Template talk:Politics of Canada

Template:Politics of Canada
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)


 * 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. 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:

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:

 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 Fair use criteria. --Durin 19:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)




 * align=left|
 * 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

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 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)


 * 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)

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 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. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟʇs 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. βcommand 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. βcommand 22:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Which image is copyrighted? --G2bambino 22:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Image:Coat of arms of Canada.svg βcommand 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 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 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.  PK  T (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)

Appropriateness of the Government of Canada wordmark
It's not appropriate to use the Government of Canada wordmark here. The wordmark identifies communications to the Canadian people from the federal Government of Canada--that's what Canadians identify the wordmark with. Not the Provinces, not the Parliament, not the Provincial Legislatures or the Crown in Right of the Provinces, not the Liberals and the NDP or even the currently-ruling Tories--but the federal government solely.

Using the Government of Canada wordmark here implies and suggests that the only participant in the politics and government of Canada is the Government of Canada. This is very misleading, as it suggests that any player in Canadan politics that is not the Government of Canada is not relevant--which is outrageously untrue. To the extent that there are Wikipedians who find the Royal Arms of Canada--which appears on the cover of Canadian passports identifying individual citizens of Canada, so I cannot fathom why anyone would find it distasteful for this series of articles, I suggest using the regular Arms of Canada without the St. Edward's Crown and without the other elements of the Royal Arms of Canada-even though that is the most widespread and authoritative heraldic symbol of the Canadian state. It's esoteric enough to put the point across as to the authoritativeness of this series of articles, yet has validity to identify the heraldry of the Crown--which is the Canadian state and which, in the final analysis, derives its authority from the Canadian people. Not that the Royal Arms doesn't symbolize that too, but there seems to be some sort of ridiculous and ultimately-inapplicable issue with the status quo and a recognition that the Constitutional order and rule of law prevail in Canadian politics. Paul63243 (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The royal arms don't have anything to do with the provinces, the provincial legislatures, or the Crown in right of any province, either. Nor, for that matter, come to think of it, does the national flag.
 * Really, if you want something that's emblematic of the pan-national source of governmental authority in every jurisdiction of Canada, it's either a St Edward's Crown or the royal cypher. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We cant use the Arms of Canada here as its copyrighted. BUT...Should we not be using this version...as its the one on documents and the one seen in The Canadian House of Commons? -- Moxy (talk) 02:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe that heraldic badge represents only the House of Commons rather than the government as a whole. It doesn't even represent the whole parliament which uses a different one. Graham (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's true. And symbols of the House of Commons, Senate, parliament itself, the royal arms (and the shield thereof, which is what's being used now), and even the national flag are all federal, whereas, as Paul pointed out, this navbox covers federal and provincial government/politics. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Can we pls stop adding the fake coat of arms....pls do not mislead readers as to what it looks like. -- Moxy (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think, as Mies said, the St Edward's Crown or the royal cypher would be a suitable compromise. trackratte (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK St Edward's Crown is a good compromise till someone comes up with something better I guess. -- Moxy (talk) 02:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not sure why User:Paul63243 is still editwaring and wont come back to the tlak page. So perhaps best we ask for template protection. -- Moxy (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe, the flag of Canada is more representative than the St Edward's Crown. The crown symbolizes the monarchy in total (Head of the Commonwealth). --IM-yb (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not in Canada it doesn't. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * To add to Miesianiacal's reply, the flag symbolises the Canadian nation (people/culture) and perhaps the country (geography), but not the state (legal entity). Since the machinery of governance and the political system form part of the state, it is the state and not the nation that is supposed to be represented here, which is why all of the other sidebars use their respective coats of arms (to represent their state), and not their national flags (which represents their nation). The problem is that in Canada, the Arms are copyrighted, so cannot be used here. That being said, the Crown itself (located at the uppermost portion of the arms) is a PD element of the arms and can be freely used here. As the Crown represents the sovereign (and the sovereign, legally speaking, is the state) in the same way as the complete arms, we then have a symbol in the Crown which represents the "politics and government of Canada" and can be freely used on the template. trackratte (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Coats of arms in general are not copyrighted: they are simply defined by a blazon. A heraldist can have their own interpretation of the blazon and so draw the arms arcondingly: such a design is a work of art and can be copyrighted.
 * So, if this designed used by the Governement of Canada is indeed copyrighted, this one has been downloaded on Commons. It's not the official design, but it is heraldically correct. (It is used on the French version of this template.) --Superbenjamin (talk) 08:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ben, the fact that a rendition is "heraldically" correct is kind of a strawman arguemnt or not really relevant when it comes to state or national symbols. The Canadian Flag for example, follows a blazon that only says "Gules on a Canadian pale Argent a maple leaf Gules", which essentially amounts to a red maple leaf on a white background with two red bars. So, a flag depicting a 3-point stylized maple leaf would also be "heraldically correct", but it would not be the Canadian Flag. I would take issue with a "heraldically correct" rendition of the arms in the same way I would take offence to a "heraldically correct" rendition of the flag which is clearly not the Flag of Canada. trackratte (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is relevent because it is the way heraldry works. It seems difficult to say that these coat of arms is not the coat of arms of Canada, even if the design is not the one currently in used (and which has changed through the time…).
