Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Prime Ministers of Canada/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was kept by Dabomb87 15:53, 1 July 2011 [1].

List of Prime Ministers of Canada

Featured list removal candidates/List of Prime Ministers of Canada/archive1

Notified: Arctic.gnome, Moxy, GoodDay, WikiProject Canada, WikiProject Politics

I am nominating this for featured list review, because over the past few months it has seen a number of format changes and arguments, and I am wondering if it still meets the featured list criteria. 117Avenue (talk) 20:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Default keep unless you can provide substantial evidence that this list no longer meets the criteria, this nomination is a non-starter. We're not here to reply to your "wondering", please either provide substantial details why it should be demoted so we can fix it, or withdraw the nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 6 is stability. There were edit wars in March. 117Avenue (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. It's now mid-June. Can you provide objective evidence that this list is currently unstable? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it wouldn't be objective to restart the war, I would still like the dates to reflect actual government practice. 117Avenue (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahah. So you're starting to tell us why the list should be demoted? Are there factual inaccuracies in there? If so, please be explicit and describe every failing you see here so each and every one can be corrected. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with the PM tenurship dates. GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to GoodDay's belief, due to legislation passed in 1967, outgoing PMs since then (or since 1917 depending on your interpretation or source) had their term end at midnight the night before the new ministry was sworn in, rather than the day they formally submitted their resignation. Several sources can be found in Talk:List of Prime Ministers of Canada#Term dates. 117Avenue (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baloney, the outgoing PMs after 1967, left office upon their resignations. GoodDay (talk) 01:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to the Interpretation Act of 1967, and the Parliament of Canada's and Privy Council Office's interpretation of it. Why won't you accept it? 117Avenue (talk) 03:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baloney on those, Martin was still PM on the morning of February 6, 2006. As was Chretien, on the morning of Decemeber 12, 2003; etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about the detail here but please consider it's verifiability over truth here on Wikipedia, so we go with reliable secondary sources. Please resolve it that way. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So do we use the dates the Parliament of Canada and Privy Council Office use, or the dates GoodDay has forced the article to use? 117Avenue (talk) 04:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are using the Privy Council Office - not some made up dates as you are implying. Moxy (talk) 10:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I sorry, I don't understand what you are saying with that link. Guide to Canadian Ministries since Confederation says Martin's last day was 5 February, and Life of a Ministry says "where an appointment is made effective or terminates on a specified day, that appointment is considered to be effective or to terminate after the end of the previous day." You haven't quoted the Privy Council saying otherwise. 117Avenue (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You said we should use either "Parliament of Canada" or "Privy Council Office" dates - we are using the "Privy Council Office" dates not some made up dates that GoodDay has forced on us. And yes we have quoted the Privy Council saying otherwise - pls see the refs "Martin formally tendered his resignation on February 6, 2006. On the same day, the Twenty-Eighth Ministry took office".Moxy (talk) 22:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again I repeat the quote, "where an appointment is made effective or terminates on a specified day, that appointment is considered to be effective or to terminate after the end of the previous day." Martin's appointment was terminated on 6 February, that appointment is considered to be terminated after the end of 5 February. This is reflected at the top of the page for the Twenty-Seventh Ministry, "12 Dec. 2003 - 5 Feb. 2006". The Twenty-Eighth Ministry was made effective on 6 February, that appointment is considered to be effective after the end of 5 February. 117Avenue (talk) 01:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we know all this as its all noted in the lead - that says "considered to be effective or to terminate after the end of the previous day." - However we use the formal days as it says in the lead --> "the following list uses the date that the formal resignation was received by the "Governor General." We should not be using the day that "is considered to be" over the "formal day of resignation" The royal process does matter in this country and is why the Privy Council Office adds notes for the specific day of formal resignation on ever page. This people are not Kings and Queens and the start and end of the their terms are done formally. They do not have royal death type accession, a process must be followed and papers singed etc. The reason the reference Twenty-Seventh Ministry say 5 Feb. 2006 is because its referring to the "Twenty-Seventh Ministry" as a whole whose last day in power was the 5th. The new Ministry took office on the 6th after the Old PM/Ministry resignation and the new PM/Ministry formally recognized. They do not technically hold power until the Queen says its ok by way of the Governor General. Processes processes processes perhaps we need to make this more clear in the lead?Moxy (talk) 05:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to be made more clear in the lead, because I have ensured that it is stated, since we aren't using the correct dates. I agree with you, when you say this isn't death type accession, which is why the list should use the dates that the terms are effective and terminated. If you would take a look at the first day section, at the Privy Council reference, it states that the ministry and Prime Minister have the same tenure, so a 5 Feb. date for the ministry is a date for the PM. And what about the Parliament of Canada reference, which says terms end the day before? 117Avenue (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pls see Talk:List of Prime Ministers of Canada I believe I have solved the problem

Speedy keep per above. —W F C— 21:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there's nothing wrong with the PM tenure dates. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep - as i do find it odd refs for 2 different dates can be found. But i think we got the dates that seem to explain why it's this dates specifically, thus I think we got it right.Moxy (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Ignoring the debate above for a second, the list is in reasonable shape; I made a few copy-edits to it as well. Only see two things worth commenting on here. First, I'm not a fan of the bolding of the last names in the table. It goes against MOS:BOLD, and to me doesn't add anything. Second, the access date formatting in the references has inconsistencies, and reference 13 doesn't have an access date at all. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed I believe this concerns above, have now been fixed by a few editors. Moxy (talk) 01:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bolding is gone, but I still see inconsistent date formatting. Some of the references are in YYYY-MM-DD format, and some are in the style YYYY-DD-MM. Also, the first reference has the access date fully spelled out, so there are actually three different formats in use. This isn't close to being worth delisting over, but it would be nice to see this fixed while the list is here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed = accessdate=2011-03-24 Moxy (talk) 05:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per rambling man. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.