Template talk:Constitution of Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Canada / Governments / Law (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by WikiProject Governments of Canada.
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by WikiProject Canadian law.
 
WikiProject Law (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Comments[edit]

Can I suggest that we remove the red link to Trade and Commerce, on the grounds that that information should go into Canadian federalism, since that article has already fallen far behind the main Constitution Act, 1867 article in terms of concrete information? CanadianCaesar 21:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

By all means. The template is far from perfect and can alway use work. So don't worry about stepping on my toes with this one. --PullUpYourSocks 22:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Where to and not to put the template[edit]

I don't think it's a good idea to put it into the Royal Proclamation article or in Quebec Act, since those are important to US history as well as to the Canadian Constitution, and an American reader seeing the template there would probably say, "What the hell?" The Statute of Westminster, too, has a great deal of relevance well beyond Canada.

The only thing is, what about articles like Calgary Declaration and Meech Lake Accord? The only thing that stopped me from putting the template there is that in the analogous US articles, they don't: Equal Rights Amendment does not have the US Constitution template. Technically, the Fulton-Favreau formula is not part of the Canadian constitution, so I suppose that's another reason why you wouldn't have the template there. Still, whenever I read those articles, I sometimes wish I had the template there so I could bring up any of the other constitutional articles. Thoughts? CanadianCaesar 01:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Patriation[edit]

Should "Patriation" be added, and where should it go if it would be?Habsfannova 19:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I've thought of this, but I don't think the template should simply duplicate the category. Thus far the template reflects only written documents or judge-made law, which is why I removed the Triple-E Senate after putting it in; both Triple-E and patriation are more abstract concepts, and patriation doesn't really fit anywhere. It's histroy now, but some of the things under the debate header in the template, such as Victoria Charter and the Fulton-Favreau formula, were themselves failed attempts at patriation. I suppose it can be part of a header- "Constitutional debate and patriation", but Meech Lake isn't about patriation. Or if we had "History of the Constitution and Patriation", that would give patriation more importance than other constitutional developments in history, such as Canadian Confederation and the Statute of Westminster. Unless anyone else has an idea of how to reorganize the template, I'd leave it out. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 02:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Large Template - collapsible?[edit]

This thing is really big, and kind of dominates pages like that Statue of Westminster, which aren't just about Canada. Any chance it could be made collapsible? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Template expansion[edit]

I seriously doubt we need an article on every section of the Constitution, many of which are fairly trivial. Right now what we have is a template full of red links. I think we should revert. LastOthello (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done as per WP:REDNOT.Moxy (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I can sympathize with that sentiment, but perhaps the detailed listings for sections 91 and 92 should have been preserved, as well as for the detailed breakdown for the Constitution Act, 1982. Many of those do warrant separate articles for future cross-reference.Raellerby (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good to me - just should avoid red links unless your making the page soon.Moxy (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)