The Next Line has been unsourced since 2009. "Next Line" + "Kevin Frank" turned up zero results on newspapers.com and GBooks. Google itself even asked "did you mean Kevin Franke" while giving only fan forums, Wikipedia mirrors, and the like. Throwing this out there to see if maybe someone could find something I missed. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)18:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TenPoundHammer: On Newspapers.com, if you search "The Next Line" or "The Next Line" game show and add a location filter for British Columbia, you'll get a few hits. A lot of them are just TV schedules but there's a few short articles here and there. I'll add a couple to the article. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me!21:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just created a draft for Apt613, a news website that covers arts and culture in the Ottawa-Gatineau region. I’d appreciate any help finding sources. I expected to find some from a quick search, but didn’t immediately find any. Thriley (talk) 23:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following the recent BC election, when exactly does BC United leader Kevin Falcon cease being the Leader of the Opposition in that province? (See [1]) and when does Conservative leader John Rustad become Leader of the Opposition? Do both events occur on the same date and are one or both of the dates: a) September 21, when the previous legislature dissolved b) October 19, when the subsequent election occurred c) upcoming date when the new legislature is reconvened d) some other date in between? Wellington Bay (talk) 13:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being leader of the opposition ends when the legislature dissolves, so September 21 is the correct end date for Falcon. But since a person can't lead the opposition until the legislature is in session, Rustad's time doesn't start until the new legislature reconvenes — because the leader of the opposition's entire job takes place in the legislature, and doesn't have outside-of-the-legislature duties at all, being an officer of the legislature doesn't work the same way as being a member of the legislature in that regard. The legislature doesn't have to be in session to be a member, but it does have to be in session to establish officers. However, since we know that John Rustad will be the new leader of the opposition, you were entirely correct that Rustad's name doesn't need to be entirely commented out of the successor field in Falcon's article — visible name with "pending" after it is indeed the correct way to handle that. In the extremely unlikely event that something changes in the interim, so that Rustad doesn't actually get installed as leader of the opposition and some other Conservative MLA gets that job instead, then we can just change the name in Falcon's successor field if and when that happens. But the legislature does have to convene before there can be a leader of the opposition, so the start date on that job is the date of the legislature convening. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm wondering if we have the correct dates in the transition of Leader of the Opposition in Alberta from Notley to Gray. Currently our articles say it happened in June, when the NDP leader Nenshi announced it to the media, but although the legislature was in session, it was during the long summer adjournment. Should it be dated to when the fall sitting began in late October? Indefatigable (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We keep the successor in an office infobox hidden, until they've taken office. An RFC on this matter was held a few years ago & the result was to "hide". GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay: It's somewhat pedantic to not allow an incoming LOO to be included in LOO lists or as the successor in an infobox. If there was an RFC consensus in the past to comment out the successor in these cases we can revisit it now since I don't see anyone else currently holding this view of what "we" do. Given that we have the LOO position included in the infobox of the person in question as "succeeding" on a future date TBD it's absurd not to have them named in their predecessor's infobox or in general lists of LOOs. Wellington Bay (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't pedantic, its what the RFC on the topic called for. But you're free to re-open that topic, as the 2024 US prez election is soon be take place. There, it'll be argued over whether or not to have "Kamala Harris (elect)" or "Donald Trump (elect)" shown in Joe Biden's infobox, for roughly six weeks. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is how it's pedantic: the infobox in Glen Savoie indicates he is "assuming office" as NB LOO on a TBD date but the Susan Holt infobox lists no successor for her as LOO and the list of LOOs at Leader of the Opposition (New Brunswick) has had Savoie's entry commented out. This is inconsistent and makes no sense. If the next LOO is known they should be listed in both articles, with a qualification that their appointment is pending or starts at a future date. Wellington Bay (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find it at the moment. But if you don't like it, then open up a new RFC. The matter covers all political office/positions. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but if you're going to cite an RFC for your actions you need to provide a link rather than expect people to rely on your recollection and interpretation. Wellington Bay (talk) 17:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it usually you, who can't leave well enough alone? Anyways, I'm gonna have to go through my edit history to find it, now. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because the position your are enforcing is inconsistent, as explained above, and you have reverted multiple editors claiming in edit summaries that this is how "we" do things- but when you're the only one who has voiced the position, it looks like "we" may just be "you". Wellington Bay (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should have been clearer. I wasn't questioning your honesty or good faith. I just prefer to see the discussion or RFC being relied upon for myself rather than rely on anyone's recollection or interpretation of a discussion that occurred years ago, including my own recollection. 20:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