 * By the way, the crown currently in the template is an heraldic design and not the official one either. --Superbenjamin (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Note that Template:Politics of the United Kingdom, Template:Politics of New Zealand, Template:Politics of New Zealand all use correct designs of the coats of arms but not necessarily the official design as used by the governement. --Superbenjamin (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * For example, this flag rendition would be heraldically correct, but it is not the Canadian Flag, and an encyclopedia shouldn't be purporting that it is. Heraldry has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. Canada has adopted certain symbols (designs) to represent the state or the nation, whether or not a user-generated interpretive design meets the rules of heraldry is a strawman argument. And the arms you show have been routinely rejected by consensus on pages such as the Canada wiki page. trackratte (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What you say is incoherent with most of the “Politics of…” templates, including the Canadian one with the crown: this rendition of the crown is not the design adopted as a symbol by Canada. --Superbenjamin (talk) 17:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The flag and COA are very specific designs, where there is only ever one "real" state or national design at any given time. Taking a symbolic element, such as a broken chain to represent freedom, a maple leaf to represent Canada, or a single crown to represent authority, is not an official state design, but a nearly universal symbol representing a given meaning. We could depict a "natural style" maple leaf instead of the 11-point national design, and it would on its own represent Canada. But taking this same maple leaf and placing it on the flag instead of the official 11-point leaf, you no longer have a simple maple leaf, and you don't have the Canadian Flag, you have an individual interpretive flag, which when placed on an encyclopedia is unnecessarily misleading, or worse could be offensive to many readers when an encyclopedia of knowledge is showing their national or state symbols "wrongly". While I completely realise that this is not how heraldry works, this is not a discussion about heraldry, but about very specific state designs. It would be akin to taking a written description of a corporate logo (such as an apple for Apple) and using it in making an interpretive design, and then saying it is equally valid as the real one based on heraldic principles. Most people would say that this apple logo when placed on a phone would not be considered an iphone, but a cheap knockoff, and no one would care whether or not the logo were "heraldically correct" or not, it's simply not the right specific design for the actual Apple logo. The same reasoning applies to a state logo or any other symbol. Which is why they are so rigidly controlled, or why Canadian law states "No person shall adopt ... any mark consisting of, or so nearly resembling as to be likely to be mistaken for, (a) the Royal Arms, Crest or Standard; (b) the arms or crest of any member of the Royal Family; ... (e) the arms, crest or flag adopted and used at any time by Canada or by any province or municipal corporation in Canada ..." I hope that clears up a bit of the reason behind why that specific design has not been accepted on the Canada page amongst others.  trackratte (talk) 01:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * No to fake coat of arms....a national symbol should never be misrepresented. Its to bad other pages have them I guess national symbols dont mean as much to those editing other articles. Our goal here is to have proper info and symbols ...not to have non offical versions passing off as if they are real just to have the image. Just one of the down falls when dealing with many editors...some dont get the point of an encyclopaedia....that is to convey proper info...not original art work.-- Moxy (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Then, why did you choose to use that heraldic depiction of the crown? It is no more an official design than the coat of arms you rejected (and I'm not aware the crown alone is ever used to represent Canada outside of Wikipedia…) --Superbenjamin (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * While a single maple leaf, of any design, can be used to represent Canada as a nation, in this case the depiction of the Crown is being used to represent the Crown, and all that that entails constitutionally. trackratte (talk) 01:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not understand how you can refuse a design af the coat of arms because it is not official, but use a heraldic design of the crown taken from… the very same design you refuse. It makes no sense. --Superbenjamin (talk) 05:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In the same way that you can use a rounded 32-point maple leaf to represent Canada, but that same maple leaf on a white background with two red bars would be an inappropriate rendition of the Canadian flag for the world's leading encyclopedia of knowledge. Using a Crown to represent the Crown doesn't take a specific design, but to avoid "butchering" Canada's personal coat of arms does. In any event, this topic is supposed to be about the Government of Canada wordmark, and not about the Crown. trackratte (talk) 03:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Superbenjamin, the crown isn't at all intended to "represent Canada". It represents--or, at least aligns with--the subject of the politics and government of Canada, including the federal and provincial spheres, all of which use the crown as symbol of the authority in their respective jurisdiction. As such, the arms aren't even the most appropriate image, since they are the arms of the federal crown, only. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, you're still being incoherent:
 * With yourself: you refused a design because it is not in official use then prefer another… that is not in official use either (and is never used alone by any jurisdiction, by the way)
 * With any other similar template on Wikidia (all of them use the national coat of arms)
 * In the end, it is just very confusing for the reader (especially with a symbol which can refer to many other countries…). --Superbenjamin (talk) 11:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Be specific.
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Crown image vs. Coat of Arms and/or Canadian Flag (revisited)
Re: The Crown of St. Edward appears at the top of the navbar. Some argue this is correct because (basically) the government of Canada still technically exists at the discretion of the monarch of the UK. Others argue for use of the Canadian flag instead, since it is obviously more easily recognizable as "Canadian" than the Crown.

