Template talk:Ca-residence

Rideau Hall

I see there's a dispute over whether the Canadian monarch is a resident of Rideau Hall. PS- didn't we settle this at Rideau Hall, months ago? GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I like the current version, with the monarch noted in brackets. --Padraic 11:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This indeed was settled at Rideau Hall some time ago, despite Loner's maximum contribution being the odd personal opinion and hitting the revert button. Nothing new from him, so I wouldn't expect anything more. --G2bambino (talk) 00:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

And apparently his personal opinion is that the those at the Department of Canadian Heritage are "eccentic" and hold "fringe opinions." The Lonewolf has spoken! --G2bambino (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The monarch resides in the United Kingdom, not in Canada. --Dlatimer (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's nice of you to let us all know what your opinion is. Unfortunately, it has zero to do with the discussion here. --G2bambino (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not actually an opinion, it is fact. The statements "The monarch has a residence in Canada" and "The monarch resides in Canada" are not equal; the former is true while the latter is false. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 00:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

GD is not entirely understanding the nature of the dispute, and the matter was never really settled at RH (even if G2 really thought it was). Further, we could so without G2's truth-twisting personal invective. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Too long

Giving each house it's own line in this template makes it needlessly long. It will break it into section soon unless I hear a good reason why not. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 21:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. --Padraic 01:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, too. --G2bambino (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I've gone and made some changes to make the overall box smaller. In about five minutes there will be another, even smaller, alternate version. I have also removed the repetition of Lieutenant Governor in favour of piped links and a note; I have also placed 'also of the monarch' in a ref, as that seems tidier to me. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 00:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

How does a footnote work in a template? --G2bambino (talk) 00:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Not, apparently. Removed. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 00:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts on new versions

Anyone? I like the second better; it's more compact. I think perhaps the bolding should be edited, as it seems overwhelming. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 22:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Bueller? Bueller? Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 18:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a discussion about Canadian templates in general at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Consistency of appearence to Canada-related navboxes. --G2bambino (talk) 02:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but we're talking about this template. And since, as you said, there is currently no consistency, that discussion is irrelevant unless/until a consensus develops there to push for consistency, at which point cosmetic changes may be made to be in line with that consistency. So, your thoughts on this template? Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 03:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, nobody seems to object to consistency, just to the over-use of red. Some suggestions have been raised there that would apply here. --G2bambino (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not objecting, nor have I ever objected, to consistency. I was pointing out that since there is no consistency, discussions on consistency have no bearing unless and until a consistency consensus is conveyed. So what are your thoughts on this template and how it should look? Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 03:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it was you who began a project of implementing consistency across Canadian navboxes, and there's been no objection to that at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board. As for the layout of this box, what I said at the aforementioned talk page applies here. --G2bambino (talk) 03:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Other than 'red title bar only', I see no suggestions from you. Again: what would you suggest for how this template should look? Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 03:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, since nobody has offered any input on the issue, I have been bold and selected a new version. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 23:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Queen's official residences

Hello Lonewolf. I don't like it either, but we've already agreed to keep it this way. If you still disagree? take it here (please). GoodDay (talk) 13:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion was already started above; Lonewolf chose not to participate. --G2bambino (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

So it was; I'm getting senile lately. Feel free to 'merge' this discussion to the above discussion. GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Objections

I've opened the sub-section to direct Lonewolf BC here. I know he's eager to discuss his objections to Rioux & G2bambino's edits. GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Roux, dammit! No 'i'! :P I thought this whole thing had been settled? [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 18:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It had, that's just the point. I'd be very careful making edits against consensus...Best, --Cameron* 18:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Er.. I didn't. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 18:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, there's no consensus for Lonewolf's views. Otherwise, his once a month reverts? wouldn't be undone. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it was never settled at Rideau Hall. It any case, whether it is worth including for the purposes of this template is a separate editorial question. Inclusion needs consensus, and has never gained that. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright. How would you propose that we unambiguously link it here? [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 18:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

::Bring this down to the bottom of the page. I'm confused enough, as it is. GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

(Res to Loner) Was there a consensus to exclude at the Template? GoodDay (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The point is that there was never consensus to add it to the template. WP is "conservative" in the sense that it is edits -- new changes, not the status quo ante -- that must achieve consensus, else they are not supposed to be implemented. In this case, instead the edit has been re-made repeatedly, despite opposition.
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

(restoring my question) ::Okay. So... how would you propose that we unambiguously link it here? [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 19:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

