Template talk:Canada topics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Canada (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.


Could we use a standard navigation template ({{Navbox generic}} would probably fit best). As it is now, the template looks odd when paired with other navigation boxes, it's not collapsable and not directly accessible. --Qyd 22:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Stock Exchange[edit]

I think it is misleading and POV for the link Stock Exchnage in this template to points to the TSX when there are several other exchanges in Canada, for example, Nasdaq Canada. Instead we should create a category for exchanges in Canada, and / or a list, and have the link point there. Kevlar67 19:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Bright red[edit]

Having so bright a red for the template makes it harder to read and hard on the eyes in general. Can't we go for something paler? -Oreo Priest talk 22:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the bright red outlines are, to me, quite unappealing and an eye sore. - Yougottaeat 07:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yougottaeat (talkcontribs)

Why is the title not 'Canadian topics'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


I have gone ahead and changed those odd black links to normal links, so people can see there links...I have been here for years and had no clue they were links....Moxy (talk) 02:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I have changed them back as the colour choices were a consensus reached after lengthy discussion at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board. If you wish to alter it, you should seek the project's approval again; your unilateral decision had a wide effect. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Remove the 'Outlines' garbage, please[edit]

Since User:Moxy refuses to actually start a discussion (gee, can't imagine why), please remove this nonsense from the template.

Outlines are useless duplications of extant Wikipedia content. They serve no useful purpose whatsoever. There was supposed to be an RFC on them, but it was stonewalled and eventually given up on due to much goalpost-moving by the main instigator of the nonsense.

This incredibly widely used template should, quite simply, not be used to give further visibility to such a relentlessly nonsense project. → ROUX  15:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose outlines are useful in navigating large topics and is the norm on main country templates. If you believe the Outline is useless and or nonsense you should try and get the page deleted. Currently the Outline is view around 100 times a day so i would say some of our readers do find it useful. I have a question do you think the Index is also useless or would this be an alternative for you ? Moxy (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Outlines are only 'the norm' because of a brute-force effort overriding any and all objections that have been raised. Ergo, not even a remotely valid argument. Attempts at deletion have also been largely fruitless, due to the sycophantic efforts of the few people involved in creating this massively useless duplication of content. Do you ever bother reading links people give you? Go look at the RfC draft above, and the links given there, and come back to discuss the issue from a position of knowledge. As I repeatedly say on Wikipedia, which falls on deaf ears: it is considered preferable for knowledge to precede opinions. When you do it the other way around, I will simply ignore what you have to say as uninformed and thus useless. → ROUX  15:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Y are you insulting people? What is your problem dude? Get a grip.Moxy (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh yes, because you haven't insulted me? sure. Again, please go read the RfC draft and come back when you understand the issues involved. Thanks. → ROUX  15:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
So if someone thinks the outline is good, You assume they are stupid and have no clue? Great way to think of people.Moxy (talk) 15:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
No, I am assuming you haven't read the draft RfC, because you have shown no evidence whatsoever that you have read it. If I am wrong, prove me wrong. → ROUX  18:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I would rather they were gone too, as I also see them as unnecessary duplication, but if consensus is that they stay, then it is a valid link for this template. Seems to me the proper forum is AFD. Resolute 16:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
    My understanding is not that consensus is for them to stay; consensus is that it is too insane trying to deal with the stonewalling and goalpost-shifting that comes anytime these nonsense pages are questioned. If memory serves, the argument against individual AfDs was that the entire thing should be dealt with via RfC (according to the proponents); then at the draft RfC, they argue that deletion is the province of AfD. Clever, but frustrating. Whatever, I'll AfD the crap page and see what happens. → ROUX  18:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Since they exist, they apparently have community consensus, and as such are valid to include. However, I too don't like them at all (useless; unnecessary; basically one user's "pet project" gone way too far) and would strongly support an AFD/MFD. I sincerely hope that Roux moves further with this; he's probably one of the only users with enough drive to actually pull it off. -M.Nelson (talk) 16:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  • See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists, which widely rejected the notion that there was anything fundamentally wrong with "navigational" pages. Not all outlines are perfect (not all articles are perfect), but IDONTLIKEIT counts for nothing, and is akin to the "i hate infoboxes" perspective. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
The topics link was there since April, so it should stay until there's a consensus to remove it or, alternately, an AfD results in the deletion of the page linked to. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Miesianiacal. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed additions[edit]