I don't know why we can't use the Coat of Arms of Canada or the Canadian flag instead. I see Politics of Australia uses their Coat of Arms instead of the Crown of St. Edward.

We could have both (combined into a single graphic file for ease of use): Crown or Coat of Arms first, then Canadian flag either below or to the right of the Crown. Below would be more legally/historically/technically correct, but to the right would be more realistic of the current de facto near total independence of Canada from the Crown and thus elevation of the country symbol to as high as the Crown, but still deferring to the historical precedence and legal position of the Crown in Canada. Facts707 (talk) 10:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Or maybe a single maple leaf as in Template WPCanada? Facts707 (talk) 11:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC) WP Canada Logo-.svg


 * First, no one is arguing that the government of Canada exists at the discretion of a foreign power, as that is obviously not true, and is an ignorant and insulting comment.
 * Second, this template is not about the Government of Canada, but is inclusive of all provincial and municipal governments, none of which have the Royal Arms of Canada or the maple leaf as their provincial or municipal symbols. However, the federal, provincial, and many municipal institutions all have the Crown as part of their symbols, and it is thus an inclusive symbol representing every level of the Canadian political system.
 * Third, the maple leaf is a symbol of Canadian nationality, not of the state. As this template is not about nationality, it was determined not to be the most suitable symbol. trackratte (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Trackratte, I'll reply to your comments with your numbering:
 * Firstly, the Government of Canada, including the Parliament (House and Senate), the Legislatures of the provinces (all of them), the Prime Minister, the Premiers of all the provinces, the Governor-General of Canada, and the Lt. Governors of all the provinces DO INDEED serve at the discretion of a "foreign" power, who is the Queen of Canada (right now, HRH QE II). I guess you could argue Elizabeth is not "foreign" since Canada's government is legally under her control. Canada is a constitutional monarchy and while Elizabeth is very unlikely to dissolve Parliament, refuse Royal assent to a passed bill, etc. on her own accord, she is entirely empowered to do so and a future monarch may very well use his or her powers more directly. I am also quite perturbed that you construed my remarks as "ignorant and insulting" - clearly my tone and intent here is that of open and well-intentioned debate, not to insult or make ignorant comments. I assume and hope that you have merely misinterpreted my remarks and perhaps I could make a better effort to repostulate them for you if after re-reading my posts here you stand by your comments.
 * Secondly, this template is the "Politics of Canada", not "Politics of Canada and all its provinces and all its territories and all its municipal governments, etc." Please note that we are talking politics here, we are not designing the logo of some new government agency or sovereign state, etc. Clearly, the politics of any province or municipality in Canada would not be misrepresented by having our national flag in an infobox. Are you suggesting we also remove the Canadian flag from the grounds of all the provincial legislatures, etc.?
 * Thirdly, stating that the Canadian flag is "a symbol of Canadian nationality, not of the state" is incorrect. The Canadian flag is indeed very much a symbol of the state (state=country here), the most recognized in Canada and around the world, and heavily used by at least the federal government in Canada. It is the same in the UK, US, and around the world. A national flag "is a flag that symbolises a country. The flag is flown by the government, but usually can also be flown by citizens of the country."
 * In conclusion, there is nothing whatsoever improper or incorrect in using a national flag as a symbol when discussing the politics of a country. I'm not even endorsing the national flag to be used, but we should consider it or some variant of it or in combination with some other icon(s) and we should be able to have a healthy normal debate on the subject.Facts707 (talk) 04:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree with the statement that the Coat of Arms contains nothing representing the provinces and cities and other subdivisions. While strictly true in a literal interpretation, the Coat of Arms of Canada both symbolises all of Canada as a united nation and is the Coat of Arms of Her Majesty The Queen which is the embodiment and faunt of all power and unity in Canada. Per my proposal below, I think that having some form of the national arms would not only be more in line with other national templates, but be more ideal than either just the crown or the national flag.  Fry1989 eh? 15:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Facts, the UK has nothing to do with this discussion, and your argument that Canada is foreign to itself is nonsensical. Your insistence that Canada is not a sovereign and independent country robs you of a great deal of credibility on the issue.
 * State does not equal country. A country is a geographic entity. A nation is a group of people. A state is a political entity. The National Flag of Canada is precisely that, a national flag, and represents Canada as a nation (group of people). Canada's state flag takes precedence over the national flag on all occasions.
 * The coat of arms in Canada at least, are personal to the Queen as the human embodiment of the state (the Queen and Canada are legally one and the same thing). Subsequently, her personal arms are not a symbol the nation (the Canadian people), but a symbol of state (the Canadian Queen). The Canadian flag, as a national symbol, symbolizes the nation of Canada. A source of confusion for many people centres on the conflation of country, state, and nation as one and the same thing, when they are in fact three separate and distinct concepts. trackratte (talk) 16:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I'll just agree to disagree with you here. You raise some very fine points that appear to be a bit confusing to the average WP reader, if not a history and constitutional scholar. You insist "Canada is a sovereign and independent country" and berate me for suggesting otherwise (at least legally/vestigially historically), but then you say "the Queen and Canada are legally one and the same thing". Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 03:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Facts, I'm sorry I do not see the contradiction between the 'Canadian Queen and state being legally one and the same thing', and 'Canada being a sovereign and independent country'. They are both well referenced statements. trackratte (talk) 01:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Image
