Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 20


WikiProject English

Wikipedia:WikiProject English has been nominated for deletion. As this project was proposed for maintaining national varieties of English on how articles are written/formatted/spelled, you may be interested. (essentially, maintaing WP:ENGVAR compliance on articles) 65.93.15.213 (talk) 05:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

"American Indians"

See Talk:Native Americans in the United States where it is to be renamed to a term that uses "American Indian" without any mention of the United States. As "American Indian" has been used to describe First Nations people of Canada in the past, this might be of interest to you. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 05:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Montreal

Awesome. We should be doing more of this sort of thing across the country. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Total population

Where was gotten info about total population Ojibwe people and Cree people in Canada in articles Ojibwe and Cree? What sources?--Kaiyr (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You will need to ask the editor who added them. —Kmsiever (talk) 12:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Mercier neighbourhood in Montreal

Mercier is not an actual neighbourhood in Montreal. Instead, there are two separate neighbourhoods, Mercier-Ouest (which I've just created) and Mercier-Est. Could we delete Mercier and somehow get the Ouest and Est labels in the Montreal box instead of Mercier? - Mars2mogwai (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The Mercier, Montreal should not be deleted. If it's not a real neighbourhood then it would serve as a disambiguation to the two other articles. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok, but Mercier still shows in the 'Montreal Box' with the list of neighborhoods. Instead, Mercier-Est and Ouest (separately) should appear. Mars2mogwai (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I brought this suggestion to the Montreal page where it may be more relevant Mars2mogwai (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Cree territory

Why are not territory for cree or ojibway as Nunavut for innuits? Is it planed in future? Why undian reserves very small despite that native americans make the majority in many territory in Canada especially in north?--Kaiyr (talk) 10:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

While an interesting question this is not the correct place for it. The question would be better asked at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous and I have copied it there to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Cree territory. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Bonfire Night (disambiguation)#Requested move

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Bonfire Night (disambiguation)#Requested move. Trevj (talk) 23:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Bonfire Night#Requested move

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Bonfire Night#Requested move. Trevj (talk) 23:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Former Child Actors

Shouldn't Devon Bostick be considered a former child actor? He's been acting for a couple years and is now 19, after all... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.189.234.249 (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

A Canadian WikiProject in the Signpost

While I was updating the WikiProject Report's archives, I noticed something peculiar. In the four years we've been doing this section for the Signpost, we've featured tons of WikiProjects from Britain and the United States, but we've never featured a WikiProject related to Canada (unless WP:Ice Hockey counts). I'd like to conduct an interview with an active project regarding a Canadian city, province, topic, or even WP:Canada, but there seems to be light activity at many Canadian projects. Would anyone here suggest a particular project or even volunteer to be interviewed regarding an active project? Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:Canada itself might be the best. I would count the hockey project as being primarily Canadian, but since I've twice been interviewed under that banner, will back out of this one. Hopefully a few of our regulars will step forward for a Signpost interview. Resolute 03:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I will do anything to expand awareness of the projects. - - - Most of the so called sub-Canadian-projects are made up of the members from here (thus most of us use this talk as its convenient and has all the Canadian members). Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada Roads is very active and more or less on its own (I would guess they would like this idea as-well - I will leave them a note). Also Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Canadian military history task force topics seem to get post at the main WikiProject Military history talk page - again due to a bigger and more knowledgeable group. PS anyone here from Skookum1 yet? Moxy (talk) 04:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

image approval

I found this image of Jack Layton which claims to be circa 1967. I don't think there would be any objections to uploading it, but I want to ask how we go about that, because I am unsure of any copyright or other issues. NorthernThunder (talk) 03:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Unless there is a real purpose for adding the image, I am not sure if it could be used in the terms of our non-free policies. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
It cant, unfortunately. We would need to know who the photographer was, and it would have to be known that it was released to a compatible license. Lacking that, I am not seeing anything that would make this image historical enough to satisfy a fair use claim. Resolute 03:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Are you saying this picture is not significant enough to warrant being used on Wikipedia? Does that mean every other picture of Canadians taken at that time or earlier are also not significant? NorthernThunder (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
It is always a case by case basis when it comes to non-free images. If it is nothing more than just Mr. Layton at X year, then we cannot include it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
As Zscout says, it is case by case. Wikipedia's policies on non-free images of living people is pretty strict, and at times very annoying. In this specific case, the photo simply shows what Layton looked at at a random point in time. So no, I would say it is not significant enough for inclusion on a fair use claim because we already have free images of Layton at other random periods of time. If it was a picture of Layton doing something historically notable, or the photo itself had enough notability to warrant coverage, that is a different situation. The question comes down to "does this photograph convey anything important enough that it can't be covered in text?". The answer, in this specific case, is no. The only other real alternative is to track down the copyright holder and ask if they would be willing to release the image to a compatible license. Resolute 19:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

n.i.e.?

