better version, however these guys teamed up and demanded the 20px version be used as a compromise. Now some users are trying to revert from the consensus, and impose their own views, as well as vandalising other user's contributions. Astrotrain 12:39, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
some users are trying to revert from the consensus, and impose their own views, as well as vandalising other user's contributions: I couldn't agree more and I am glad you finally recognise your problem and have stopped. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus for text-only links

I believe it's pretty clear that there is a consensus for text-only links for this template (as opposed to the flags version.

  • For text-only: WikiProject Countries/Footers standard, NormanEinstein, DoubleBlue, Kurieeto, Circeus, Stormscape, SimonP, Ground Zero, Joshuapaquin, and Mendel.
  • For flags: Astrotrain.

DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

  • The only consensus was for the flag version with 20px images. There is no consensus for a text only version, given the definition of consensus is "agreement as a whole". In any case, some of the people you have listed have not commented on this matter as far as I can see. Astrotrain 15:20, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • The 20px version was an attempt at a compromise that no one (including you and me) preferred and was continually reverted to either 50px or 30px. That does not indicate consensus to me. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
    • And who, exactly, are you speaking of, Astrotrain? Please indicate which users you believe have been misrepresented in DoubleBlue's sorting. -Joshuapaquin 17:53, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, I think I reverted it to no flags at some point... Circeus
        • From reading here, and looking at the template, I have to agree, having flags in the template is not a good idea. Just the flag of Canada in the corner is good enough. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

So what do we do about Astrotrain, who incomprehensibly insists on violating the consensus decision? Is there an administrative solution? -Joshuapaquin 17:10, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

  • Considering there is little risk of additional provinces being created in the near future, I say we get the template protected.
    • Obviously there is no consensus- although there was one previously for a short time. Perhaps you should look to see the definition of consensus- I am sure it means the same in Canda as it does elsewhere. Astrotrain 17:48, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Astrotrain, Would you accept the decision of a formal survey? If not, a RfC may be in order. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

STOP REVERTING YOU STUPID TARDARSE --Stormscape

No personal attacks, please. As for the 11-1 (11 including me) not being consensus, I personally believe that is false. If 11 people want to do something, and one opposes, then Wikipedia sides with the 11. However, I do not think an RFC should be issued, now. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Consensus confirms that unanimity is not required to achieve a consensus on Wikipedia. Earlier today I provided Astrotrain with this link on his/her talk page. Kurieeto 00:13, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 20px flag version

  • How about going back to the 20px version with flags- this was the position before and was generally accepted. I cannot see comments by 11 people opposing flags. The extra information provided by the inclusion of the flags significantly improves the articles on which the template is placed, and gives an extra link to the flag pages of the respective provinces/territories. The information is not replecated elsewhere, and placing it on the template at the bottom of the page is an excellent way of presenting the information. Remember that Wikiepdia is an encyclopedia- providing information is the purpose of articles- and a flag version of this template goes someway to achieving this. I am perplexed by the opposition by a tiny few against the flag enhanced template- it works well on other templates such as the UK, Channel Islands and several military templates. Astrotrain 10:27, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Honestly, I proposed that version two weeks ago in a futile attempt to stop the revert warring. Since it didn't work, we might as well have it out and pick the best version of the template. I think it does more harm than good to have the flags on this template for links to the provinces of Canada. It clutters it unnecessarily and each province's article should already have a picture of its flag. If the flags version belongs anywhere, it belongs on {{CanadaFlags}}, where the information in question is flags. My vote is no flags. DoubleBlue (Talk) 12:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • So far, every flag proposal has looked terrible. Had I seen an appealing example of a flags-enhanced template, I'd support it. That hasn't happened. So my vote is for no flags. -Joshuapaquin 15:27, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • No flags. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Ok, you want a reason, here you go: In templates, if an image is used in the templates, it gets copied to the various articles the templates are on. If one image gets changed, all of those pages will be updated to reflect the change. It will cause the servers to work hard to change the images, thus causing problems for people trying to edit the pages. And if all of the provincial flag images were changed, we would be in trouble. Plus, several templates and stubs are starting to go to no images because of the above problems. Also, if people would want to see what each provincial flag looks like, they can go to the article of the province in question. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think the images will be getting changed. Unless the actual flags are to be changed- which is unlikely. Astrotrain 20:17, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
      • The images are not going to change because of the design of the flags will change but because of finding new drawings of the flags in new formats. There is a proposal to add SVG images to Wikipedia. Plus, I have been going around and trying to upload new flags to Wikipedia under new names. If, we have the flags in the template, that just makes it that much harder to do my job. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

These are not good enough reasons for being against flags. Astrotrain 19:19, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • Excuse me? I don't think your reasons for favouring flags are "good enough". But in a vote, that's totally irrelevant. -Joshuapaquin 19:25, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • I have justified the inclusion of flags- your response is "I don't like", the response usually taken by the average three year old. If you can't justify why you are deleting relevant images, then perhaps you should refrain from imposing your likes on the Wiki community. Astrotrain 19:50, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
      • Interesting comment from someone who removed city pictures from Canada because he didn't like them. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Never mind the irony of you chiding me for "imposing... likes on the Wiki community". But if you want a more verbose justification, here it is: I belive that all proposed revisions to the template that include flags have been aesthetically disastrous and have reduced the efficiency of the template as a navigation mechanism. -Joshuapaquin 20:47, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