Might I make a compromise suggestion for the image in the infobox? Normally we would use a country's coat of arms, but for technical reasons we can't. The crown, while acceptable, is not distinctly Canadian by itself. The flag also is not preferable. How about we use File:Royal Shield of arms of Canada.svg?  Fry1989 eh? 17:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's solely federal. The scope of this navbox is federal and provincial. While the crown isn't distinctly Canadian, it is used as a symbol of governmental authority in every jurisdiction of the country. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not quite sure I understand. It is the Coat of Arms of Canada, minus the supporters and other elements. You could make the same argument that File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg is solely federal as well, but that is the image we would be using if it was free and not under NFCC rules.  Fry1989 eh? 18:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The Arms of Canada represent the Canadian state. The personal arms of the Queen in right of respective provinces represent those specific provinces as political entities. I think the whole argument that other countries' pages use their state arms is irrelevant, as most other countries have unitary state apparatuses, which Canada does not. Secondly, many other countries do not have the same political system as Canada, so it would make sense that how the political system is symbolically represented would differ between countries' templates as well.
 * I think the Crown is the most fitting as it represents all of the relevant political entities within Canada at all levels. I acknowledge that the fact that it is not a symbol unique to Canada could be an issue with some, but there is nothing stopping us from adapting it to suit our needs here a little better, such as placing the Crown on a maple leaf tartan background, or having the crown with a wreath under it or around it like was done for the Diamond Jubilee.
 * Maple leaf tartan.pngratte (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The Canadian "state" as you call it, and the Queen, are one and the same in the Canadian context. The Queen embodies the nation. Her Arms represent the country just as much as the flag does. The issue is not simply "all other templates do this so we should too", or "I don't like the crown", the issue is multi-faceted. The Royal Arms of Canada/Royal Arms of The Queen (one and the same) represent our united nation, that is simply fact whether or not there is representation for the provinces as in the coat of arms of Australia for its states. There is an Crown in Right of each province but not in the same sense as federally. There is no "Queen of Ontario", just "Queen of Canada". If File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg was a free image, would we surely not use it? File:Royal Shield of arms of Canada.svg is the closest we're going to get, and there is precendent for the image. It was used on the GG's flag for many years, and is carved into the Speaker's Chair in the Senate Throne (mind you with the helm, compartment and crest, but missing the supporters).  Fry1989 eh? 18:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Fry1989 for you effort toward a compromise. I'm not going to repeat what I said before about the uselessness of using the crown and the incoherences of using it while refusing other more official and more recognisable images.
 * But if I may say something: this debate is turning to be really ridiculous. The principle of the infobox is to use the coat of arms of a country to offer an easily recognisable pictural representation for that country, not to engage in arcane (and not always well documented) constitutional debates.
 * Canada is not the only federation in the world and in other infoboxes the national coat of arms is used… naturally. Now we have here people saying that the coat of arms of Canada does not actually represent Canada. Well… --Superbenjamin (talk) 20:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much Fry1989 and Superbenjamin for your very useful comments. I'm going to put this template on a back burner for now and maybe drop by for updates. Cheers! Facts707 (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "The principle of the infobox is to use the coat of arms of a country..." Er, no, it's not. That's as nonsensical as the claim anyone here has said the Canadian coat of arms don't represent Canada. Do you have any more red herrings?
 * The arms of Canada represent the authority of the Crown in the federal jurisdiction. That's it. They have no relevance to any provincial or municipal order of governance. So, if you wish to use the arms of Canada appropriately in this navbox, you'll have to also argue that the content of the navbox be reduced to just that which is of relevance to federal government and politics in Canada. If other navboxes misuse federal arms, that's a problem for there, not here.