All of the provincial demographics articles, such as Demographics of Saskatchewan, are full of the abbreviation "n.i.e.", which I can't find in any dictionary. Please explain, or at least add it to Wiktionary. Thanks, — kwami (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It is a StatCan acronym for "not included elsewhere" (see Note 3 here). Also, here is an explanation of its usage within the context of "Visible minority, n.i.e." Hwy43 (talk) 05:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I added a quick footnote to the table at Demographics of Saskatchewan#Languages, although it might need a better explanation. PKT(alk) 11:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. It actually needs an explanation for each of the provinces. I'll start adding them. — kwami (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

C. D. Howe

Greetings Canadians! I notice that C. D. Howe has been nominated for promotion to FA. Please give comments or vote at: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/C. D. Howe/archive1. All the best!

Wikipedia:WikiProject Prescott-Russell

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Prescott-Russell.Moxy (talk) 05:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Categorization help

A new page, Royal Canadian Mounted Police Foundation was recently made. I'd like to categorize it, but I don't know which categories are relevant. Could someone help? --Nathan2055talk 00:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Milton's population

Over the last 2 days, an editor has continually made uncited changes to the population figures for Milton, Ontario despite an explanation that we rely on census data or supportable estimates. Would another editor(s) please help ensure that referenced figures are used? PKT(alk) 14:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It appears a 3RR warning and/or block is in order. Three messages on the editor's talk page have gone unheeded. Hwy43 (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the support provided so far. The editor has made 4 reverts by my count today. I'm putting through a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. PKT(alk) 00:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Just blocked him, 24 hours. Canterbury Tail talk 01:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
User is back at it again. Just issued a level 3 vandalism warning. Hwy43 (talk) 06:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Blocked 60 hours. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 11:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Following the block, a new user registered an account and then returned the unreferenced figures to the article. Pretty sure it is a sock. Hwy43 (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Requested an investigation if anyone is interested in commenting. Hwy43 (talk) 01:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked the sock and reset the master for another 60 hours. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

reliable source

Would a contact with a municipal clerk be a reliable source for Wikipedia, to support facts added to a particular page? NorthernThunder (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Although there have been proposals to change this, at the moment a source must be published to be reliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

first nation, metis or inuit

Are there first nation, metis or inuit secessionist movements in Canada?--Kaiyr (talk) 09:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

In the future, please use the WP:REFDESK for general questions. To answer, there have been several First Nations secessionist movements in Canadian history, most notably the Red River Rebellion. In modern times, First Nations groups have mostly focused on land claims and autonomy, rather than outright sovereignty. See Nisga'a Final Agreement for example. The Interior (Talk) 04:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Population density ?

Hi .. Something is out of sorts with the density numbers. People per square mile will always be higher than people per square kilometer so - 'In 2006, the population was 40,918.[1] The land area is 9,222.04 km (5,730 mi); the population density was 4.4 people/km (2.7 people/mi).' - is definitely inaccurate. I have no access to the census used so I will leave it up to someone who does to make any corrections here. Thanks for the posting on Parry Sound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceezul (talk • contribs) 03:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Who ever wrote it didn't know how to convert units, or even write a 2, the reference shows the 4.4 is correct. 117Avenue (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Canadian Forces

See : Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Military history#Back to the roots (RCN / RCAF / Canadian Army). Amqui (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps more explanation is required, for those who perhaps are not paying close attention to the news in these dog days of August. Now that the feds have decided to rename Canadian Forces Maritime Command and Canadian Forces Air Command as the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force respectively, a survey is being undertaken to determined how best to rename/restructure the existing Wikipedia articles. I think this is a discussion that would benefit tremendously from more input from Canadian editors and/or editors with an interest in Canada. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Audrey McLaughlin

Anyone notice the photo for Audrey McLaughlin was deleted? 70.24.246.151 (talk) 05:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it was copied from an external source. Wikipedia only accepts free images. 117Avenue (talk) 05:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Jack Layton's death and its impact on Wikipedia articles

Jack Layton and related articles need updating: Leader of the Official Opposition (Canada) , List of Canadian Leaders of the Opposition , New Democratic Party , Toronto—Danforth

Perhaps some others. It'll be somewhat messy in the coming hours, with his recent death.

