Template talk:Canadian monarchs

Shields

Quill, your latest cleanup did indeed clean up the template; however, the shields are now lopsided. I encountered this problem originally, and the previous format (as somewhat unsightly as it was) was the only solution I could come up with. Is there any way to make the shields line up properly? --G2bambino (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No offence, but are you sure your pc is working correctly because from mine they are fine. This template now follows the same design and incorporates images which work fine on other templates as far as I can tell and I can't see the lopsided shileds just straight ones and don't even know how what you say is possible. Sorry but I really think that this may just be a problem you have. The Quill (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps "lopsided" wasn't the most clear description; what I mean is that they don't align to the left. This is, I suspect, because the text aligns to the right, and the shields sit next to that; as the text is different lengths, the shields don't end up sitting neatly, one atop the other. I'm sure there must be a way to align the shields separately from the text, I just need to find out how. --G2bambino (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Has puting them on the other side helped? The Quill (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Expansion

In the template for discussion it was suggested that this template be expanded to include all those listed on List of Canadian monarchs. This is what I have drafted,

How does it look? 117Avenue (talk) 06:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't notice your version, I made my own based on the current layout of listing the houses, but your's is better. Miesianiacal, I don't understand your objection to my version, but what do you think of 117Avenue's version. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It looks great; but, is unnecessarily full of non-relevant monarchs; those before 1867 don't belong in a navbox pertaining to Canadian monarchs. As a precedent, look at Template:British monarchs, which includes only monarchs who reigned following the creation of the United Kingdom. The Department of Canadian Heritage's list of Canadian monarchs also start at Victoria. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

That would make sense if we had two separate monarchies that merged into one Canadian monarchy, but we didn't, we just have one long line of Canadian monarchs from Francis I to Elizabeth II. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It makes sense because there was no United Kingdom prior to 1707, just as there was no Canada prior to 1867.

If it's worthwhile to add some link in this navbox to List of British monarchs, List of Scottish monarchs, List of English monarchs, and List of French monarchs, then let's find a way to add them so it's clear why they're there. But to qualify Charles IX or William III as a Canadian monarch is simply misleading. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

That's rather lake saying a History of Canada template shouldn't cover anything prior to 1867. The List of Canadian monarchs covers monarchs prior to 1867, in it's words it "lists those monarchs who have reigned over what is now Canada". Why should the template differ? The only reason this template wasn't deleted was because it could be expanded to deal with all the Canadian monarchs including the French ones, which would make it distinct from Template:English, Scottish and British monarchs. I'm implementing Miesianiacal's edit, if you think that this shouldn't cover French monarchs, send it to TFD, because if it doesn't, it should be deleted just like the others were. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

We have {{English, Scottish and British monarchs}} as well, that covers British monarchs prior to 1707. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You say expansion was the "only reason" it wasn't deleted, but there were different reasons/solutions given by different people. It wasn't kept solely so that it could be expanded, but because there was no consensus to delete. DrKiernan (talk) 09:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The list article should not have been expaneded, either. It should be in line with List of Australian monarchs, List of British monarchs, etc; i.e. they start when the jurisdiction the monarchs reigned over came into existence.

Template:English, Scottish and British monarchs is a navbox that includes pre-union monarchs, but it is thus aptly headed "English, Scottish and British monarchs". This one is called "Canadian monarchs". It could be re-headed as "French, English, Scottish, British, and Canadian monarchs" and expanded to include all those monarchs who reigened over territories that became Canada. But, the title is excessive and the content would just duplicate what's in other navboxes; before Confederation, the territories that are now Canada were actually part of France, England, Scotland, and then Britain. This is why I suggested adding to this navbox links to the lists of French, Scottish, English, and British monarchs. Each could be accompanied by a (very) brief explanation of how long each line reigned over what. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

There was a Canada before 1867: (1) the Canada that was conquered by Wolfe, since a division of New France was called "Canada". (2) There's also the Canadas prior to Confederation that were colonies and not Dominions (Lower Canada + Upper Canada, United Canadas (Canada East & Canada West)) So for much of the period covered by the proposed revised template, there was an entity called Canada. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 03:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

In agreement with Mies, the list should begin at 1867. Otherwise, you forgot to add Mary II. GoodDay (talk) 07:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Canada (New France) (1534-1763) ; Upper Canada & Lower Canada (1791-1841) ; Province of Canada (1841-1867) ; there's Canadas for 600 years -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

There are a couple of problems with this design: (1) The dates on the old template are definite as the dates of death/rename of each monarch are known and uncontentious. That is not the case with the new design. The moment that Canada became a sovereign state cannot be definitively pinned down as its status developed over time. (2) The design repeats links, but links should generally not be repeated on navigational templates. The purpose of a navbox is to provide links to other related articles; each article need only be linked once. DrKiernan (talk) 09:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You could say that the patriation of the constitution represents the breakpoint... not 1931, or that 1867-hence is one period. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that you can only view & edit the last 2 lines of the Template. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The history of Canada includes pre-1867, this history should not be ignored. It is not ignored on History of Canada, List of years in Canada, Former colonies and territories in Canada, or in {{History of Canada sidebar}}, {{History of Canada navbox}}, {{Canada year nav}}, or {{Canadian colonies}}, it should not be ignored here either. Regarding Mary II, William III of England states that Mary II only ruled in the British Isles, and Mary II of England makes no mention of colonies or America. 117Avenue (talk) 02:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Mary II & William III were co-monarchs, therefore she belongs - if you include pre-1867. GoodDay (talk) 04:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that William III of England is wrong? 117Avenue (talk) 04:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

