Template talk:Canadian monarchy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


We're talking about Canada.

Canada's national colours are red and white.

I have changed other Canadian infoboxes to this colour scheme, no complaints.

That is my reasoning. Got it? Good. Prince of Canada t | c 19:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

[Edit conflict]


PoC, please note that there is no standard for "Canadian colours" on Canada-related templates. Regard: Template:Canadian colonies, Template:Canadian history, Template:Prime Ministers of Canada, Template:Canada capitals, etc. If there are issues with the combination of colours, let's try and work them out. --G2bambino (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, please see WP:OWN. --G2bambino (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Did I say there was a standard? No. The issue with the combination of colours is of your devising. I changed the template to red & white because those colours (our official natinoal colours) are more emblematic of Canada than purple (not a colour associated with Canada in any way, as far as I know). The problem with the combination of the colours is that it is hideous, and you know it. See also: WP:OWN, in light of your edit summary here. The irony of you telling me to do that is breathtaking. You don't own the template. I made a change. If you don't like it, fine, but unless you have an actual reason? Prince of Canada t | c 19:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Instead of arguing over the top bar being red or purple; just make it white. GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Someone's ownership of the template is in the way. And guess what, it's not me. Prince of Canada t | c 20:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Let's first clarify the details around WP:OWN: making an attempt at compromise does not equate to exercising ownership of an article; the very fact that I was trying to accomodate your changes disproves any charges that I think this template is mine and mine alone. I personally found that making this template red and white caused a loss of distinction between it and the main Canadian topics template; however, I now see you had the intent of making all Canada-related templates red and white. As that includes a relatively large number of different templates, don't you think you should (and it would make things easier for you in the long run) raise the proposal at WP:CANADA? If there is an agreement to make all the templates the same colours, I'll bow here to that decision. --G2bambino (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
At what point did I say 'all'? I didn't. The few that I happen to come across? Yes. Given that there has been zero complaint at the Canada Topics template or the Canadian Heraldic Authority template, what exactly is your issue? A loss of distinction? Which will only happen sometimes? Can you actually provide a compelling reason why the template should not be changed from purple (which has no association with Canada) to the precise white and red in the Canadian flag (which, I'm sure you'll agree, has some passing association with the country)? "original (by me)" in your edit summary implied the ownership. If that wasn't your intent, sorry, but you had absolutely no right to accuse me of it whatsoever. I made a cosmetic change, you reverted for no reason. Prince of Canada t | c 20:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
At this point. You then made your way here to change this template to suit, but without explaining your motive; it was only coincidence that I stumbled across your earlier edit summary at Template:Canada topics. Then it became clear what you were up to. I already made my personal objection clear; because it is the first you've come across does not mean it will be the only one. In fact, I note that someone else already complained about the use of red, and I'm sure I read somewhere that the use of red in templates is discouraged as it's normally reserved for warning notices; that may have changed, though. Also, I don't know how "original (by me)" could be construed as an indication of ownership when it was preceeded by "compromise between" and followed by "and PoC's changes." --G2bambino (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Consistency of appearence to Canada-related navboxes. --G2bambino (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
"what I'm up to"? Are you truly that incapable of assuming good faith, that you have to use such loaded terms to describe an edit I've made? And again.. I didn't say all. So.. yeah, you lose again, Sherlock. And yes, I'm quite sure you're going to WP:CANVASS until you get the answer you want. Given that three weeks have passed without a single objection other than yours? one might almost suspect that you're getting a bit WP:POINTy about something. I couldn't imagine what. Here's a thought: answer my question. Do you actually have a compelling reason that this template should not be red? Well? Prince of Canada t | c 20:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

[de-indent] "What you were up to" simply means "what it was you were doing." I suggest you take a breather and just discuss the relevant points rather than making everything into a personal matter. Now, what constitutes "compelling" is not agreed upon by all people, so I doubt what I see as a compelling reason to use purple would be seen as the same by you; conversely, I don't see a compelling reason to use red either. In my mind, purple is the colour of royalty, and using a colour other than red or blue distinguishes this navbox from other Canadian navboxes, especially when there's a whole stack of them, as sometimes happens. If all the others were to be red, well, then, I don't think I'd be able to see a reason to make this one unique. But, that consistency has yet to be agreed on. --G2bambino (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you stop telling me what to do. Compelling: a good reason. Red and white are the colours of Canada, and what the box is referring to is Canada, and other Canadian navboxes are red, and seeing as there is no consistency, why not? Prince of Canada t | c 21:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you read WP:DICK. --G2bambino (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, true colours. Well done. I, however, am going to be the bigger person and pretend you didn't say that. Prince of Canada t | c 21:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Yet, by responding you've made it clear you know full well I said it. I understand how bluntly it reads, but it's a legitimate WP document. No matter what I did before, I've since done nothing but try and be professional and civil with you, yet you continue to be hyper-sensitive to any challenge to your opinion and take even the most innocuous comment as a personal attack, thereafter putting up a defensive wall of haughtiness, accusations, and derision, which essentially makes it impossible to get anywhere with you. I would like nothing more than to see you as a cooperative contributor, so these observations are purely objective, and I hope you will take them as such. --G2bambino (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
G2, coupling a bunch of subjective judgements with 'these are purely objective' doesn't necessarily make them so. I would also suggest that you look up a saying from the Bible (which, yes, is odd for a non-Christian to suggest) with regards to your 'derision' comment, something about eyes and motes and beams. And please, read the passage in the spirit in which it is intended; not as an attack. Nevertheless, I direct your attention here. Prince of Canada t | c 22:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Of course it doesn't make my critiques objective, you just have to take my word for it that they are, if you so choose. I've no reason to lie about such a thing, though. --G2bambino (talk) 22:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say, or even hint, that you were lying. It's just that when you (that is to say, the generalized 'you' as in 'people') make subjective judgements, it is very easy to rationalize them as objective, when they virtually never are. That's not a dig at you; it's a feature of the human condition. Prince of Canada t | c 22:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I never suspected you did; I was merely making my claim of objectivity a little more valid by saying I've no reason to use it as a disguise for insult. If I can try and be more clear: by objective, I mean rational, or devoid of hurt emotion for which I would use negative criticism as revenge. In reality, I only seek to bring about a return to more smooth progress, and I'm open to valid criticism of my own behaviour in order to get closer to that end. As evidence of the truth behind that, I may still be too easily ticked off by uncooperative editors (as some of my block log can attest to), but compare that to how bad I used to be. Trust me, stressing about everything doesn't lead to happy results. --G2bambino (talk) 23:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Prince of Canada t | c 23:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::Who cares fellas? Just forget it & move on. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Let's make the top bar white with 'Canadian Monarchy' in purple letters. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure white is a usable colour for a navbox header; it would just disappear into the background, no? --G2bambino (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Howabout, making it the same colour as most Templates on Wikipedia? GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Howabout, he realizes that he can't control WP, and that given that he has no good reasons, he just let it be red? Prince of Canada t | c 21:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Better yet, howabout using the colour of the other Templates of Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Sure, done and done. Prince of Canada t | c 21:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't see it. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Reload. Prince of Canada t | c 21:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Much better, very neutral. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I think it looks drab and dull and awful, but hey, G2 cannot possibly argue with it, so I'm fine. Prince of Canada t | c 21:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Drab, dull, awful? that's me. GoodDay (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing G2 dislikes more than a reasonable third-party suggestion which stops an edit war. --Lawe (talk) 03:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope that someone creates an Australian version — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)