70.24.246.151 (talk) 13:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

And then there's this (which I have nominated for deletion)... Singularity42 (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Good grief. Can't that be speedied ?? PKT(alk) 23:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
The bad taste criteria? Singularity42 (talk) 00:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Help in Inuktik

Would anyone please find someone who knows Inuktik?

The Inuktik Wikipedia needs an article on en:First Air Flight 6560 - I know this is an important language since the airline has a page about the accident in Inuktik WhisperToMe (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a draft article can be built from a machine translation, if such a thing is available? 70.24.246.151 (talk) 07:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately I don't know of any auto translators. An idea would be to make a post at an Internet forum for Iniktik speakers and ask for help there? WhisperToMe (talk) 01:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

New work group for WikiProject Animation: Canadian animation

I have created a new work group for WikiProject Animation, Canadian animation work group, which covers all topics related to animation in Canada, like Care Bears, Teletoon, ReBoot, Cookie Jar Entertainment, Johnny Test and Total Drama series. If have any questions, please discuss here or at WikiProject Animation. Thank for your time, regards JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 10:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Government of Canada Open Data Pilot Project

I just recently found out about this open government project by the Canadian government. It seems to suggest that what is available here is still covered under Crown copyright which would seem to negate any "openness" for usage. Can anyone see this becoming useful for Wikipedia usage of information? NorthernThunder (talk) 09:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you've misread their licencing terms. The website etc. are Crown copyright, but the data provided is free. See Government of Canada Open Data Licence Agreement for Unrestricted Use of Canada's Data, specifically the "Licence Grant" section. The only issue is item 4, which places restrictions based on rights to privacy (and justly so); it may warrant discussion whether that clause invalidates the 'freeness' of the data. Mindmatrix 13:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Hurricane Irene

I notice that the Hurricane Irene (2011) article has a preparations section. Should info about Canadian prep be added? 70.24.246.151 (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Infobox criteria

Over at Talk:Yukon general election, 2011 and Talk:Ontario general election, 2011 we're discussing what is the criteria for a political party to be included in the infobox? We'd love your feeedback! Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Canada Education Program

I would guess Wikipedia:Canada Education Program would love some volunteers (ambassadors) and help with the overall development of this NEW program.

{{Wikipedia:Canada Education Program}} |}

Leader notability

What makes a political party leader notable? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristina Calhoun. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Being elected. Or meeting the general notability guidelines. but usually the latter comes with the former. --kelapstick(bainuu) 15:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Diplomats from Canada

Do all diplomats from Canada meet the WP:DIPLOMAT criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia as individual articles? NorthernThunder (talk) 10:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:DIPLOMAT ascribes notability to Diplomats who have participated in a significant way in events of particular diplomatic importance that have been written about in reliable secondary sources. Sufficient reliable documentation of their particular role is required. So, in other words, any Canadian diplomat who meets that is notable, and any Canadian diplomat who doesn't meet it is not. As always, it's all about the reliable sources that you can or can't provide. Bearcat (talk) 02:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Request

A bit of an assistance request pertaining to Chief of Staff (Canada). According to the article, the position was created in 1987 — however, users have on more than one occasion added Bernard Roy, who is listed (both in our article and in government sources) as Principal Secretary to Brian Mulroney from 1984 to 1988, to the list on the basis of a single news article which does admittedly describe him as having been Mulroney's "chief of staff".

And what's more, Roy and the 1984 date have been added to the article without changing the introductory assertion that the position was created in 1987.

Now, I realize that the likeliest explanation here is that the newspaper article simply used the term "chief of staff" informally, and that Roy's title was in fact Principal Secretary — however, the issue at the moment is that the statement that the formal title of "Chief of Staff" was created in 1987 isn't actually referenced at all, meaning that strictly speaking it isn't actually verifiable from our article that Roy didn't hold that specific title. Do any of the hardcore political junkies happen to know where we can find a proper reference so we can ensure that our article is and remains correct instead of getting into an edit war over whether Roy was actually titled as CoS or not? Bearcat (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it not possible to include a blurb about Roy being referred to as Chief of Staff before the position was officially enshrined in 1987? PKT(alk) 21:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I have already added a section which clarifies that the principal secretary was the head of the PMO and essentially the de facto CoS prior to 1987. My primary point was about finding an actual source for the statement that the position was created in 1987 so that the article is more adequately referenced. Bearcat (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

List of American gentlemen's clubs

Your attention is called to a requested change in name of the above article. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Provincial elections