He is if the English, Scottish & Irish monarchs were recognized as ruling over Canada. GoodDay (talk) 07:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Who said history should "be ignored" here? I've already suggested how history could be acknowledged without adding a dozen or more non-Canadian monarchs to this navbox. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

But they are Canadian monarchs. 117Avenue (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how. Prior to 1867, the territories that today comprise Canada were all very much French or English or Scottish or British colonies. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Called Canada, and comprised of future Canadian citizens, and ancestors of Canadian citizens. 117Avenue (talk) 03:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, the territories were called New France, Nova Scotia, Ruperts Land, Newfoundland, Acadia, North-Western Territory, etc. Eventually there was the Province of Canada, but it was still a part of United Kingdom territory; it certainly wasn't what we define as a country, unlike what emerged on 1 July 1867 is.

I understand the monarchical continuity extending back before Confederation. I just believe it can be expressed in this template in another, less expansive way, or the navbox should be redefined. I prefer the former option. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 06:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The reason this template wasn't deleted was because it could be expanded to deal with all the Canadian monarchs including the French ones, which would make it distinct from Template:English, Scottish and British monarchs. The other reasons weren't enough to keep Template:Australian monarchs or Template:New Zealand monarchs. The thing that keepd this infobox from being deleted was the potential to expanded it to cover all monarchs, from Francis I to Elizabeth II, so I'm expanding it. Have a problem with that, take it to wp:tfd and have this one deleted like the others. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

It already is distinct from Template:English, Scottish and British monarchs because the Canadian monarchy is distinct from the British one.

It wasn't deleted because there was no consensus to delete it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

It is as distinct from Template:English, Scottish and British monarchs as Template:Australian monarchs or Template:New Zealand monarchs were, yet they were deleted. Ignoring my conditional keep there if more consensus to delete (or rather redirect/merge) this then the other navboxes because of because of DrKiernan and 76.65.128.43 vote to merge/redirect this to Template:Canadian monarchy. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Australian monarchs listed the exact same monarchs in the exact same order with the exact same organization as this one does, but said "Monarchs of Australia" instead of "Monarchs of Canada", yet there was somehow consensus to delete it as not being distinct enough from Template:English, Scottish and British monarchs. Clearly there is consensus that this should not be kept in it's present forum, and WP:LOCALCONCENSUS here can not override the TFD. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Also your statement "It already is distinct [...] because the Canadian monarchy is distinct from the British one" applies just as strongly to those other two, yet they were somehow deleted. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The only keep vote other then my own was Presidentman's, which said "Victoria was the first Queen of Canada as Canada did not exist pre-1867, to use an example.", which would apply just as strongly to the other two navboxes. There is clearly concurrences that this template in it's present forum should not be kept , so I'm reverting back to the expanded forum. If you have a problem with that, you can take this template back to WP:TFD and have it deleted (or rather redirected to Template:Canadian monarchy). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Also if you want precedent, see List of Canadian monarchs. For this to deviate form that by not covering monarchs prior to 1867 would probably constitute WP:LOCALCONCENSUS, Template:British monarchs matches it's parent page List of British monarchs. If you have a problem with the pre-1867 being considered "Canadian monarchs", you should probably take it up at talk:List of Canadian monarchs. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

There was already a discussion on deleting this navbox. The result was no consensus to delete. The other templates are separate matters and irrelevant.

So too is List of Canadian monarchs, the expansion thereof a problem unto itself that needs resolution at its talk page.

I am not interested in seeing this navbox deleted; quite the opposite. I am also not against a slight expansion of this navbox's scope; I've already suggested how history could be acknowledged without adding a dozen or more non-Canadian monarchs to the navbox. If you, however, insist on doing it your way, it is, since you are the one attempting to alter the satus quo, upon you to find consensus in support of your change. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Miesianiacal, why did you do this? LOCALCONCENSUS here that pre-1867 monarchs aren't Canadian monarchs can't override List of Canadian monarchs. If you have a problem with the pre-1867 monarchs being considered "Canadian monarchs", take it to talk:List of Canadian monarchs. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You do not have consensus to make the changes you want to make; how many times do I have to repeat that fact?

