Talk:Yukon Green Party

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Yukon Green Party article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 183 days

Canada: Yukon / Politics Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian Territories.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada.

Green Politics (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Green Politics, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Green PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject Green PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Green PoliticsGreen Politics articles

Politics: Political parties Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Request for comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Continue to use DMY dates. As it stands now, there are no dates in the article, short of the dates in the reference and infobox, which all use DMY formatting. DMY formatting is acceptable in Canadian articles, and there are no WP:MOSDATE issues, provided they continue to be written in a consistant format.

Should the article use dmy, or ~~ymd~~ mdy? Me-123567-Me (talk) 05:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mdy. I believe that most of English speaking Canadians currently use mdy. It also seems to be the date format preferred by the party on their website, both on the history page, and the news feed column that appears on every page. 117Avenue (talk) 05:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, meant mdy. Me-123567-Me (talk) 05:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mdy – Government of Yukon uses mdy.[1] Government of Canada uses mdy.[2] mdy is much more commonly used in Canada than dmy according to my observations, and mdy was what I was taught growing up. Said in speech is "December third, two-thousand eleven", not "third December, two-thousand eleven". Hwy43 (talk) 06:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
mdy The template {{Use mdy dates}} is used on our main parent articles and related articles like Politics of Canada, Liberal Party of Canada, Canada, History of Canada , Canada Day, O Canada, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Provinces and territories of Canada , Senate of Canada, National parks of Canada, 5th Canadian (Armoured) Division etc... So I believe the style "mdy" does have a consensus (thus the most common) as indicated by the wide range of Canadian related articles that have this template to indicate this fact.Moxy (talk) 06:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, {{Use dmy dates}} applies to articles such as Wilfrid Laurier, Tommy Douglas, List of Prime Ministers of Canada, etc. Many articles are not tagged so the template is an unreliable indicator in any case. 5th Canadian (Armoured) Division would be contrary to military usage per exemption at WP:STRONGNAT. Senate of Canada was originally established dmy [3] therefore got flipped around contrary to WP:DATERET which calls into further question any notion of consensus here. In any case, MoS has long exempted Canada from the "most common" rule as a matter of (non-)consensus. Dl2000 (talk) 03:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

dmy WP:STRONGNAT has long indicated that "[a]rticles related to Canada may use either format consistently." (and mdy proponents have been aware of that); this leaves WP:DATERET as the MoS practice for Canadian topics. This was revisited by discussions at the MoS and Canadian levels in the past year which concluded without a consensus format. MoS is therefore very clear and clearly stable about WP:DATERET practice for Canada, even if different formats are tolerated under a subject area (e.g. List of Governors General of Canada vs David Johnston; List of Prime Ministers of Canada vs Stephen Harper). Usage in subject websites (e.g. Yukon Green Party site) has never been a MoS practice, nor is a primary-source usage particularly reliable for that. Given the choice, mdy is clearly inferior for an international project such as Wikipedia (cultural bias and logic considerations); no such disadvantage exists for dmy format, nor is there any compelling reason to depart from MoS for this article. Dl2000 (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you are throwing out the primary source. Shouldn't the article reflect the usage by the subject? That's how I read the second point of WP:STRONGNAT. 117Avenue (talk) 01:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in MoS which supports basing this on particular primary sources; the content indicates nationality or subject areas in wider scope (e.g. military usage). In any case, Canadian politics is actually one of the more inconsistent areas of format usage. For example, should we fix Green Party of Canada per greenparty.ca usage ([4], [5], main page is admittedly a mix of dmy short form and ISO 8601). Or perhaps Stephen Harper based on usage seen at pm.gc.ca? But the second point of WP:STRONGNAT is moot given that the first point has exempted usual national usage for Canadian articles. Above all, the first major contributor (Me-123567-Me in this case, as described in WP:DATERET) has obviously not been convinced there is a valid reason to change the initial format. Dl2000 (talk) 03:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all those topics have both usages, so DATERET applies, I'm not arguing those topics, but there is no usage of dmy for this topic. Me-123567-Me has told me that if I could cite a source to back up my claim, he could be convinced. 117Avenue (talk) 23:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't think DATERET is intended to perpetuate article ownership. 117Avenue (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

dmy per Dl2000. Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
mdy which is more commonly used in Canada. BTW the question could be better phrased because it could be read as m/d/y vs d/m/y. TFD (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
m/d/y, as it is the format commonly used in Canada. Per Moxy, also commonly used in Canadian related articles.--JayJasper (talk) 05:38, 11 December 2011 (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.

Notability

Now that it has run candidates in two elections, and it continues to be a registered party, and it has received media coverage from several outlets, I think it is time to remove the "may not meet notability guidelines" tag. Any objections? Ground Zero | t 16:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The party is not contesting the election this year. I think the article should remain, as they are notable for the past two elections, and seem to intend to run in the next election, but the article will need to be updated.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]