I wonder if we should move these articles (example: Prince Edward Island general election, 2011 to Prince Edward Island provinical election, 2011) from place general election, year to place provincial election, year? Seeing as we go with Canadian federal election, year. We would leave the territoriies general election, year as is, for the territories. GoodDay (talk) 13:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Because they are called "general election". See Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario. 117Avenue (talk) 05:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
But we called the Canadian general elections -- federal elections. GoodDay (talk) 11:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Leadership election to Leadership convention

We should consider moving these articles back to convention. The whole Canadian population doesn't participate in those events. GoodDay (talk) 13:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

It's still an election, even if the franchise is limited to party members. An election is any vote for any position within any body, it doesn't have to be a vote for public office that's open to the general public. It could be anything from a papal election which isn't even open to all Catholics let alone the general public, or a student council election or a board of directors of a company electing its chair. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Historically, convention is a better descriptive. GoodDay (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
That's because historically it was the convention that elected the leader but as most parties, including the NDP, have in the past 20 years moved away from a system where delegates to convention select the leader, calling it a leadership convention is inaccurate and does not apply to all forms of leadership elections used in Canada. While all leadership conventions are all leadership elections not all leadership elections use leadership conventions. The Liberals are the last federal party to use the classic leadership convention format and I believe they're adopting OMOV instead for their next leadership election.Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Well (and I note this goes against my tendency towards consistancy) why do we have those past-conventions named elections? since 'only' delegates did the choosing? GoodDay (talk) 14:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Also, the articles are about the election, not the one day convention. 117Avenue (talk) 05:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
They're not elections though, particulary those which occured before the adoption of OMOV. GoodDay (talk) 11:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Not true — they are elections; they're just conducted by proxy rather than by general ballot. A proxy election is still an election — a general election involving all Canadian voters is one kind of election, but not the only kind. An election which is limited to members of a particular organization is still an election; a vote in which members choose specific delegates to vote by proxy on their behalf is still an election. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Those gatherings held 'before' OMOV, should be named Leadership convention. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
All of them, regardless of whether they were OMOV or a delegated convention, should be named the same way — either they all go to "convention" or they all go to "election" (or maybe a compromise term such as "campaign"?) You're imposing a false distinction; an "election" does not necessarily require universal suffrage. Delegated conventions are still elections, just under a different type of electoral process — and OMOV elections are still conventions, because there's still some percentage of the party gathering in a common location to get sloshed in the candidates' hospitality suites. Separating them under a false dichotomy by which some of them are titled "convention" and some of them are titled "election" would be excessively confusing without actually adding value, because the distinction simply isn't anywhere near as hard and fast as you seem to think it is. Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Leadership campaign would suffice, if the articles are gonna cover events 'before' the conventions themselves. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Nice building in Quebec City

Help me

Hello. Could someone tell me the name of the building pictured here. Based on the Flickr description, I assumed it was the Old Custom House, but subsequently realized that the Flickr description was inaccurate. It is located next to the new custom house, if that helps. I would like to fix the description and file name over at the Commons, but don't know what I would fix it to. Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

it appears to be the "Administration Portuaire de Quebec" - the Port Authority of Quebec building, according to Google satellite views and this map. PKT(alk) 17:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! Much appreciated. Interestingly (oddly?), when I searched Google maps the satellite view didn't identify the building. It must depend sometimes on how one comes at it. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Reality show fans unite...

Over the past several weeks, an anonymous IP has been making unconstructive edits to our series of articles on So You Think You Can Dance Canada, including unsourced changes to the spelling of various competitors' names (e.g. "Jordan Clarkson" instead of Jordan Clark for last night's winner, "Dennis" instead of Denys Drozdyuk, etc.) and sometimes even altering the order in which the competitors finished.

I've reverted the changes that I was able to find, and IP-blocked the pages, but was wondering if there's somebody kicking around who's more familiar with the show than I am — I saw some of this season, but never watched any of the first three seasons — who can give the pages a once-over to make sure everything's back to normal. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Scholarship now open for applications

The poster

A scholarship for Canadian post secondary students is now open for applications. I have created a poster to advertise it. Wondering if those from Canada can place it around their respective Universities? Have also recently had published this paper [1] in an effort to get more medical students involved. If this is effective we at [Wikimedia Canada http://wikimedia.ca/wiki/Main_Page] will hopefully look at branching out to other subject areas (other than medicine) and other countries / languages. Applications are found here[2] Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) 18:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Loyalists of North America merger proposal

