This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theSenate of Canada article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
This article iswritten inCanadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour,centre,travelled,realize,analyze) and some terms may be different or absent from othervarieties of English. According to therelevant style guide, this should not be changed withoutbroad consensus.
Senate of Canada is aformer featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, checkthe nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofCanada articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofpolitics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Senate of Canada - Seating Plan By Province
So, I've updated the image you can see here, but haven't posted it yet, since I'm not sure if it should be a new file or if I should just update that image. What do you thinkArctic.gnome,GoodDay,Kawnhr,Dmehus? I'm asking you since you edit these pages frequently. To give you an idea the updated version looks like this :https://gyazo.com/12144e82c6fd9ab5ae951ad5c92dfb1a. It's an SVG like usual and don't worry about the table near the top, I'll do it before posting the image. -MikkelJSmith (talk)15:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dmehus, I'm done, but it seems I made have made a mistake somewhere. I corrected AB, since I had a mistake there, but I'm currently trying to find where my other mistake is.MikkelJSmith (talk)15:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, I've updated the file, but at times it shows the old version and sometimes it doesn't. I originally thought this was a mistake and reverted but it seems I only have the problem on the current browser that I used. It's fine now, it was just a bug.MikkelJSmith (talk)17:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MikkelJSmith2, Thanks. I noticed the number of seats are in aserif font, but I think they should be asans serif font to match the adjacent text? Similarly, they should be the same size and/or bolding.
Dmehus, for the font for the numbers, I simply used the original one. By the way, for the problem, it seems to only happen on Firefox, on all the other web browsers it shows the correct image. I have no clue what causes it.MikkelJSmith (talk)18:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MikkelJSmith2, I just tried again, but nope, it's still showing the version without the PSG/CSG senators (clicking on the one in this talkpage, since the file name is the same). Also, this old version has the numbers in bold and sans serif, so I think we should use that.Doug MehusT·C18:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MikkelJSmith2, Nope; not resolved for me in Google Chrome. Have used Ctrl + Refresh to force refresh multiple times. Still showing Liberal Party in the count; no PSG or CSG. I've reactivated help me request.Doug MehusT·C23:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have two options at this point. Either you believe that this is some sort of cache issue on your end. Or you believe it's a weird bug that affects some people (including you) but not others (including me). In the former case there's nothing we can do here. In the latter case, seeWP:Bug reports and feature requests on how to report this supposed bug. In neiher case is there anything other editors can do to help.Huon (talk)23:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Huon, Can you show me a screenshot of what the thumbnail looks like for you, when you enlarge the screenshot, butnot when you see it on the Commons? Note, too, that when I loadthis URL, I still see the old version. I have a feeling we're not updating something.Doug MehusT·C01:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm creating this discussion followingMikkelJSmith2's reversion of the series ofgood-faith and constructive edits byCornellier. Most of the edits, I would say, were good copyediting, but some detail that Cornellier removed, I think, should've merited a discussion. So, in general, Ido think we should welcome most of Cornellier's edits, but some of the larger scale content removalsdo merit a discussion.
Comment Perthis, I have undoneMikkelJSmith2'sgood-faith reversion because (a)Cornellierdid start adiscussion back in October 2018, to which no one replied and to which could be taken asimplied consensus and (b) becausemost of Cornellier's edits are likely to be accepted and, thus, it's easier to revert a select few edits than to redo all of the other good copyediting they did. I do think Cornellier could've been more specific onwhat needed editing; thus, one can not take that earlier discussion as carte blanche to take the proverbial "weed wacker" to the article.
Question: So, let's discuss, which of Cornellier's edits should weundo (if any)?
Note: Please feel free to ping recent editors to this talkpage discussion using{{ping}}.
Dmehus, yeah, sorry about that, I'm fine with most edits, I just wanted us to have a recent discussion, since the original was from 2018. That's why I reverted. I should have been more clear about that. Thanks for what you did afterwards.MikkelJSmith (talk)19:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MikkelJSmith2, Thank you, and normally, I'd agree with reverting the edits, but in this case, it really is easier to add back in the content we felt shouldn't have been removed. I'll try and take a look this weekend.Doug MehusT·C19:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thoughts. I will hold back on any more revisions for now pending any further discussion. Please let me know the specifics. --Cornellier (talk)23:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article mentions that legislation passed in the Commons hasn't been vetoed since 1939, it then goes on to say that the Senate has rejected numerous bills. What's the difference between a veto and a rejection? Sounds a bit confusing and could maybe use clarification.SchizoidNightmares (talk)10:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey can someone add Canadian senate coat of arms the parliament of Canada article has their coat of arms and the House of Commons article has their coat of arms senate of Canada senate is the only one that doesn’t.142.113.194.22 (talk)21:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: So, let's discuss, which of Cornellier's edits should weundo (if any)?
Thank you, and normally, I'd agree with reverting the edits, but in this case, it really is easier to add back in the content we felt shouldn't have been removed. I'll try and take a look this weekend.Doug MehusT·C19:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