I noticed we dont list or provinces and territories in this main jumping off template for our country. I know we have Template:Provinces and territories of Canada and its kind of redundant. However i dont see y this main articles are not listed on our main template (I would think that most would expect them there no?). I would like to do what is below (does not need to be second - even last would make me happy  :-).Moxy (talk) 05:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

| group2     = <font color=#00006E>[[Provinces and territories of Canada|Provinces &</br> Territories]]</font>
| list2      = {{Navbox subgroups
{{Navbox subgroups
| groupstyle = width:8.0em; background:#DCDCDC; line-height:1.15em;<!--reduces wide gap between wrapped groupname lines--> text-align:center; font-weight:normal;color:black;
| liststyle  = width:auto; padding:0.25em 0; line-height:1.4em; <!--otherwise lists can appear to form continuous groups-->
| evenstyle  = background:transparent;

| group1 = Provinces
| list1 = [[Alberta]]{{·}} [[British Columbia]]{{·}} [[Manitoba]]{{·}} [[New Brunswick]]{{·}}[[Newfoundland and Labrador]]{{·}} [[Nova Scotia]]{{·}} [[Ontario]]{{·}} [[Prince Edward Island]]{{·}} [[Quebec]]{{·}} [[Saskatchewan]]

| group2 = Territories
| list2 = [[Northwest Territories]]{{·}} [[Nunavut]]{{·}} [[Yukon]]
Ok since noone abjected i will add them now!Moxy (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Great, but why did you change the state to uncollapsed? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
oops sorry was a copy and past from here and i for got i did that for the example on this page(that oddly did not work LOL)...all fixed.Moxy (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Removed link commons[edit]

I have removed the link to commons as per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates that says "Navigation templates provide navigation within Wikipedia". Although commons is part of the wiki foundation, its not an internal as is a separate entity that requires a separate log in by its users.Moxy (talk) 02:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I have said this to you before, and I will say it again: It is generally considered preferable for opinions to be preceded by knowledge. If a user is logged in to enwiki, they will automatically be logged in to Commons. Not that that is even remotely relevant; the point here is that this template provides a massive number of links to Canadian content all over enwiki, as well as (rightly) a link to the Canadian files on Commons. There is nothing wrong with this, and so far two people disagree with you. This is also not unusual for you. I would also suggest you examine the actual use of templates all over Wikipedia, many of which provide outside links. That would, however, require that you learn before you barge in, as usual, like a bull in a china shop.
I am restoring this link. Deal with it. → ROUX  07:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Your attitude is not welcome could we get you to read over wp:civility. I have pointed to policy have you on this matter? As for users being automatically logged in all over best to read over Wikipedia:Why create an account? and the subsequent Wikipedia:Unified login that says other wise. Is this normal because i just don't see it around? I have asked for more input - hopefully it will be productive and based in a policy over emotions. Moxy (talk) 07:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually no. You have a long (just read above for yet another example) history of barging in where you know nothing, throwing your opinion around, and failing to understand anything. Also, learn to spell, seriously. You want the link removed, it is therefore incumbent upon you to demonstrate why; a lame appeal to authority isn't enough. What damage is caused by this link being here? How is this link a detriment to the encyclopedia? How does providing people access to more information wind up as a net negative? → ROUX  08:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
So again as above you cant provide any links to policy or anything for your statements that have been proven wrong in both cases. Not sure your input is welcome anymore on this matter - best to let others comment now. I have provided links to policy on the matter even though you seem to have missed it. The reason we have the policy is so that "external links" are not added all over templates. Yes Wikibooks · Wikimedia Commons · Wikinews · Wikiquote · Wikisource · Wikispecies · Wikiversity · Wiktionary}} just like all the Wikimedia chapters are external links. Moxy (talk) 08:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
And you appear to be incapable of answering a simple question: what is the negative value of having this link in this template? You either have an answer (unlikely), or you don't (much more likely), in which case any argument you have is invalid. Which is it? → ROUX  09:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I have answered it in 2 ways - its against our policy - leads to external link spam. At some point you will have to validate why your not following our policy on this matter. NO matter how many nice name you call me - you still have not been able to link anything in your favour. Moxy (talk) 13:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Okay, so that's two logical fallacies now. Let's try again. What is the negative value of having this link (not external spam) in this template? Don't bother with another lazy appeal to authority; we are discussing a specific link here, and you need to show what is negative about this link in this context. I won't hold my breath waiting for you to come up with something, but it'll sure be entertaining watching you try. As for policy that supports me, WP:IAR. → ROUX  18:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess your still saying its an internal link right? Hard to make my point if that's your position. I personal don't see how a link to a different wiki that only has pictures helps people navigate this wiki. Do you believe that all the wikis should be linked? So what are we to do? Do we ignore what the community has said on this matter or invoke WP:IAR because all the wikis are not external links? This is your position right? I would normally quote the essay Wikipedia:Navigation templates on this matter.Moxy (talk) 04:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Navigation templates provide navigation within Wikipedia - Wiki-media is an external link as proven above.
  • Navigation templates provide navigation between related articles - not different wikis.
  • Navigation templates provide navigation between existing articles - Wiki-media is not article related.
  • Navigation templates do not provide WP:External links to other websites.
  • External links should be included in appropriate articles, rather than a navigation template.
  • Despite its name, "Ignore all rules" does not sabotage the other rules.
Nope. I'm asking you to explain how this link is harmful to this template, without appeal to authority. Detail how this link being here is a net negative. → ROUX  04:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
It leads our readers away from this website to another website that is not encyclopedic in nature. Its a web site that just has pictures and does not conform to any of our OR or neutrality guidelines despite your assertion they are the same website. See Our projects. This would be why we link them in external links - to make it clear to our readers they (the external links) may not conform to the same principles that govern our pages. Way is it so important to link this wiki over the others may I ask? As per WP:LINKSTOAVOID #18 "External links on Wikipedia navigation templates or navigation pages such as disambiguation, redirect and category pages." Moxy (talk) 05:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It leads our readers away from this website to another website that is not encyclopedic in nature.

