Canada: Governments / Law Template‑class | |||||||||||||
|
Law Template‑class | |||||||
|
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)
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)
Should " Patriation" be added, and where should it go if it would be? Habsfannova 19:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
Canada: Governments / Law Template‑class | |||||||||||||
|
Law Template‑class | |||||||
|
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)
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)
Should " Patriation" be added, and where should it go if it would be? Habsfannova 19:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)