Template talk:Canadian Conservative Leaders

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 articles

Conservatism

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles

Biography

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Untitled

What's the purpose of this template? It has only one person! DHN 22:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree, these are not to be used so Liberally. (they got a template, so conservatives probabaly wanted one too)--

Colle 00:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created it, there were two, but interm leaders should not be added. SFrank85 01:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the new format

It should include all conservative parties in Canadian politics. SFrank85 19:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It probabaly shouldn't have the new Conservative Party logo in the heading, however. I can see how that might be confusing for someone not familiar with the subject... the new Conservative Party does not reaally speak for the other dead parties.

One other problem is that it is not clear that all the parties are federal.--Colle|

|Talk-- 21:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It shows the evolution of conservative parties in Canada SFrank85 22:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So?--Colle|

|Talk-- 22:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What? SFrank85 23:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well maybe there is a better way to show all political leaders of some historical parties that are somewhat related to eachother. This template is confusing, as I have shown above. --Colle||Talk-- 23:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

change?

what do you think of this [1] as an alternative?--Colle||Talk-- 02:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool, but I made it into a seperate template SFrank85 22:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Canadian Conservative Parties

Thanks. I edited this one to conform with the wikipedia standard for general catagories. Looks like Harper has quite the team behind him!--Colle|

|Talk-- 22:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A seperate template is not necessary. The Leaders template mentions and has the links to the parties, not to mention all the leaders in one template. And the Unionists and National Government weren't really parties. Jareand 22:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a good idea, as it saves space on the already big party pages.--Colle|

|Talk-- 22:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a good idea? That template has the exact same information as the other template! Only it doesn't have party leader information. It is utterly stupid. Jareand 21:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image

According to Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy "[Fair use images] should never be used on templates". So is the logo on this template allowed here? Philip Stevens 06:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Social Credit

Shouldn't we add the Social Credit Party to the list? CJCurrie 17:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. They aren't a blood relative of the CPC. Jareand 19:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But they're an antecedent of Reform. Does that count for anything? CJCurrie 01:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YES it does. Jareand, you are being a real revisionist here. The template says "Leaders of Canadian federal Conservative Parties" It does *not* say "Leaders of parties that are blood relatives of the CPC". The Progressive Canadian Party has a far stronger (albeit less institutional) relation to the Progressive Conservative Party than the "Conservative" (Reform) Party of Stephen Harper. You say that pointing this out is POV, but apparently for you to deny it is not POV. And I now just find that there is an article attached to this template. SoCreds and PCP should *asolutely* be added. I should have brought this here earlier rather than trying to resolve a dispute in edit summaries, so thanks to CJCurrie for that. Carolynparrishfan 18:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about a "see also" section at the bottom linking to these parties, or more specifically, their leader lists?Circeus 00:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't an antecedent of Reform. The Socreds may have been a right-wing populist party, but they're main issue was social credit policies. That sure doesn't sound like the Reform Party. And besides, they didn't disolve into Reform (like how Reform disolved into the Alliance), and (in my opinion) only the parties that merged to form the CPC (the CA and PCs), and parties that evolved into them (Lib-Cons, Historical Cons, Reform) should be on this template. I'm open to ideas. Maybe links to non-releated conservative parties (not the leaders) could be in small print in a "see also" section, but I don't see the point in doing that.

Now, Carolynparrishfan, stop presenting opinions as facts!

OFFICIALLY (this is official, not opinion!):

The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada and the Canadian Alliance merged to form the Conservative Party of Canada.

The Progressive Canadian Party is a minor third party form by a group of Red Tories nostalgic for the Prog-Cons.

Whether or not the CPC is "Reform in disguise" or if the Prog Canadians have are more related to the Prog Cons than the CPC is open to debate.

So don't give me bullcrap about me debating your POV is POV. Jareand 02:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, it all comes down to the fact that PCP is a a Canadian federal conservative party. For the purposes of this template, it does not matter that it is not a "blood relative". You have yet to address this point. Carolynparrishfan 17:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template is for direct descendants of the current Conservative Party of Canada. The Social Credit party is not related to the Reform Party, only by that Preston Manning's father was a long time Social Credit leader in Alberta for many years, and the Progressive Canadian Party is not related to this Conservative Party. SFrank85 18:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"This template is for direct descendants [sic] of the current Conservative Party of Canada". Says who? Carolynparrishfan 18:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what we're debating. Jareand 19:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Says I, the creator of this template! ;) SFrank85 02:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough, I have modified the title to reflect this focus. Carolynparrishfan 17:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To the person who tried to revert this: Quite simply, please don't. This is the best title I can think of, if you have another please suggest it. But the fact is that this does not encompass all Canadian federal conservative parties, such as the PCP, SoCreds, etc. Carolynparrishfan 17:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harper and the Reform Party

Harper was origially a Reform Party leader, and his italicized name has a (C) next to it. Technically, shouldn't that be an (R)? Or just because he is now a CPC PM, that means the (C) has to be there? --Zblewski (talk) 18:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look over two names from the italicized "Harper (C)", you'll see a non-italicized "Harper" next to a "(CA)". He was elected as leader of the Conservative Party, after he had originally resigned as the Canadian Alliance leader before the party dissolved. nat.utoronto 18:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]