A website, run by the same organization, staffed by mostly the same people as Enwiki, which hosts encyclopedic content, which also brings users back here when they look at pictures and sees which article the image is used in.
So you agree its not an internal link.

Its a web site that just has pictures and does not conform to any of our OR or neutrality guidelines

Every single article on Wikipedia has links to websites that do not conform to any of our guidelines.
We are taking about a navigational template not an article. But you are correct in your statement - just forgot to metion this links have there own section so people know they are external in nature.

despite your assertion they are the same website.

It would probably be a good idea for you to not say that I have said things which I have not said.
You said that logging is the same thing for both places - thus implying they are the same thing with no difference.

See Our projects.

I really am entirely sick and tired of you being patronizing; I've been around here a lot longer than you have.
Wrong again - I have been here longer and have many many more edits then you.

This would be why we link them in external links - to make it clear to our readers they (the external links) may not conform to the same principles that govern our pages.

That is a bizarre statement. And has very little to do with this.
How is it bizarre? Its a template for internal navigation that is now being used to link an outside site that does not conform to our policies.

Way is it so important to link this wiki over the others may I ask?

Why is it important not to? You have failed to address that, and none of your arguments hold water. Particularly when you keep doing things like this:
All my arguments have been backed by policy - your arguments are simply your views.

As per WP:LINKSTOAVOID #18 "External links on Wikipedia navigation templates or navigation pages such as disambiguation, redirect and category pages."

...which is a logically fallacious argument. You keep saying 'because policy says so,' which is quite simply not enough on Wikipedia. Very few policies, if any, have no exceptions. There is no harm served by this link being present; quite the opposite, it provides a convenient link to an enormous repository of visual (and auditory) records of things Canadian, which can only serve to increase educational content as people browse through images.
It's also both instructive and fascinating to note that you made this edit. → ROUX  05:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
So your pointing what out? That I have edit a page.
Roux, please try to remain civil. Thanks.

I encountered this issue a while back with Moxy, where I wanted to include Commons link on the Acadia and NHSC templates. We disagreed on the issue, but at the end of the day I decided that the consistent treatment of Canada-related templates and compromise were more important than continuing a circular argument, and I eventually deferred to Moxy's view (although I did not necessarily agree with it). At the end of the day, Moxy was correct that none of the other Canada-related templates had Commons links, and I was not going to push the issue.