Are the United Empire Loyalists the same as The Loyalists of North America? The articles seem to cover the same topic, with the UEL article being the older of the two. The latter seems to have been a graded school report that has been uploaded onto wikipedia (see Talk:The_Loyalists_of_North_America). My knowledge of Canadian history isn't great so I wanted to see the opinion of this project. Does it warrant its own article once improvements have been made or should it be merged/deleted? Cheers Del♉sion23 (talk) 12:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Never heard of these "The Loyalists of North America" people. In school, we were taught about the United Empire Loyalists. 76.65.128.90 (talk) 08:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


It seems the user who contributed this article, JoJaEpp (talk · contribs) did another just like it called Canadian Loyalists, which was speedily deleted as a duplicate of an existing topic. 76.65.128.90 (talk) 09:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting it out :) Del♉sion23 (talk) 10:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Quote: "This is a duplication of topic of United Empire Loyalist". Should an article on any other loyalists (the French? what on earth are you rabbiting on about there? ) be created, the redirect can be undone. → ROUX ₪ 14:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

October 14 TFA

I've nominated Mother and Child Reunion (Degrassi: The Next Generation) for TFA for October 14, some more votes would be nice. 117Avenue (talk) 04:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Canadian student's law article

Could you please have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Limitations on copyrightability: Ideas and facts vs. expression; merger doctrine; scènes à faire in IP law in Canada. This article seems to head the topics of Canadian law in a good direction, and if we want more students editing Wikipedia this is no way to treat them. That this is a part of "Canadian arm of the Global Education Program" should make no difference. Articles should simply be judged on their own merits, and editing is preferable to deleting. The "Canada Education Program" seems to be a brainchild of the WMF developed without Canadian consultation. - Eclecticology (talk)

  • It looks like this article has been deleted. The potential of someone referring to it for legal advice (mentioned in one of the Talk comments) freaked them out. I didn't get a chance to look at this article--is there any point in trying to follow the various recommendations and make it into a viable article? Assuming a copy can still be accessed, that is. Connie L Crosby (talk) 06:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
If the contents are still handy, they should be added to Copyright law of Canada, if that article doesn't already have the material and if it's not original research. Creating a separate article isn't a good idea in this case, IMO. PKT(alk) 12:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I can make the deleted text available (send me an email request) for review. If you want to use the actual written text in another article then the author information has to be preserved for GFDL/CC-BY purposes and I would have to seek some advice on how to do a proper history merge. Franamax (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not certain a history merge would be necessary. Attribution is all that is required, and with only two real editors, you could merge with an edit summary of "merged from deleted article Limitations on copyrightability in Canada, merged text contributed by User:Gloominary and User:99.238.7.89." I would think that sufficient. Resolute 16:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, that's one method I was thinking of, but aren't we supposed to avoid attributing history to deleted articles? Another way would be to restore the article, merge the content, then turn Limitations on copyrightability in Canada into a redirect to Copyright law of Canada, or section thereof. Franamax (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
That would certainly work, yes. FWIW, I believe to do a history merge you would delete the target article, move the article to be merged to that title, then undelete the revisions. I think undelete and redirect would be the best answer though. Resolute 19:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I think it's unnecessarily complicated to try merging article history from a deleted article. Just add the relevant material to the Copyright law article. PKT(alk) 20:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
The first quesrtion to be answered is: is anyone voluteering to review and merge the material? If not, there's no problem at all. If so, I'm happy to provide the text, but insofar as actually using any of it verbatim, I'm relatively familiar with licensing and attribution requirements and spotting violations of same, so yeah, let's take the complicated (and right) route. If you wish to make the review, don't worry about the technical details, I can sort that stuff out. Franamax (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Seeing that I have incorporated a number of companies including Wikimedia Canada using content I have found on Wikipedia and other areas of the internet being freaked out about people using Wikipedia as a legal source is strange. Many physicians (50-70%) use Wikipedia as a medical source. But that is a different matter... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

On the off-topic issue, I can confirm that one of my sisters (thus, 50% of practicing doctors 'cause not the other sister) has questioned me quite closely about how exactly Wikipedia works and how reliable it is, for the practical reason that she does include it as one start point for her research on any particular topic - and yes, there eventually are real-life clinical outcomes involved, but luckily MDs are trained to evaluate conflicting information. When we got to the part where she asked "if someone puts in something incorrect, who fixes it?" and I said "I do" - well, she thought about that for a while. :) Franamax (talk) 20:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
LOL! Well she can rest assured that I, for one, stay away from medical and legal topics. PKT(alk) 01:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Featured article review for Order of Canada