And: the consensus was implied by silence. You are the only person objecting--none of the X number of eyes watchlisting this template have any objection. I'll ask again: How would you propose that we unambiguously link this? [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 19:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Your interpretation that there was "silence" is not reasonable. Not everyone is on WP daily.
I do not at all understand your question. Please explain yourself. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's reasonable. A change was made ages ago, and you come along once a month to revert it. Other than you, there have been no objections. As to my question, it's fairly straightforward: how do you propose we link to Rideau Hall, unambiguously, in the template? [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 19:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is not reasonable. Inclusion was opposed almost right away (back in May), and has been opposed repeatedly over a course of months -- and not just by me, either. That is not consensus for inclusion. You really must rid yourself of the notions (which you seem to hold) that WP should be a minute-by-minute, or even day-by-day excercise, and that by putting in an edit faster than its opponents take it out again, you establish a consensus in favour of it.
As for your question, it seems nonsensical. We link to Rideau Hall by linking to Rideau Hall in the ordinary way -- thusly, in the edit-window: [[Rideau Hall]]. In the reader-seen template that yields Rideau Hall. But that's already done, so there is no problem, and I'm sure you already knew how that works. So you must be asking something else, but I don't see what that could be.
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 20:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Condescension will get you precisely nowhere with me. Please try again. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 20:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not mean for my comments to seem condescending, nor do I think that they sound so, on a fair reading of them. However, even though you found them condescending, and even if you still do, and even if that perception would be shared by an average reasonable person, that is really beside the point. Instead, please address the editorial issues.
What we have before us is this: (a) there is not and has never been a consensus in favour of the edit that you and G2 want and (b) I do not understand your question about "how ... we link to Rideau Hall", so I am unable to answer it.
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Where are all these editors who protest G2 & Roux's edits? GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

LoneWolf is the only one. And he seems to be done now... see you next month, GD? [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 04:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, seems that way. 'Til then, Roux. GoodDay (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

PS: Remember Loner, you're always welcomed here to discuss how the article can be improved (if it can). GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

There's no consensus for the changes Lonewolf BC has made. However, I've no more energy to argue with him/her (I'm also dissappointed, that he/she has avoided this talk-page again). My refusal to change Loner's recent edit, has nothing to do with my being a republican (even though I like the change he/she has made, ha ha). GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

GD (and perhaps others) is still seems to be under the false impression that reversion to the status quo ante in a case such as this, where an edit never achieved consensus, needs "consensus". Once again, that is not how WP works: it is conservative insofar as that it is changes to an article that must gain consensus, in the failure of which the article stays as it was. There is no consensus while there is disagreement about an edit, and disagreement about an edit does not disappear just because some parties favouring the edit repeatedly come back and make it while its opponents are not looking. I'm also disappointed that GD continues to claim that I have "avoided the talk-page". I've already voiced my opposition. I should not need to repeat myself. So cease acting and writing as though that were not the case. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 04:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It appears you are unaware of the fact that it is you alone who is reverting against the wishes of three other users. If that doesn't demonstrate to you that you are contravening a consensus, I'm not sure what will convince you. If you will not respect the actions and comments of others here, will not take this through proper dispute resolution channels, and continue to simply revert what others insert, it starts to appear very much as though you are edit warring. It would then seem to be in your best interests to adopt a better approach. --G2bambino (talk) 04:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

My reversions of the edit (among other things) show that the edit lacks consensus. The repeated re-makings of the edit, regardless of that lack, show a disrespect for the need to gain consensus. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 05:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

When you refuse to participate in the exercise of consensus building, you forfeit your ability to claim one doesn't exist. --G2bambino (talk) 05:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting opinion you have about the nature of consensus, but we needn't delve into its worth and its degree of truth or falsehood, because there has been no such refusal in this case. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 05:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Earlier Roux tried asking you for your proposal for what should be done here; in response, you picked on the form his question took rather than address the actual matter you must have known he was talking about. That seems to me like a dismissal of an invitation to form a compromise. --G2bambino (talk) 05:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Roux asked me a question that I did not understand, and I said I could not answer it because I did not understand it. He never explained it, so that was that. Your interpretation of that happening might be right as regards Roux's part, but is both wrong and damnably uncharitable as regards mine. I still don't know what Roux was trying to ask me. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 06:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