Having said that, I still disagree with Moxy's characterization of the Commons. It is not "a web site that just has pictures". It is a sister project, but one that differs significantly from the other Wikimedia projects as it is the multi-media repository that serves all Wikipedias. It is not some mere external site, but rather one that works in tandem with Wikipedia as Commons files are embedded in most Wikipedia articles (unlike any other Wikimedia project). Calling it an "external site" seems to ignore how closely the two sites function together. Even our policies here on Wikipedia recognize that our articles cannot accommodate all of the valuable multi-media that is available, and users are encouraged to visit the Commons for the full breadth of visual and other media information. Whether a user is registered over at the Commons is irrelevant, as it does not prevent them accessing the files. And saying that the Commons "does not conform to any of our OR or neutrality guidelines" is not correct - first, those principles do not arise in the same way over at the Commons, but more importantly, while the Commons does not have the same heavy volumes of rules that Wikipedia does (as they are not needed in the same way, and the Commons environment is happily far less legalistic than Wikipedia), those same principles of impartiality, neutrality and verification are applied consistently.

At the end of the day, the Commons link is not an external link like others, and will lead to helpful multi-media files that we might have liked to include here in our articles if we were not constrained by space, layout and other considerations. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects refers to them as non-enWikipidai links. So again I ask how does this help our readers navigate "this" Wikipedia when it leads them to a different wiki. Commons does not have any of or neutrality POV policies. Neutral point of view and No original research. This rule not to link this up in this manner is everywhere Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout)#External links "InterWikimedia links to other projects (except Wiktionary and Wikisource) should only appear in this section". The only policy quoted for its inclusion thus far is WP:IAR - were i fail to see how a link to a different wiki would help improve this wiki.Moxy (talk) 14:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
MOS is not policy in any case. And since you seem either unwilling or incapable of answering a very simple question without fallacious appeals to authority and whining "because policy says soooooooooooooo," I don't really feel any further discussion here will be fruitful. Three people disagree with you, get over it. → ROUX  15:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I guess there is not much more to be said. I would like to thank -Skeezix1000 for his mature behavior here. Would it be possible to have the link actually placed in ABC order as per the rest in the template? Moxy (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I have behaved perfectly maturely. That I do not feel any particular desire do disguise my contempt for your usual methods is not the same as immaturity. At least I'm honest enough to outright say what I mean, rather than couching it in passive-aggressive bullshit. Do us all a favour, okay? The next time you feel like making a stink about something, make even the tiniest little token of effort to actually a) understand what is going on, and b) respond to direct questions asked of you (which you have not done, once, in this discussion). You might find that people will be less thoroughly abrasive towards your nonsense if there were any indication that you were actually fucking listening. → ROUX  17:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
If I were you I would be very embarrassed. At some point would be nice if you could follow some of our civility policies. This whole conversation leads me to believe you have some conduct problems that need to be addressed. I have responded to all your question - and have provided many links to back up my statements. Thus far all you have done is insult me at every turn and have given only an "I like it" reasoning for your position. I can only hope that this type of behavior is corrected in the future.Moxy (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
"I have responded to all your question" - that is a lie. You know it, I know it, and yet you claim I should be embarrassed? The simple question is this: without appeals to authority (nor, indeed, attempting to use essays as though they are policy), demonstrate that there is a net negative to this link being included on this template. Skeezix and I have demolished every argument you have (and, by the by, you seem to understand Commons about as well as you understand enwiki--that is to say, not at all), because your arguments all rely on "but policy says so," which is less than useless. And further to your 'embarrassment' allegation, remind me which one of us has repeatedly claimed the other has said things he did not say? I'll give you a hint: it wasn't me. → ROUX  18:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
So your still insulting me why. And what question have I not replied to? You keep saying I know nothing yet I have provide links to all my statements that have proven you wrong in your assumptions. At some point you will have to learn how to communicate in a normal fashion. I wish you all the best in the future.Moxy (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
What the hell..? Are you just trolling now? Because that's what it seems like. I have asked the question multiple times: can you please demonstrate how this link is a net negative in this template? Without appealing to authority. Without misquoting essays and claiming they are policies. Without claiming I have said things which I categorically have not said. Can you do this, yes or no? All of the reasons you have cited have been shown to be demonstrably false, borne of a complete lack of understanding of what Commons is or how it relates to enwiki. Have you got any actual reasons, yes or no? → ROUX  19:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I said it leads our editors away from this site. Would you like me to say it again? I said it leads our editors away from this site. I said it leads our editors away from this site. Can you show me what is false? I have shown you policies as to why the community does not want the links here and proven that its not an internal link. So what am I to do - you seem to not care about our policy on this matter or our policie(s) on how to be civil. So at this point I will let other comment and hope one day you and I can work in a normal capacity like adults because this here is not what I call productive. Moxy (talk) 01:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh boo hoo, it leads people away. You failed to address that people come back, you failed to understand how Commons actually works, you failed to show how going to commons is actually a negative, you failed to show how a link to commons decreases the amount of information anyone is receiving.. shall I go on? You have consistently managed to ignore everything you have been told (this is not new), you have completely failed to actually address points raised by both me and Skeezix--you just keep saying 'but policy says so.' Do you even know what a logical fallacy is? You're just trolling at this point. Please read WP:COMPETENCE and re-evaluate whether you should be contributing to Wikipedia at all. → ROUX  04:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