I have nominated Order of Canada for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Brad (talk) 01:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for input - linking to Commons from a general template

Pls see Template talk:Canada topics#Removed link commons.Moxy (talk) 07:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I've tried a "restart" which will hopefully have a little less personal invective. The best way to avoid mano-a-mano confrontations is to have lots of eyes and input on the topic, so hopefully some people can have a look at the substantive issue. The "new" discussion is here. Franamax (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like some clarification on how photograph copyright works in Canada, again. I thought that this clear statement was true, "any Canadian photograph, not subject to crown copyright, taken before January 1, 1949, is in the public domain." There is a user questioning the use of commons:Template:PD-Canada, at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sun Tower 1946.jpg, more participation would be appreciated. 117Avenue (talk) 01:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It would definitely be public domain in Canada. However, it may or may not be PD in the US, which is where the Commons/Wikipedia servers are hosted. "Canadian photographs taken before January 1, 1946, not subject to Crown copyright, not published in the U.S., and where no copyright was registered in the U.S. are in the public domain in Canada and the U.S.". Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

English-speaking Quebecer

Can we get a few more eyes on the English-speaking Quebecer page. It seems that a minor Facebook group wants to promote both themselves or the flag they made. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I added the page to my watchlist, removed an addition they made today about the flag, and my removal has been reverted. We might need to protect the page - what do you think? PKT(alk) 19:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
The user 207.134.7.126 (talk · contribs) who is adding the Facebook flag violated WP:3RR. I've issued a warning to their talk page, and reverted the page back to the version without the flag. Perhaps a block should be requested for user:207.134.7.126 ?
If another instance of reverting/reinserting occurs from user:207.134.7.126, I suggest notifying WP:AN3. 70.24.251.158 (talk) 05:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Another revert occurred, and the user was suitably warned, I have notified WP:AN3. 65.94.77.11 (talk) 05:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Baffin Region was never in the District of Keewatin

"Before 1999, Qikiqtaaluk Region existed under slightly different boundaries as the Baffin Region, District of Keewatin, Northwest Territories."

Having grown up in the Baffin Region of the NWT, I contest that it was ever part of the District of Keewatin.

John Houston 24.222.158.27 (talk) 09:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments

Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 has just finished - it was a public photo contest in 18 European countries to improve Wikimedia's selection of images of cultural heritage monuments. The planning for the 2012 edition will start early in the new year, and there have been discussions about expanding the event outside Europe. I am compiling a list of people who would be interested in helping organize the potential Canadian component of the 2012 event. We have numerous historic sites in Canada for which we have no images or other media, and this exercise could lead to the creation of a bunch of new articles on Canadian cultural heritage. Please leave a note below if you are interested. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Willing to help out with Vancouver, BC, and Western Canada items. The Interior (Talk) 15:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, The Interior. Anyone else? You wouldn't be committing yourself to anything at this time, other than being invited to share ideas and opinions now and then. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Dictionary of Canadian Biography

Just a quick note to remind Wikipedians that the initiative to produce articles for each of the entries in the DoCB is still ongoing. Check out Wikipedia:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Dictionary of Canadian Biography and maybe direct a bit of time to these worthy biographies. Thanks! Stormbay (talk) 03:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Takes Montreal

This is a cool video for those who have not seen it.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

hot chicken

I notice that the greasy spoon diner special, "hot-chicken"(fr) or "hot chicken sandwich"(en) is missing from Wikipedia. Hot Chicken and Hot chicken have different meanings. Any thoughts about adding the pea covered gravy soaked sandwich to Wikipedia? 65.94.77.11 (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The relevance to WP:CANADA being...? Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Canadian food (as far as I can determine), most of the hits seem Quebecois. 65.94.77.11 (talk) 05:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Infobox image discussion at Occupy Canada

Currently a debate at Talk:Occupy Canada as to the use of an image in the infobox. As of now two editors support and two oppose, more opinions would be welcome to find a consensus. Apologies for hard-to-follow threads, the discussion has gone a bit off-topic. The Interior (Talk) 06:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow. There appear to be some WP:OWN problems on that talk page. It would be great to some fresh input. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 10:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Search tool for all Ottawa-area libraries (Ottawa public library plus universities, museums, National Library and Archives, etc.)