The present content of List of Canadian monarchs does not automatically justify the expansion of this navbox in the way you want to expand it. The expansion of that list was disputed as soon as it was done, that dispute still needs to be resolved, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks like we posted at the same time. OTHERSTUFF is for deletion discussions. You are trying to forum a separate consensus here that the pre-1867 monarchs aren't "Canadian monarchs" from the one at List of Canadian monarchs, that page has listed the "non-Canadian" monarchs for four mouths now. If you want the pre-1867 monarchs removed take it to Talk:List of Canadian monarchs. Get them removed, and forget what I said about bringing this back to TFD, at that point you can simply redirect this template to Template:Canadian monarchy. We formed a consensus at the TFD that navboxes for Commonwealth countries monarchs were too much a duplicate of {{English, Scottish and British monarchs}}, attempting to override that here would constitute "[c]onsensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, [which] cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." The only reason this wasn't deleted, or redirected to Template:Canadian monarchy if you want to split hairs, was the possibility of expanding this to cover the all the monarchs at List of Canadian monarchs. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

No, you are trying to form a consensus here that pre-Confederation monarchs were Canadian. What was decided at List of Canadian monarchs--and it hasn't been decided there that pre-Confederation monarchs were Canadian--does not automatically justify the inclusion of all pre-Confederation monarchs here. Even if there were a sound consensus for the content of List of Canadian monarchs, a consensus established at one article doesn't expand to other articles; that's the spirit of WP:OTHERSTUFF. The same goes for decisions to delete other navboxes. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Has any further thought been given to this proposal? I like the idea of expanding the template to something along the lines of what has been submitted above for the following reasons:

1. The Government of Canada publications, A Crown of Maples, as well as The Kings and Queens of Canada, both include all individuals who have been Monarchs of Canada since Francis I, so it is verifiable and not original research or conjecture.
2. The title is not Canadian Monarchs (nationality of the individual), but Monarchs of Canada (sovereign over a geographic area or polity). If we were to have a discussion on Canadian Monarchs, I would think that the list would be short enough: Elizabeth II. Reading contemporary accounts and statements made by the monarchs’ themselves, I believe that all monarchs previous to Elizabeth II were not separately crowned as “of Canada”, did not have distinct titles pertaining to Canada, did not consider themselves Canadian, and were not seen as uniquely Canadian within popular or academic circles.
3. 1867 as a start date seems to me to be a bit arbitrary. Canadian history did not begin on that date, nor did a new state magically appear on July 1st of that year. The Constitution Act of 1867 did not create ‘Canada’, but the ‘Dominion of Canada’. The first constitutional document to mention Canada as an existing entity was in the Constitution Act, 1791. In 1867, Canada went from being a province to a dominion, both of which were non-independent colonies of the UK. If we were discussing sovereigns of a Canadian state, the list would start at George V.

To sum up, we have official secondary sources that start with Francis I. The only reason I see to start this list with Queen Victoria is if it were titled “Monarchs of the Dominion of Canada”.trackratte (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

I mentioned earlier how I thought this navbox could be expanded to include pre-Confederation monarchs without actually listing each and every one and making the content of the navbox incongruous with the navbox's title and thus scope. I'm not an expert with formatting, but I think something like the following might work (others with better knowledge of html code can make graphic improvements, I hope):

It may require a little more finesse, but, that's the jist of my idea. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The only article that needs to be pointed to is List of Canadian monarchs, it (in it's words) "lists those monarchs who have reigned over what is now Canada". Those other articles all list a number of monarchs who have never reigned over what is now Canada. A simple note like the one at List of Canadian monarchs would be better. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

This was starting to get heated. I was going to take this to the Dispute resolution noticeboard, but I just noticed that the closing admidian of the TFD User:Plastikspork just started editing after being off for a few days. I'll leave a talkback on his talk page. Plastikspork, the way I see it the only reason this wasn't deleted (or redirected to Template:Canadian monarchy) was my conditional keep, that we could expand this to cover all the monarchs at List of Canadian monarchs. We do however have consensus at the TFD that this should not be kept in it's current (unexpanded) state, as it is redundant to Template:English, Scottish and British monarchs. Weather to keep the expanded template, that's another matter that can be settled at another TFD, tough if the pre-1867 monarchs are removed from List of Canadian monarchs I don't see why this can't simply be redirected to Template:Canadian monarchy. Miesianiacal, if I understand him correctly, dressages and thinks that there wasn't consensus that this is redundant to Template:English, Scottish and British monarchs. Which of us is correct? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion on deleting this template has no bearing on this matter; it was closed as "no consensus", not as "consensus to not delete so long as it is expanded to include pre-Confederation monarchs". Similarly, the content of List of Canadian monarchs is irrelevant; what is done at that article is a separate matter to be decided in another forum, such as its talk page. What's pertinent to the content of this navbox is really one question: Are monarchs who reigned over Canada's current territories prior to Confederation Canadian monarchs? If yes, then the navbox gets expanded to include all of them. If no, the navbox either stays as is or is expanded to include pre-Confederation monarchs and retitled somehow to reflect the expanded scope.

Though it goes against what I've been saying, I just found that the Canadian government's publication A Crown of Maples lists all monarchs since Henry VII and Francis I under the heading "Sovereigns of Canada": p.II --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Newfoundland

Regarding this revert, I removed the Newfoundland section primary because it was entirely duplicate links. As DrKiernan said above "The design repeats links, but links should generally not be repeated on navigational templates. The purpose of a navbox is to provide links to other related articles; each article need only be linked once." Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Not withstanding, I think, the completeness of the list. 117Avenue (talk) 03:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)