 * One more thing: the "official" rendition of the Canadian arms are not free of copyright. So, if you want to use an image of the Canadian arms, you'll have to use a variant; fair use won't apply to a navbox. If you use that variant, be prepared to fight another battle with the editors who think no variant--only the "official" version--should ever be used on Wikipedia. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed the official image is copyrighted. File:Coat of arms of Canada rendition.svg less than ideal, though from good intention. That was the reason behind my suggestion for File:Royal Shield of arms of Canada.svg, it symbolises the Canadian Monarchy, instead of just a monarchy and there is precedent for usage of the shield with crown. It's ok if everyone disagrees, but I thought it might be a good middle ground.  Fry1989 eh? 18:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with the sentiment, but do not see how using a part of the Arms of Canada is any different, symbolically, than using the whole thing, ie it represents only the Federal aspects of the Crown. As for the strawman that has been thrown out about 'The Canadian Arms not representing Canada', no one has said that, so I don't see why that's been brought up over and over again. It's unfortunate that there is no heraldic "maple crown" ha. trackratte (talk) 00:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, there's always this: File:Crown-leaf.jpg. It's only partly official, but, it at least is Canadian while having no bias toward any part of Confederation.
 * (On that note, in relation to the suggestion of a tartan background: the provinces have their own distinct tartans, too.) -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case, I suppose each province has their own flower/leaf/tree type symbol as well, I'm not too sure how far we wish to go in that regard. However, looking at the template the word Canada is quite clearly above the Crown, with "This article is part of a series on the politics and government of Canada" being immediately below. So, the symbol is starkly depicted as being in relation to all levels of politics within Canada, and not any other country, so I can't see how any reader could possibly be confused as to what the template is speaking to. trackratte (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The Diamond Jubilee window depicts the Queen wearing a distinctive Canadian diadem. The Operational Service Medal (Canada) and the Sacrifice Medal also depict this crown. Perhaps if someone were willing to make an appropriate svg version of this heraldic crown it could be used here instead? trackratte (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I still say File:Royal Shield of arms of Canada.svg is the logical choice and the rest is all pandering. It's the Canadian Monarchy and that coat of arms represents the entire united country.  Fry1989 eh? 18:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Fry, the shield represents the English, Scottish, Irish, and French nations united into one Canadian nation under the Crown. Yes, it represents the entire Canadian nation, but the template isn't about nationality, and so the shield fails to incorporate the provincial and municipal levels of political authority. The crown itself very clearly represents state authority at all levels throughout the country. The crux of the argument against the St Edward Crown, as I understand it, is that it is not uniquely Canadian (although the word Canada and "This article is part of a series on the politics and government of Canada" makes things abundantly clear), so I think having a unique Canadian crown would alleviate this concern, particularly as it has now been in official heraldic use for quite some time. That being said, I still prefer the St Edward's crown, as it is this crown which is depicted at federal, provincial, and municipal levels, and all crown organizations, however it does offer a compromise in that it depicts the crown as the fount of all political state authority while being a uniquely Canadian symbol. trackratte (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What about a variation of the emblem here? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Good catch, I like it. trackratte (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The coat of arms of Canada are both (A) the coat of arms of the country and (B) the personal coat of arms of the Sovereign from which all legal authority and justice and other matters come. You are treating the coat of arms as if they are only A but not B. It's a very bizarre literal interpretation of the heraldic symbols inside the shield piece by piece instead of what the entire arms in their arrangement together symbolise, that you are using here to keep them off the template. It makes no sense to me.  Fry1989 eh? 01:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The Canadian sovereign doesn't have one coat of arms. She has eleven. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  02:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Fry, the coat of arms represent the state/sovereign as they are legally one and the same. Canada is not a unitary nation-state, so the sovereign has different capacities in different realms of political authority, and these state authorities are made manifest in various state symbols, ie the Queen of Canada in right of 10 different provinces (as Mies points out), as well as the federation as a whole. It would be symbolically inappropriate to employ just one of these 11 state symbols to encompass all levels of politic activity ("the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area") within Canada. However, once again, the common element throughout these various state symbols is the Crown itself as this symbolizes the political authority of the state (sovereign) at all levels and in all capacities. Subsequently, it is this root symbol which is all-inclusive in graphically representing the topic being discussed, and most appropriate to the template. I think what is left to decide is do we continue to employ the St-Edward's Crown by itself, the Crown with maple leaves as per Mies suggestion, or the Canadian diadem. As for reasons already outlined, I believe the second choice to be the most suitable. trackratte (talk) 00:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Given trackratte's approval for the lieutenant governors' emblem on the loyal address and no expressed objections to same, I've altered the image to File:Can-Crown.png. It uses the wreath of maple leaves from Prince Charles' Canadian banner rather than the one in the loyal address, since the latter contains 10 leaves, one for each province, and we don't want the image to be exclusive of the federal jurisdiction. I'm not sure how the Canadian Heraldic Authority settled on 24 leaves for the wreath on Charles' flag, but, it is also on Anne's, Andrew's, and Edward's flags. (Curiously, Prince William's flag has exactly half the number of leaves...)