My vote is for no flags. I reiterate my comments of July 19: "I believe the inclusion of flags of any size is unnecessary and overall detrimental to this template. The flags visually complicate an otherwise simple, effective footer. The intent of footers is to facilitate speedy navigation between related articles, and the flags break up the wikilinks too much. Ground Zero's comment that "At Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates/Navboxes, there are 100 (± 2 or 3) geographical and country subdivision templates. Of these, 99 do not have flags of the listed places on them." is also extremely important as visual consistency is one of the prime strengths of readability Wikipedia has." Kurieeto 20:09, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

    • Many of these templates do not have flags- because either there is no uploaded flags for these areas, or they don't have flags to begin with. As Canada, has a wide range of regional flags, it is important for them to be highlighted. They do not impact on the ability of a user to navigate between the pages. Astrotrain 20:17, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
      • All one has to do is go to FOTW and download them. Plus, with some of the military templates I see you mentioned: only three links are provided. Three links and three flags are not really a problem. But Canada is four times more provincines and territories, so that will be a problem in the template size. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Why don't we add maps, pic of current premiers, provincial flower, date of entry into Confederation, and population to the template as well. It's not the job of the template. This template is only a navigational aid. The articles can contain the flag pictures. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Because flags are used to represent countries, provincies and territories- they are instantly recognisable, and visually appealing. We have the flags of the Canadian regions- lets use them! Astrotrain 22:32, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
      • Instantly recognizeable? I didn't even know we had flags for the provinces! --Stormscape 22:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Well it just shows even the ignorant can learn something
          • I'd certainly prefer Stormscape's ignorance to Astrotrain's bigotry. -Joshuapaquin 12:01, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] August 2 revert

I reverted the template because an image of a penis being masturbated was inserted. Also, the Canadian flag was vandalized with an image of a penis covered in defication. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flags, again

Based on the discussion above, the vote on putting flags in the template is:

In favour:

  1. Astrotrain

Opposed:

  1. Circeus
  2. Ground Zero
  3. Stormscape
  4. DoubleBlue
  5. Kurieeto
  6. NormanEinstein
  7. Joshuapaquin
  8. Mendel
  9. Zscout370
  10. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

So why would User:Astrotrain put the flags back in? Ground Zero 21:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

<sarcasm>obviously, for it to be reversed!</sarcasm>Circeus 21:08, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
SimonP has never contributed to any discussion I have seen, so how he can be opposed I don't know. And pages cannot vote. In any case, Wikipedia is not a democracy From [1], Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. Its primary method of finding consensus is discussion, not voting. That is, majority opinion does not necessarily rule in Wikipedia Astrotrain 21:13, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
My mistake about SimonP. I have deleted his name. You're right: Wikipedia is not a democracy, but votes are used to help determine consensus, on which Wikipedia attempts to operate. For example in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, votes are used as the basis for decisions, and administrators generally delete if there is a two-thirds vote to delete. In this case, there is a 90% vote against the flags, and the flags conflict with Wikipedia standards for footers.
    • So why do you think that the views of nine other editors should be cast aside in deference to yours? Ground Zero 21:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

As I already stated, there is no standard for footers- they can be made however people like. In this case compromise was reached and then breached by you- so don't lecture others on how to behave. Astrotrain 21:27, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Not quite. A 20 px compromise was proposed. I and a couple of others went along with it, but you didn't. You changed the flags back to larger versions, as the Template history shows. At this point, a consensus was reached not to include the flags at all, and DoubleBlue removed the flags. Only at that point did you decide to accept the 20px version. And the compromise that you now claim was reached and then breached is not what you've posted now. You posted 50 px flags, which bear no relation to any compromise or consensus, just what you, and you alone, want.
As far as standards, I disagree. As I have noted before, of the 100 or so geographic footers, only two or three have subnational flags, and then only because you (if I recall correctly) created them. With regard to your comment that "they can be made however people like", you must understand that people don't like the flags on this template. Only you do. I'm sorry. Ground Zero 21:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Also, in the case of Template:United Kingdom, there are only 4 flags, and arguably they do not expand the template too much. And as pointed out, you created Template:Channel Islands, which is not exactly the best-looking of them all, if I might add. Circeus 22:07, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
The changes I made were in the spirit of the compromise- ie slight changes to see how they worked, not full scale reversions. Of the other footers, I only created Channel Islands template, the others were not by me, and many of these footers cannot have flags as either: no flag exists, or none is uploaded on wikipedia. In any case, I believe you are just being obstructive, rather than simply not liking the flags. We will see how this works out. Astrotrain 22:03, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

After looking at the 4 versions of the template I'll have to express my appreciation for the no picture template. I think that the navigational toolbar that this template is supposed to be is better served without the flag images. The flags belong in the articles proper not a template to be put at the bottom of many pages. I've read the entire talk page and Astrotrain has not tried to compremise until he lost. Flehmen 18:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] District of Keewatin

I am currently in the beginings of expanding the defunct District of Keewatin territory page. I was going to add the defunct territory under the territories section of the template, after seeing the contentious debate here, I thought I better ask and see if anyone thinks this is a good idea. --Cloveious 22:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The {{countryfoo}} templates, unfortunately, only list the current subdivisions,for the most part,so adding the District of Keewatin would probably be inappropiate. The question is completely unrelated to the debate above, which relates to whether flagsought to be used on the template. Circeus 23:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)