The discussion in the RFC is almost entirely about elected officials, in particular the President of the United States, rather than parliamentary officers or officials. The LOO is the leader (interim or other) of the largest opposition party provided that individual is a sitting member of the legislature. The incoming LOOs we are talking about are their party's leader and are also MLAs. That they are not "officially" LOO yet is a purely pro forma issue as the legislatures have not yet been recalled. I think this is an area where we can have a Canadian consensus rather than automatically apply a much broader RFC. Wellington Bay (talk) 18:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's about all offices. Bring your objections there & see if you can get an exception for Westminster system-based political positions. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's about the presidency of the United States, not about all offices in general. A consensus around the presidency doesn't map to a Westminster system at all — no matter who wins the presidential election on Tuesday, Joe Biden will still be the incumbent president until late January 2025, while there is absolutely no valid argument that Kevin Falcon was "still" the incumbent anything one minute after the BC election writ was dropped in September. And admittely we're not quite as quick about it as the UK is, but Keir Starmer became officially the prime minister of the United Kingdom — not just a presumed "prime minister designate", but the actual honest to god real thing — within a few hours of the UK election results being finalized back in July, because Westminster politics just doesn't work like US presidential politics does at all. Kevin Falcon simply isn't "still" the "incumbent" Leader of the Opposition as of right now, regardless of whether John Rustad's been sworn in yet or not, so there's no reason for us to follow a USian practice that doesn't fit how Canadian politics works. So a consensus about how to handle US presidential successions has nothing to do with Canada, and nothing in that discussion says it does — the system in the US works very differently than the system in Canada does, so absolutely nothing that Americans do on American political articles ever has any relevance to Canadian political articles at all. Bearcat (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's about all political offices. If you disagree, you're free to open that argument at the WikiProject mentioned, about what's covered & what isn't. GoodDay (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is very incredibly crystal clear that only American politics was considered or discussed at all, and there's absolutely zero evidence that even one person in the entire discussion raised even one single solitary Canadian example for consideration at all. So no, playing the "my way or the highway" card doesn't get you the win — especially not playing it against me, the guy who's quite famously been around here pretty much forever and knows every last nook and cranny of absolutely everything WikiProject Canada has ever done for both good and ill — so until there's a consensus of Canadian editors that such a practice fits the Canadian situation, nothing that American editors decide about American politics is applicable to us at all. Again, American politics works very differently than Canadian politics does, so we would need to see a consensus of Canadians that American practice was relevant as a model for us to follow, not just a consensus of Americans discussing their presidency and nothing else. Bearcat (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion was here, not somewhere else, so I commented here because this is where the discussion is taking place. I didn't say it was a "pro-USA WikiProject", I said only American politics was considered in that other discussion, and that other discussion doesn't feature even one person offering even one word of consideration to the fact that different countries have different political systems that work differently. Bearcat (talk) 02:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there was an RFC consensus in the past to comment out the successor in these cases we can revisit it now since I don't see anyone else currently holding this view of what "we" do. From a process standpoint, that's just a terrible argument. We don't have to recall all of the RfC participants to ask them if they have changed their minds. Settled is settled, and consensuses don't require periodic "refresh". If we're talking about {{Infobox officeholder}}, the RfC consensus applies. ―Mandruss☎18:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the time, what I thought was being referred to was a specific RFC for Canadian Leaders of the Opposition, not a broader RFC for officeholders in general. Wellington Bay (talk) 19:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The previous RFC was about the use of the infobox parameter during the period between being elected and actually taking office. Although obviosuly a reaction to events in the US, it was not limited to the US or excluding of any other country. While consensus can change, absent solid evidence that it already has, the consensus there ought to be respected, to avoid prolonged avoidable arguments exactly like this one. