Template talk:Canadian federal opposition leaders

Multiple listings

There is a dispute regarding whether or not individuals who were leader of the opposition multiple times, such as King, Diefenbaker, Clark etc should be only listed once or as many times as they were leaders. I think it should be the latter since that's the format used in the PM template. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vale of Glamorgan (talk • contribs) 02:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I see no need. And that's not really a good reason anyway. → ROUX ₪ 02:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The need is to be consistent. Why should one template use one rule and another similar template use another? Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 02:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Frankly I don't see any reason why the other template should duplicate names either, but that's neither here nor there. What utility to the reader is there in such repetition? (Also, please use colons to indent your replies) → ROUX ₪ 03:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

If someone is looking at the template as a succession list that's in proper chronological order then the list will be misleading. Anyway, the point is that there should be consistency. What is the logic behind having one template go by one rule and another, similar template go by another. Either both templates should list duplicates or neither should so I think that unless the PM template is changed the Opposition leader template should conform. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 04:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

You failed to answer my question. What utility is there for the reader with such repetition? You may wish to read WP:OTHERSTUFF for a broad sense of why consistency at this stage is something of a moot point. → ROUX ₪ 04:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I did answer your question when I commented on the template as a succession list. Is there a way to bring more people into this disucssion? Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 04:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure others will see it. I can confidently predict one will oppose my opinion solely because it's me making it, actually. And there is no indication on the list, for someone who doesn't know Canadian politics, that this template is in any order whatsoever. So as a succession list, it's not terribly useful. → ROUX ₪ 05:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Vale of Glamorgan, when a reader sees a list of office holders, they expect it to be in chronological order, which requires repetition. I don't really see a reason why it shouldn't be, except for WP:OVERLINKING, but it has an exception for lists and navboxes, WP:REPEATLINK. 117Avenue (talk) 07:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Have you got a citation for this assertion? → ROUX ₪ 19:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Which assertion? The exception for lists, see the WP:REPEATLINK section. 117Avenue (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

"when a reader sees a list of office holders, they expect it to be in chronological order," → ROUX ₪ 21:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Because if a list isn't alphabetical, what other order would it be in? I assumed the same thing, which is why I looked at the history and talk page is see why it isn't. 117Avenue (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I think they should be in chronological order. If for example Ignatiff was opposition leader 3 times in a row, he gets listed once. But if for example it was him, Duceppe, then him again he gets listed like that. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Broadly chronological, sure, but I see no need for repetition. Especially since repetition is inherently inconsistent; you'd have to list them for every election in which they have become the leader of HM's Loyal Opposition, in which case you will see names repeated after each other. And you guys seem to be going on about consistency here, so...→ ROUX ₪ 22:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Like the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition's terms don't end and begin at elections. Take a look at the list, the only name repeated twice in a row is Hill, and that is only because his party merged while leader. I wouldn't list him twice here. 117Avenue (talk) 03:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

That betrays a very interesting total misunderstanding of how Canadian politics works. In fact, both PM and LHMLO positions do very much begin and end with each election... or perhaps you have an alternate time for when Ignatieff was no longer leader of HMLO and Layton was? Yeah, I didn't think so. → ROUX ₪ 19:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly, the Leader of the Opposition position is linked with sessions of the House, that's why according to the parliamentary website Ignatieff remains Opposition Leader at the moment. The PM remains PM until either he resigns or is dismissed by the GG and does not automatically lose office after losing an election. That's why in the UK Gordon Brown remained PM for several days after the last election. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 03:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

A few days' difference and a bunch of semantic nonsense doesn't change the salient point: the positions are dictated by election. Thanks for playing. → ROUX ₪ 03:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A prime minister's time in office begins when he's appointed by the governor general and ends when the governor general appoints the succeeding prime minister. Elections have no direct bearing on a prime minister's tenure; whether or not he can maintain the confidence of the House of Commons is what's important, though the outcome of an election may affect that. The Leader of the Opposition is a little more tricky, since he isn't appointed or chosen by any means other than the fact he leads the party that holds the second largest number of seats in the House of Commons. I don't know if a person becomes Leader of the Opposition as soon as election results are known, or when parliament is summoned by the governor general. However, it seems clear that the opposition leader's term, like the prime minister's, doesn't necessarily begin and end with each election; it's entirely possible for someone to remain opposition leader through multiple elections.

So, to the question of repetition: Contrary to what's being said here, this isn't a succession box, it's a navigation box. Still, the standard practice for all boxes like this one (i.e. for occupants of a political office) seems to be to repeat the names of persons who've held the relevant office multiple times. See Template:IsraelPMS, Template:Leaders of the Opposition UK, Template:US Presidents, Template:GermanChancellors, Template:PakistaniPMs, Template:Chancellors of the Exchequer, & etc. As there seems to be only two ways to do this, and no guideline on which is the right way on Wikipdedia, it appears that the "standard" has come about as a matter of preference. I'm not particularly beholden to the practice, but I see the logic behind it and no real issue arising from its use. Plus, it's used on the other Canadian office holder navboxes and there's no apparent reason why this one should be different. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

That took you rather longer than expected. And you disagree with me. Shocking. → ROUX ₪ 03:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Does that make my analysis and the opinion I reached by it invalid in some way? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, since all of that is merely the usual self-serving justification you use to automatically oppose whatever I have to say. A quick glance at your talkpage was highly educational; your self-serving flipflop on image placement would be laughable if it weren't so sad. → ROUX ₪ 03:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I see. Well, that is, of course, only your opinion. You're entitled to it, certainly, but it doesn't itself render my opinion invalid at all. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Chronological order is best & listing someone multiple times is acceptable. Note, it's done this way at Template:Prime Ministers of Canada. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• Miesianiacal's arrival here heralds an unpleasant, tedious, and tiresome discussion to begin and go on approximately forever, so I shall bow out now, as avoiding him and his tedious nonsense is one of the main reasons I rarely edit anything to do with Canada anymore. → ROUX ₪ 03:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Please keep your contributions at the talk page relevant to the content of the navbox. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 07:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Acting

If the designate leader is to identified, shouldn't the acting leaders also be identified? The Parliament of Canada list source labels the acting leaders, signifying they are set apart. 117Avenue (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps italicise the acting leaders and put in a footnote explaining that? Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking italicize or small. 117Avenue (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)