My advice is to stop wasting peoples time and energy. Wikipedia is not a democracy and consensus does not require the approval of every single editor. What you are doing is filibustering like another editor who has wasted my time and other peoples time with his vanity articles. If you keep this up you will end up getting suspended from editing. Laval (talk) 06:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Laval, to begin with, your comments are overly personal, foremostly in that they wrongly imply that "wasting peoples time and energy" is my intent. On the contrary, I have legitimate editorial objections to the edit, and my sole concern is the quality of WP, to which I think the edit is detrimental. I'm not concerned, one way or the other, about the time and energy other editors choose to devote to the issue, nor should I be. Secondly, yes, precisely, WP is not a democracy, which means that opponents to the edit cannot be simply out-voted by its proponents. Thirdly, no, consensus oughtn't require that all editors agree with an edit, nor have I suggested that it does. It does require that all editors agree to abide by an edit, even though they may disagree with it. Moreover, such agreement-to-abide ought not be unreasonably withheld against a substantial majority among a substantial number of editors. What we had here, though, was something quite different: a majority among a very small number of editors, insisting upon making an edit over the plainly stated and never-withdrawn objections of a minority among that very small number of editors. It was not legitimate to keep making the edit, over the objections, in those circumstances. Thirdly, your accusation against me of "filibustering" is nonsense. Filibustering which is essentially running on and on as a stalling tactic. In truth, I took just about the opposite approach to that: I stated my position, and opposition, and then let the matter be. In fact, I have been attacked for "not taking part in the discussion" precisely because I have not said enough to satisfy some parties to it (a charge which I deny, as said elsewhere; I said as much as I ought need to say and more often, really, than I ought to have needed to say it).

I'm not sure if it was here; but, about a year ago, there was a majority of editors who preferred excluding the Queen from the Template. I do recall, you (Loner) & myself were a part of the majority. I also recall you not having a problem with it, then (a majority of editors getting the say). GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

GD, if you mean to imply (as you seem to) that I believe in following the majority view when it agrees with me, but not when it disagrees, then I must ask you not to make accusations of hypocrisy (nor other personal attacks), especially not on so thin a basis as your vague recollections. Moreover, if you must make such attacks, at least be upfront about it; personal attack by insinuation is, to my mind, even worse than the straight-out kind. As for what you say that you recall, there might well have been an occasion in which I agreed with the view of a majority of editors, and was pleased to see it followed, but I'm sure that I did not hold that it ought be followed because it was a mere majority's view. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) I apologies, LW. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Loner, you do have to repeat yourself on talk-pages, we all do. It's required of all of us, as this is a collaborative project. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, GD, editors need to repeat themselves, up to a point. However, when any editor has made plain his opposition to an edit, it should not be necessary for him to come back daily and repeat that opposition, else have a small group of disagreeing editors make the edit despite that opposition. In the lack of some reasonable indication that the editor's consent has been gained, the edit lacks consensus, and may not legitimately be made. What was happening with this template was exactly that: a small group of disagreeing editors were repeatedly making the same disagreed-with edit, ignoring my objections as if those had vanished just because I did not come back to repeat them often enough. The edit was thus made without consensus for it. It still lacks consensus, because I still hold that the oddity of the queen's "officially residing" at Rideau Hall while she is in Ottawa, so that it is her "residence" (officially) during her stay, but otherwise is not, is too slight a fact in relation to official residences in Canada to deserve mention in a template such as this. Templates should not be cluttered up with such trivialities, but stick to the essential facts about their subject-matter.

What more can I tell ya, Loner? GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, either of two responses (as against "telling me" something) would be fitting: You might admit that it should not be necessary for an editor to repeat himself endlessly, else have his input ignored by the more vociferous; or you might deny the same, insisting that an editor's input may rightly be over-ridden simply by disagreeing with it faster or more times than it is given. If you admit, then it follows that you see that it was wrong to ignore my input in the instance at hand, making the edit despite it. It that case, you should say that you are sorry for your error, and try to make amends. If you deny, then I disagree (obviously), and perhaps we should have the matter judged in some manner, it being of some importance. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're asking. All I know is that there's a 5-1 majority in favour of including the monarch. GoodDay (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Poll

Lonewolf BC (talk · contribs) seems to (still) be under the impression that there is no consensus for inclusion of mention of Rideau Hall's function as the monarch's residence in Canada. Just to make the impression more clear, I'm going to attempt to tally the "for"s and "against"s; I hope I interperet people's earlier commentary correctly. --G2bambino (talk) 04:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

For inclusion

1. User:G2bambino
2. User:Roux
3. User:GoodDay
4. User:Padraic
5. User:Laval
6. 89.243.56.221 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC).

Against inclusion

1. User:Lonewolf BC

This poll is silly. It conveniently ignores the opposition of Lawe and presents GD's acquiescence as if it were actual support. Even were those things otherwise, though, it plainly shows that there is no consensus to make the edit.
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 04:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add Lawe if I missed it. I think GD's reverting of your reverts is sign enough that he's for inclusion; he may correct me if I'm wrong, of course. --G2bambino (talk) 04:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I support Elizabeth II's inclusion on the basis that she's included at the Rideau Hall article. It makes no sense to me, to include her there & not here. Either she's RH's official resident (or one of them) or not. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)