LOL WP:COMPETENCE - saying this to an editor that has been here longer has more experience and many more edits leads me to believe you really need a wikibreak. Hopefully maturity will come with age in the future. Moxy (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Been here longer? April 2008 for me, Jan 2009 for you, unless one counts your policy-breaking shared account--sorry, remind me again which one of us knows policy better? Edit counts are largely meaningless. And you are still failing to address points raised here. You either don't care what others are telling you (which I think is the most likely proposition, given how you generally act on talk pages), or you are incompetent because you cannot understand what people are telling you. Your inability to communicate effectively has been pointed out to you before on more than one occasion, and it appears that nothing has changed. In addition, it appears that you do not comprehend what a logical fallacy is, and you have used at least two in this discussion. The first is the appeal to authority; "can't do this because policy says so," while completely ignoring both the *intent* of that policy and the entire principle behind WP:IAR (and somehow claiming the latter doesn't apply... you may wish to re-read WP:5P, as it seems like you have no clue how fundamental IAR is to Wikipedia's function). The second is the slippery slope fallacy; "this will lead to badness." It won't, and again you are ignoring the vast difference between a link to some random external site, and a link to the Wikimedia visual and audio files repository, the very purpose and existence of which you also appear to have absolutely no grasp of. Unless and until you can demonstrate understanding of these points, your opinion here should--and thankfully has been--entirely disregarded as being woefully ill-informed. Your rank hypocrisy in whining about civility while sniping yourself is self-evidently pathetic. → ROUX  17:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
We all get frustrated in these discussions sometimes, Roux, and all of us at one point or another have said things which probably violate the spirit, if not the letter, or WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:PERSONAL. We're all human, and we all blow off steam. However, you have been uncivil and unnecessarily combative from the very beginning of this discussion. While I suspect that there must be some prior history between you and Moxy, it nonetheless just depresses me to read this exchange. While I disagree with Moxy on the substantive issue, it's your tone and your comments that I consistently find objectionable. I didn't even bother responding to Moxy's points because I just didn't want to get any further involved in this debate. The problem with the approach you've taken is that risk alienating other editors that share your opinions, in addition to unnecessarily antagonizing that editors with whom you disagree. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Skeezix reflects my opinions well. The foregoing argument is a horrendous example from two experienced Wikipedians; I've been appalled by the whole episode, particularly by the offensive approach and language from Roux. PKT(alk) 21:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Forgive me for being uninterested in mollycoddling the foolish actions of those who loudly trumpet their 'knowledge' while demonstrating their total ignorance of same. This is not new for Moxy, and I am sick and tired of it. His repeated refusal to actually engage substantively on any points which have been raised to him is, likewise, something I am uninterested in entertaining. → ROUX  02:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Roux, everything you've posted here, from the first sentence to almost the last, is an almost unbroken string of personal attacks. If you have an issue with the overall edit pattern of another editor, take it up at WP:RFC/U, don't clutter up a template discussion page with your personal sick-and-tiredness. Please just focus on the issue at hand, namely whether the link to Commons is appropriate. Can we restart the discussion solely on that issue, or are you going to re-engage with personal attacks? If the latter, perhaps we should instead be discussing how to remove you from the conversation. Franamax (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Ditto that, the exchange above is disgusting and I would likely have blocked Roux for these attacks had I noticed them at the time. Moxy, you did well not to descend to that level, but you might have done better to disengage much earlier. Happy to see the compromise worked out below. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
It is sheer nonsense that the two of you are focusing on the surface of the communication while ignoring everything that Moxy was actually doing--namely misquoting policy, citing as support a page he edited to read what he wanted, pretending that essays are policy, and so forth. To say nothing of the logical fallacies, his refusal to actually answer questions as posed, and his general woeful lack of understanding of what things say and how they actually work. The dishonesty, whether intended or not, is likewise sickening.
But you'd rather wag your fingers and say "Naughty roux" than actually look at the substance. → ROUX  08:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I see no misquoting policy, nor lack of answering of his part. Looks like Moxy is the one waiting for a proper mature reply to all his questions. (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Then your reading comprehension is poor. → ROUX  16:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Can you try not to insult everyone? Even if Moxy engaged in the behaviour you described (and I do not think he did), it still does not justify the lack of civility you have shown. Your comments today are really disappointing. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
You would prefer that I lie and say that the IP (how interesting it showed up here) is right, or has understood what has been said? Ain't gonna happen. The IP has demonstrated, as you have also demonstrated, poor comprehension of what has been said here. → ROUX  18:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Roux, your statement appears incorrect and/or misleading. Whether an IP editor makes the observation or not, you have not given a diff of direct misquoting of policy (and WP:SPI is thatta-way if you have a problem with anonymous editors);, and I see no misquoting on review; and whilst it is true that Moxy edited a guideline to support their own opinion in the middle of a debate (discussing this elsewhere), they did not originally cite that guideline, nor did they use the specific before-vs-after wording to support their position here in any way. You leave a dangling implication that they have acted in bad faith, or that thay (and everyone else, it would seem) are incompetent. You need to leave be your speculation on other editors' motives and ability, step back, and either pursue WP:DR channels or let it go. This is "Template talk:", no? Franamax (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I had in fact 'let it go' until you and other self-righteous sorts decided to have a good old finger wag--again, while completely ignoring the substance of Moxy's comments. Moxy's hypocrisy, too. If you are incapable of seeing what he did here, I am singularly uninterested in pointing it out to you. → ROUX  01:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Exactly what has transpired in the past that has gotten us here? Could you explain what I did in the past that leads you to say all this nice things? All i did was revert an addition - yet you keep implying I have done much more. You keep saying that I "failing to understand anything" yet have not explained "anything" or even pointed to an explanation. Perhaps I dont get it - but thus far i have not seen any effort in trying to explain just a set of personal attacks to me and everyone here. The only thing I see were we have had an argument in the past is the above talk were the outline was removed and restored. Moxy (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Restarted discussion - link to Commons[edit]

