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
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Why does the template contain a link to a soft redirect (British North America Act 1867) which simply links to another article already listed in the template (Constitution Act, 1867)? It seems odd to have two links to the same thing in one template. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-05-27T13:47:00.000Z","author":"Skeezix1000","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Skeezix1000-2010-05-27T13:47:00.000Z-Soft_redirect","replies":["c-Moxy-2010-05-27T19:10:00.000Z-Skeezix1000-2010-05-27T13:47:00.000Z"]}}-->
All my fault ....i have fixed it!! thank you for noticing !!Moxy (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-05-27T19:10:00.000Z","author":"Moxy","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Moxy-2010-05-27T19:10:00.000Z-Skeezix1000-2010-05-27T13:47:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->
__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONDESKTOP__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-Jagislaqroo-2010-09-01T23:03:00.000Z","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-Civil_Marriage_Act-2010-09-01T23:03:00.000Z","replies":["c-Jagislaqroo-2010-09-01T23:03:00.000Z-Civil_Marriage_Act","c-Jagislaqroo-2010-09-02T20:56:00.000Z-Civil_Marriage_Act"],"text":"Civil Marriage Act","linkableTitle":"Civil Marriage Act"}-->
__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONMOBILE__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-Jagislaqroo-2010-09-01T23:03:00.000Z","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-Civil_Marriage_Act-2010-09-01T23:03:00.000Z","replies":["c-Jagislaqroo-2010-09-01T23:03:00.000Z-Civil_Marriage_Act","c-Jagislaqroo-2010-09-02T20:56:00.000Z-Civil_Marriage_Act"],"text":"Civil Marriage Act","linkableTitle":"Civil Marriage Act"}-->
Is there any reason why the Civil Marriage Act is included in this template? As far as I know, it's not considered an organic statue and is not the same footing as constitutional statues. Please advise. If I don't hear back in a week or so, I'll make a change. Jagislaqroo (talk) 23:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-09-01T23:03:00.000Z","author":"Jagislaqroo","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Jagislaqroo-2010-09-01T23:03:00.000Z-Civil_Marriage_Act","replies":["c-Skeezix1000-2010-09-02T17:54:00.000Z-Jagislaqroo-2010-09-01T23:03:00.000Z"]}}-->
Agreed. Even the Same-sex marriage SCC Reference wouldn't make the cut on a general template such as this one since no other case law is listed.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-09-02T17:54:00.000Z","author":"Skeezix1000","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Skeezix1000-2010-09-02T17:54:00.000Z-Jagislaqroo-2010-09-01T23:03:00.000Z","replies":["c-Mr_Serjeant_Buzfuz-2011-11-25T05:57:00.000Z-Skeezix1000-2010-09-02T17:54:00.000Z"]}}-->
Well, over a year later and no objections, so I took it out. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 05:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-11-25T05:57:00.000Z","author":"Mr Serjeant Buzfuz","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Mr_Serjeant_Buzfuz-2011-11-25T05:57:00.000Z-Skeezix1000-2010-09-02T17:54:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->
Also, I'd want to take out Canada Act 1982. That's the British act and the Constitution Act of 1982 is already mentioned below it. Jagislaqroo (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-09-02T20:56:00.000Z","author":"Jagislaqroo","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Jagislaqroo-2010-09-02T20:56:00.000Z-Civil_Marriage_Act","replies":["c-Mr_Serjeant_Buzfuz-2011-11-25T05:57:00.000Z-Jagislaqroo-2010-09-02T20:56:00.000Z"]}}-->
This one I kept in, because it is part of the Constitution and serves a purpose different from the Constitution Act, 1982. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 05:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-11-25T05:57:00.000Z","author":"Mr Serjeant Buzfuz","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Mr_Serjeant_Buzfuz-2011-11-25T05:57:00.000Z-Jagislaqroo-2010-09-02T20:56:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->