If you live in the Ottawa area, or visit for research, I just wanted to mention an online tool, Sm@rtLibrary, that will search the holdings of the major libraries in Ottawa: [3]. It's down for maintenance at the moment, but the following institutions are members:

  • Ottawa Public Library
  • University of Ottawa
  • Carleton University
  • Canadian Housing Information Centre
  • Algonquin College Learning Resource Centre
  • Dominican College
  • Bibliothèque municipale de Gatineau
  • Canadian Museum of Civilization
  • Canadian War Museum
  • CISTI (Canada Institute for Scientific & Technical Info)
  • Library and Archives Canada
  • National Gallery of Canada
  • Canada Science and Technology Museum

The first five institutions listed are lending libraries. For the rest you need to be onsite to see the materials. Awesome nrrrd tool though. OttawaAC (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody who has some experience in dealing with and comprehending Canadian copyright law take a look at Copyright infringement: to “authorize”, secondary infringement in copyright law in Canada and help figure out what would be a more appropriate title for the page? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's another couple of articles that have titles worthy of a student essay, but not a WikiPedia article:
The reason they all seem like student essays is because they essentially are: Wikipedia:Canada_Education_Program/Courses/Intellectual_Property:_Copyright,_Trademark_and_Patent_(Ariel_Katz). I'm pinging one of the ambassadors for that course. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree, the articles could use better titles. If a better titles are suggested, I can move the articles and inform the students of the changes. It also appears that several student articles have not been created yet. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 22:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • PKT: Anyone trying to improve the coverage of Canadian law in Wikipedia is doing all of us a great favour. Yes, some articles need help, but please remember that many Canadian Wikipedians are already facing an uphill fight with some American Wikipedians who are know-it-alls and are out to wipe-out anything that does not fit into their view of the world. Just my $.02 of the day. Ottawahitech (talk) 09:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh, without a doubt.....but there are questions of structure and organization of the information that ought to be discussed and addressed. I commend the effort, but I would suggest it should be better integrated with Copyright law in Canada. PKT(alk) 23:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

"Canadian"

It seems the use of Canadian is under discussion at two different places. Talk:Canadians and Talk:Canadian (disambiguation). Further, the redirect has fluctuated between pointing to Canada, Canadians and Canadian (disambiguation) in recent weeks. As apparently over 8000 articles link to "Canadian", this may prove problematic.

65.94.77.11 (talk) 12:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Diane Urquhart

Even though the references are from the National Post and and Globe and Mail a box appeared on this article saying that:

"It relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject, rather than references from independent authors and third-party publications. Tagged since November 2011."

Help please what is one supposed to do? Ottawahitech (talk) 09:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I just removed that tag, as it clearly was not applicable. The other ones I left for the moment, as I didn't take the time to decide on notability. Adding more sources would help. Resolute 23:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I formatted the references for you as well. For the notability claim, I can see why someone would consider her borderline. If you have more reliable sources, especially ones that discuss her personally so as to make it more of a biography, you should be able to convince anyone of the subject's notability. Resolute 17:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Municipal elections in BC

I have been trying to find info about the Nov 19 municipal election in BC - is it not on Wikipedia? Ottawahitech (talk) 00:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Just wondering if there is an equivalent to Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Redlinks list for Canada? Ottawahitech (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Political party colours

I thought that it was a bit odd that, to produce party colours, we have literally hundreds of subpages at Template:Canadian politics/party colours, and that there is a competing format at "TemplateParty name/meta/color". I thought it might be a good idea to handle party colours through one template, so I made Template:Canadian party colour as a proof of concept. Does anyone else support merging all of these subtemplates into one central template? If so, what changes do you think we should make to my example template? For example, should it be renamed? Should the parameters be named party= and type=? —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see how that is of any benefit. You'd go through a lot of effort, just to have the slashes replaced with pipes. What should be done is sync the two formats, for example, replacing the bgcolor="lightcoral" in Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Liberal, with bgcolor="{{Liberal Party of Canada/meta/color}}". However, this could cause some problems too, as Template:Liberal Party of Canada/meta/color has recently been changed to a darker tone, and anything using a Canadian politics template for a background behind text, will become difficult to read. 117Avenue (talk) 04:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I see two benefits to the unified template. First, it makes it far easier to notice updates or vandalism if editors are only asked to put one page on their watchlist rather than 200 (or 300 including the meta ones). Second, it saves categorization bots like WP1.0 Bot and people using AWB the time of passing over hundreds of mini-templates when doing their rounds. If we want to switch to the new template, the work could easily be done by a bot or myself on AWB. If we want to keep the existing system, I agree that the bgcolor, row, and row-name templates should all be getting their colour names from the same place. However, I would prefer to see them get the colour names from Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Liberal/colour name so that we can keep our colour system under one parent template instead of spreading it across as many parent templates as there are parties. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I forgot the third benefit: making changes to this template will require one edit rather than five (for party colours) or one hundred (to add a new way of listing parties). —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
You're right, for the most part, I didn't give it that close of a look. There would still be the hundred or so colour templates, we'll need to keep on our watchlist. 117Avenue (talk) 03:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Wow, I'm doing things too fast. I gave it another look, and it looks like you are proposing putting all the party colours in the same template, rather than accessing the existing ones. I would suggest reconsidering that, as it is not syncing it with the meta ones. 117Avenue (talk) 03:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't think we need the /meta ones; I would merge the /meta templates into my template if we use it, or into the original set of templates if we don't. I see three reasons for the /meta templates' existence (correct me if there are more). 1: They use darker colours for some parties. I see no reason to do this. 2: They are used when someone only wants the colour name and not the bgcolor= parameter. For those cases, my template allows name-only as an option. This option could also be given to the original set of templates. 3: They are accessed by Template:Infobox election. That template allows one to override the /meta/color system using the parameter colour1=, and I could make that parameter compatible with Canadian templates with one quick edit. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I forgot about the override, I don't think it's used much. 117Avenue (talk) 05:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Dysart et al Haliburton, Ontario

