Template talk:Senate of Canada

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Senate of Canada template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

	Canada portal 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
	This template is supported by WikiProject Governments of Canada.
	This template is supported by WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada.

Politics

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics

Untitled

I've gone ahead and been bold and radically changed the template. Before, it was sorted by party; I've changed it to sort by state (with party colors), just as the Australian and American templates do. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 00:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of comments about this template style:

As currently formatted, it's massively oversized. Because the United States senate is structured differently each state has exactly two senators, so {{Current U.S. Senators}} can be arranged into multiple columns, and in Australia, there are only six states and a territorial section. But here, using the same format results in a template that's far too long vertically.
The colour choices for party identification are also too subtle, in my opinion; on the screen I'm looking at right now, the PC and Liberal colours are at best barely distinguishable from each other if I'm looking at the screen straight on — and if I look at the screen even slightly askance, the colours completely disappear. And before I applied the Canadian red-white style override, against the navbox-default blue background the colours were even more indistinguishable from each other.

Any other input? Bearcat (talk) 06:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've made a minor change to the template formatting; if we're using background colouring to denote party affiliations, then we don't also need a party abbreviation in brackets after each individual senator's name. This does bring the vertical size down somewhat, and makes the template look a bit less busy and more organized. I'm not entirely convinced that it reduces the size enough, but it's a start. Bearcat (talk) 06:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change colours please

Currently the highlighted colours for the different senator affiliations are not distinct enough. Independent and Conservative are almost indistinguishable as are Independent Liberal and Progressive Conservative. My attempt at a change may have been too stark but there needs to be some happy medium. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Current:

Conservative (C)
Independent (Ind.) or Not affiliated (N/A)
Independent Liberal (Ind. L)
Progressive Conservative

My change:

Conservative (C)
Independent (Ind.) or Not affiliated (N/A)
Independent Liberal (Ind. L)
Progressive Conservative

Happy medium???

I agree the colours are almost indistinguishable, but my concern is that increasing the colour's prominence will not be consistent with WP:COLOUR. Particularly with the Conservatives, where you have a blue background behind (if you have default link colours in your browser) blue or purple text, depedning if a user has previously visited the link. I think we need to consider the alternative, which is to not use colour at all. --Natural R_X 14:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another option might be to list members by party affiliation rather than by province. I might suggest that (for now) affiliation to party is more important than what province they come from. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue the opposite, particularly as the Senate becomes more independent. The purpose of the Senate was to provide a house of "sober second thought", and achieve a balance of regional interests. Furthermore, a senator's affiliation may change, but the province they are appointed to represent will not; why categorize them under the less static grouping? --Natural R_X 16:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can hardly read the text in CPC in the new format. Dark blue background with blue text. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Switching colour template for this Senate of Canada template

There is a clear consensus to update this template's party colour shading template to Template:Canadian party colour as outlined in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada/list of parties#Senate-only caucuses documentation.
Cunard (talk) 09:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi everyone,

The Template:Canadian federal political parties uses the Template:Canadian party colour template, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada/list of parties#Senate-only caucuses documentation. This template uses the more generic Template:Party shading/Independent, Template:Party shading/Liberal, and Template:Party shading/Conservative templates. So, I propose, for the purposes of simplicity, streamlining, and using the Canadian context, that we update this template's party colour shading template to Template:Canadian party colour as outlined in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada/list of parties#Senate-only caucuses documentation.

- --Doug Mehus (talk) 01:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly tag(s): @Bearcat:, @LiteratureCompanion:, and @Natural RX:

Added Note from RfC-initiating editor: I've started an RfC to publicize this discussion, build awareness, and establish consensus from editors who may or may not participate in the Template namespace on a regular or quasi-regular basis. To non-involved closing RfC editor, when consensus is established, please close with the optional RfC top and bottom templates and consensus decision reached. Thanks. --Doug Mehus (talk) 01:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this makes sense to me. In fact, I wound up on this talk page because the differing colour scheme perplexed me and I was trying to see if there was any particular reason why. If nothing else there need to be more colours added to this template's uniquely pale scheme, because lumping ISG, CSG and N/A under the same colour is inaccurate and misleading, as is keeping the PSG under the Liberal colour (albeit less so). Of course, adopting the Canadian colours used elsewhere would solve this problem nicely. — Kawnhr (talk) 02:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is consonant with another recent discussion about making the colours used on Canadian legislative templates match (as closely as we can muster) the official colours used by the parties. PS: Just ensure that the readability problem reported in the thread above this one is resolved, which I think the proposed replacement template will already handle; just sandbox and test case before actual implementation. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.