Beyond the pressing consideration of which editor is lamest, there is the issue of whether or not the link to Commons is appropriate, so let's look at that if possible. I see two issues here:

  • The general (and overriding) philosophy of "blue-linking" is that we make a clear distinction between purely internal links (where the URL will still begin with en.wikipedia.org) and external links where the reader will end up somewhere that is not English Wikipedia. This is important for any number of reasons (not least of which is the intergrity of the reader's computing device) and is normally indicated with the little overlapping-squares doohickey following an external link, or for sister projects, a "more on Commons" template or Language link in the sidebar. In a way, it is even more important to indicate the departure from en:wiki for a sister-project link, since the interface is often almost identical at the target site (as in this case) and it's very hard to tell one should not be re-using the Search box to go elsewhere on en:wiki.
  • For the specific case at hand, there is an additional question of whether the encyclopedic value of including the link to a Commons category outweighs the general philosophy of blue-links. I'm 50/50 here on whether there actually is value. On the one hand, yes, there are many images on Commons organized by topic, and if the reader is looking for images related to Canada, that's a good place to go. However actually clicking that link takes one to a rather incomprehensible page, and it doesn't get any better. I tried some random clickage and eventually discovered that there is only one single apse in Canada, so I'm not sure exactly what I learned there.

Given that there may be some value in alerting the reader to the additional resource at Commons, I'm not thinking it should be removed altogether, but the current presentation is problematic. I would suggest moving it to the end of the line of links and adding something like "Media files at the Commons wikiproject" to make clear that 1) the link navigates to elsewhere than en:wiki; and 2) the link leads to a media repository. Thoughts? Franamax (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I wish I could have said this - this well. I agree.Moxy (talk) 13:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I think that's a very nice compromise. I would make sure that we continue to point the link to Commons:Category:Canada, rather than Commons:Canada, as galleries on the Commons tend to be a poor indication of the content on Commons and tend to reflect the interests of only one or two contributors. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I honestly don't give a fuck as long as 1) the link remains in the template, and 2) the uninformed opinions of people who refuse to actually answer questions are wholly disregarded as a waste of bytes. → ROUX  16:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Bully Free Zone.jpg