If anyone doesn't approve, feel free to revert back to the previous St. Edward's Crown image. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You know my opinion on this. You guys are looking for a problem that doesn't exist.  Fry1989 eh? 18:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

King-in-Parliament and King-on-the-Bench
The template uses the term "King-in-Parliament" to describe the legislative branch of government, which is not correct. The legislative branch is the Parliament of Canada, consisting of the King, the Senate, and the House of Commons. "King-in-Parliament" describes the role of the Crown in the legislative branch, but is not the legislative branch itself.

The term "King on the Bench" is a relatively obscure way of describing the judicial branch of government. I'm not sure why it is given such prominence in this template.--Trystan (talk) 04:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have updated the template.--Trystan (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * 1. Those two phrases are the correct and recognised terms within the body of knowledge representing the subject as can be seen in the Wiki articles that they are blue-linked to. 2nd, they represent an extremely long-standing consensus. 3rd, they are portrayed or explained using those terms within Wiki articles themselves. 4th, they add to consistency by using the same constitutional terminology and framework for all three spheres (council, parliament, and the bench).
 * As an aside, there is no strict division of powers in the Canadian constitutional framework like there is in, for example, the United States. Members of the executive (prime minister, cabinet members) are almost always also members of the legislative as well (the House of Commons and/or the Senate). Formerly, the Solicitor General of Canada has a role to play in the judicial system, but was also a member of Cabinet (executive) as well as the Senate or Commons (legislative). And of course, the Sovereign also permeates all three as all three branches execute their functions under their authority and in their name. trackratte (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I would say it is difficult to overstate the role of the Crown in Canada's system of government, but somehow we have managed it. Describing the legislative branch as being just the King-in-Parliament is just plain wrong, and has been wrong in the Westminster parliamentary tradition since Charles I got his head chopped off. The legislative branch is the whole institution of Parliament, of which the King is one part.
 * The phrase "King on the Bench" does indeed occur in the Court system of Canada article, in the section on court customs and symbols. The best available citation appears to be page 17 of an out-of-print government pamphlet. The claim that it is the term to describe the judicial branch, over simply "Court system of Canada", is entirely unsupportable with even the most cursory review of available sources.--Trystan (talk) 03:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know how you make the logical jump from using the appropriate term to somehow meaning that Wikipedia is describing the legislative system as simply the King (in parliament). From that Wiki article: "King-in-parliament ... is a constitutional law concept used within Commonwealth realms that refers to the Crown in its legislative role, acting with the advice and consent of the parliament (including, if the parliament is bicameral, both the lower house and upper house). Bills passed by the houses are sent to the sovereign or their representative (such as the or governor-general, lieutenant-governor, or governor), for royal assent in order to enact them into laws as Acts of parliament."
 * Or, in other words, the role of the legislative system is, as its output, to create laws. In a Westminster system, the only way to create legislative law is through Royal Assent. Subsequently, the formal constitutional term denotes that laws are created by the King in Parliament.
 * Finally, personal opinion is fine, but that the term exists and what it means in Canadian constitutional politics and law is a concrete fact. As is the fact that it has been used and has had wide-ranging consensus within this Encyclopedia for an extremely long time (14 years for this particular template under discussion). Subsequently, according to the editorial norms of Wikipedia, it would generally take something extra-ordinary to overturn a 14-year long standing consensus. This is not only for reasons of stability, but also a reflection that potentially hundreds or thousands of editors would have explicitly or implicitly endorsed a particular item given the number of views on an article, or in this case a template which spans a great many articles, and therefore that this stable consensus over a decade and a half by thousands of editors should not be able to be easily overturned on the whims of one or perhaps several editors. trackratte (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Accepting that "King in Parliament" refers to the entirety of Parliament, including both houses, and not solely to the role of the King as one component of Parliament, the phrase is still not how the legislative branch of Canada is most commonly described in reliable sources, which is simply as Parliament:
 * Centre for Constitutional Studies - The Constitution and Canada's Branches of Government: The federal legislative branch of Canada’s government makes the laws of the country. This branch is formally known as the Parliament of Canada and includes the monarch, the House of Commons, and the Senate.
 * Prime Minister's Office - Open and Accountable Government: In our system of government, Parliament is both the legislative branch and the pre-eminent institution of democratic accountability.
 * Justice Canada - The Canadian Constitution: Parliament is the legislative branch of the federal government. Parliament consists of the Queen (who is usually represented by the Governor General), the Senate and the House of Commons.
 * Parliament of Canada - Branches of Government: Created by the Constitution Act, 1867, Parliament is the legislative branch of government.
 * Constitution Act, 1867: IV. Legislative Power - Constitution of Parliament of Canada - 17 There shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons.
 * Where "King in Parliament" is used in a Canadian context, it often referring to the British Parliament specifically, with contrasting language to refer to the Parliament of Canada. (Possibly because Parliament of Canada is explicitly defined in the Constitution as being inclusive of the King.)
 * Describing the judicial branch as being “the King on the Bench” is even more obscure; reliable sources overwhelmingly describe Canada’s judicial branch as simply consisting of the Court system of Canada.
 * Your claim that “something extraordinary” would be required to change this wording is not consistent with WP:CONSENSUS, particularly given that this issue has not been previously discussed. An implicit consensus is the weakest form of consensus, even if longstanding. Even if there were an explicit consensus for the wording (which there does not appear to be), consensus can change, and a new consensus, achieved through ordinary discussion, would supplant it.--Trystan (talk) 01:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * We are not talking about naming a title for a Wikipedia article, so COMMON NAME doesn't apply. We are talking about a specific term within Westminister constitutional law and politics, which have their own Wikipedia articles themselves, so their existence or what they mean is not up to dispute in this case (I don't think we are arguing on that point).
 * No one is saying that Parliament only consists of the Sovereign, so I don't know why you are pressing on that point as it's a strawman.
 * Beyond the Wikipedia article, the Parliament of Canada itself provides a description and infographic showing that legislated Bills only become Laws (i.e. the purpose of the legislature) when given Royal Assent by the monarch or their representative, which is to say it is the House of Commons and the Senate that create and debate bills, but only the King can create laws, and so, laws are created (the output of the legislative process) by the "King in Parliament", which is why that that term is the most accurate and correct term when it comes to the subject of Canadian constitutional law and politics. trackratte (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Articles should be reflective of the language used in the body of reliable sources. The sources overwhelmingly describe Canada's legislative branch as Parliament and judicial branch as the consisting of the courts. We should follow the sources, and not substitute language we prefer cherrypicked from a tiny minority of sources (nor give more weight to the terminology used for the UK Parliament as distinct from the Canadian one). It's not a WP:COMMONNAME issue, it's one of WP:NPOV and WP:OR.