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today02:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Just Step Sideways: could you please comment in how consensus is applied in this situation: the infobox for John Rustad indicates he will be "assuming office" as leader of the opposition on a date that's TBD while the infobox for his predecessor, Kevin Falcon indicates he vacated the office of leader of the opposition on September 21, 2024 but gives no indication that John Rustad will be his successor despite the fact that Rustad's infobox indicates that he is. Wellington Bay (talk) 12:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They too, shouldn't show the next holder in the predecessor's infobox, until next holder takes office. That too occurs, only when the next parliamentary session convenes. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was a mistake. There seems to be inaccuracies in start/end dates for opposition leaders. Over at Tom Mulcair (for example), the end date as opposition leader is shown to be 4 November 2015, rather than the 2015 election date or the 41st parliament's dissolved date. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have to be careful about assuming the post is tied to the term of the Assembly in any particular jurisdiction. Sometimes the Rules or Standing Orders may provide that officers continue to hold their position even though the assembly has been dissolved. The most common example is the Speaker, since the Speaker is responsible for running the Assembly building and legislative precincts, and it’s not good to have a vacancy in that post during the election. I think we should check the Rules/Standing orders/Legislative Assembly statute on a case-by-case basis for each officer. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's quite a few things that are mentioned to be missing from the Doug Ford article on his talk page and its archives. I can try to fill in some of the stuff, but I don't think I have the time to finish everything on my own. Examples include the bike lane legislature (which I have previously commented on), and the Ontario Science Center stuff, both of which are well covered by reliable sources. 137a (talk • edits) 15:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to agree with PKT. Those things have a lot more to do with Doug Ford's government than they do with his biography, so they should be discussed in the more appropriate spinoff article so as to avoid overloading the BLP. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Human Rights Act, Nunavut - need move and disambiguation?
Hi, I've got a question on the article on the Nunavut human rights act, currently named: Human Rights Act 2003. The first issue is that this is not the correct name; "2003" is not part of the name, as shown here: https://www.canlii.org/en/nu/laws/astat/snu-2003-c-12/latest/snu-2003-c-12.html . The act is just "Human Rights Act", which suggests that "2003" should be deleted. However, if we were to move it to "Human Rights Act", that is very general; there are a number of articles about human rights acts, with a disambiguation page: Human Rights Act. That suggests moving it to a new name, with the jurisdiction in the title: "Human Rights Act (Nunavut)". Does that make sense? If we do that, is there a way to italicise it the way I've shown here, so that the title is italicised, but not the disambiguation in parentheses? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Chief Justice of Canada and a francophone rights group have got into a dispute over the fact that the SCC judgments before the Official Languages Act in 1968 were published in English only, and were on the SCC webpages. Net result is that the SCC has taken down all the pre-1968 decisions until they can be translated. That means that links in a Wikipedia article directly to the pre-1968 SCC cases are returning 404s. However, all is not lost. The SCC shared the pre-1968 English versions with other online reporters, so they are still available. I would recommend using CanLII as a substitute, since it’s open access. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if this is in the wrong place--I was directed here by the article request page--but I was hoping that an article could be created for the Cascade Institute, a Canadian research centre addressing urgent and entangled global problems, located in Victoria, BC and founded by Dr. Thomas Homer-Dixon.
I've disclosed this on my user page, but I am an employee of the Cascade Institute and therefore want to avoid trying to draft the page myself so that we can avoid any potential COIs and biases (and because I'm fairly new to the editing side of Wikipedia). I've read through the COI-related help pages and I understand that Wikipedia is not intended to promote, but I do believe that our organization is notable enough to merit a page of its own. With this in mind, I have located several, high-quality, reliable secondary sources that I am happy to provide links to upon request, if need be.
There is currently a request for the Cascade Institute submitted to the general Wikipedia Article Request page, but it's over a year old at this point and I'm hoping that by making this request here, I can at least generate some interest.
Happy to discuss further and answer any questions. Thank you!
@Rainwood13: Hi! It would probably be better if you wrote the article yourself and submitted it through WP:AfC. Unlike you, we are not being paid to edit articles so unless an editor is interested in this topic, most would not write an article just because you asked. Instead, you can start a draft through by clicking on the following link: Wikipedia:Article Wizard. Once it is ready, click submit and an editor will review it. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me!01:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