 * At any rate, it's clear we won't come to a consensus on this, and no one else has jumped in, so I will leave it for now.--Trystan (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, so then your proposal would be to change the heading from "Legislative" to "Parliament". The term linking readers to the Constitutional concept is in parenthesis as a supplement to provide readers with ready access to a deeper understanding of the fundamental or core concept. It is not the title or heading in the table itself, nor does it purport to. trackratte (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I would suggest taking "King-in-Parliament", "King-in-Council" and "King-on-the-bench" out entirely, and just use the well-established terms "Executive", "Legislative" and "Judicial". These "King-in" terms are fundamentally misleading in modern Canadian constitutional law and politics, because they overstate the role of the monarch.  The average reader may think that the king has a more active role in the daily politics of the country, and in the court system, than is the case.  I don't think it's helpful to do call-backs to old British constitutional history to justify including them here, as a template about modern Canadian politics.
 * The starting point has to be the Constitution of Canada, not old British history. The terms are not used in the Constitution of Canada. The Constitution Act, 1867 uses the terms "Executive Power" (Part III), "Legislative Power" (Part IV), and "Judicature" (Part VII).
 * The legislative branch is defined as "Parliament" by s. 17, not the "King in Parliament". Emphasising the king as a component of the Parliament is misleading, in my opinion, as it does not reflect modern constitutional reality.  The House of Commons is by far the most important part of the legislative branch, and mentioning the king ignores that political and constitutional reality.
 * The king is the formal head of the executive (s. 9), but the executive branch is much broader than the King-in-council. By statute, executive functions can be given to the Governor-in-Council, and the King has no legal role in the exercise of those statutory powers. Statutes can also give powers to individual ministers, or agencies, boards and commissions, all acting within the executive, but with absolutely no role for the king.  It's also a misleading term, as it suggests that the king is involved in the meetings of the Privy Council.  There's only been one occasion when the monarch met formally with the Privy Council and exercised her powers:  back in Diefenbaker's time. We shouldn't use terms that are confusing to the average reader and overstate the formal constitutional function of the monarch, making it sound like the monarch is actively involved in the government of Canada.
 * The king has no role in the courts, other than the function of appointing judges (s. 96). Here I will rely on ancient English history:  in the Case of Prohibitions in 1607, Chief Justice Coke held that the King can no longer sit on the bench.  Only judges can determine contested points of law. Again, in my view it is fundamentally misleading to suggest that the king has any real role in the court system.  I don't think we should have any suggestion that the king is involved in deciding court cases;  the monarch lost that power 400 years ago, and it would not be consistent with the rule of law to give that kind of power to the king.  We should not be suggesting it in the infobox.  I also note that the link given simply links to the Court system of Canada, with no discussion of the concept of the "king-on-the-bench".  Why link to an article that doesn't even use the term?  That's pretty Easter-Eggy.
 * Unless someone can come up with cites, to modern Canadian usage of these terms, in law texts, political science texts, court cases, or the governments themselves, I think all three terms should be deleted, as fundamentally inaccurate and misleading for the average reader. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Here's a link to the Constitution Act, 1867: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/FullText.html Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I agree, especially about piping Court system of Canada being an WP:EGG. (There is a very brief discussion at the target article, but not one that justifies obfuscating the target article title.) I would add that there are a handful of citations out there using these terms in a modern Canadian context (often to make a specific contextual point), but overwhelmingly, these terms are not how reliable sources describe the branches of government. There are entire foundational constitutional texts that don't use them, and no reason why this template would favour relatively obscure characterizations over the overwhelmingly dominant terminology, especially when the latter matches the actual constitutional langauge.--Trystan (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I edited that passage in the Court system article. I removed the completely inaccurate statement that the courts derive their authority from the monarch, and did a light copyedit on the rest of that passage. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No further comment on the proposed change for two months, so I went ahead and did it. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)