In the discription of counties encompassing Dysart et al what is ment by "Kennaway (ghost town)",

Ski116 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.92.207 (talk) 01:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it is an abandoned settlement, per Welcome to Old Kennaway. I'll add the link as a reference to the Dysart et al, Ontario article. --papageno (talk) 03:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Yep. Kennaway was one of the many failed farming communities established on the Canadian Shield, probably as a result of the Peterson Road. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:Canadian film list

{{Canadian film list}} has been nominated for deletion. It is part of a series of national film list templates, but currently contains very few links. So, if we want to keep this, it might be good to improve it first... 70.24.248.23 (talk) 06:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Opus Bicycles

Opus Bicycles, a one-sentence stub is proposed for deletion. As a Canadian company, I defer to you as to whether that PROD should be contested. 68.165.77.113 (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Provinces & Territories infoboxes

Why was the Canadian monarch added to the 13 infoboxes-in-question? GoodDay (talk) 04:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Which infoboxes (links)? And who did the adding? → ROUX ₪ 18:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Do you mean this? If so I would ask them why. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I would revert it. It has no relevance in that infobox. It is just unnecessary clutter. Resolute 20:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Yep that's the culprit change. GoodDay (talk) 03:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually its wrong. There is no way that each of the provinces and territories are a constitutional monarchy but they might be a federal monarchy. Anyway I removed it for now. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks CambridgeWeather. GoodDay (talk) 03:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't mind the templates saying what type of government the provinces are using, but that edit didn't do it quite right. If the government-type of Canada is "federal parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy" then the provinces would be something like "parliamentary democracy and co-sovereign subdivision of a constitutional monarchy". It think it's accurate to say that the Queen of Canada is the head of state of both levels of government. The territories, on the other hand, would be "parliamentary democracy exercising statutory authority". The territories don't really have a head of state given that the commissioner is representing the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
The provinces don't have a head of state, either. GoodDay (talk) 11:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, they do. Since the provincial and federal governments are on an equal footing with one another, it isn't really right to say there are two "levels" of government; but, otherwise, Arctic Gnome is correct in saying the Queen of Canada is head of state in the federal and provincial spheres. The provinces derive their authority directly from the Crown, not via Ottawa. The only thing is, the Queen is one step farther removed from provincial governance, since the constitution makes clear that, unlike in the federal realm, all her authority is exercised by the lieutenant governor.
In that vein, I've restored the form of government as "constitutional monarchy" (what else is a system where a constitutionally bound crown forms the basis of the executvie, legislative, and judicial branches?), but left the head of state parameter out, pending further discussion. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes the provinces derive their authority directly from the crown, but calling the provinces "constitutional monarchies" doesn't seem quite right given that they don't have their own monarchs; there is no Queen of Ontario, there is only a Queen of Canada in Right of Ontario. Then again, there was no Queen of Canada until the Statute of Westminster, and we were probably called ourselves a constitutional monarchy before 1931. For comparison, the Scotland article uses the phrase "Devolved government within a constitutional monarchy". I like the phrase "within a constitutional monarchy", but the provinces power is not devolved. I would sugest the phrase "co-sovereign government within a constitutional monarchy" if the article co-sovereign existed. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
An example: Elizabeth II is Monarch over Prince Edward Island, not Monarch of Prince Edward Island - there's a differance. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Arctic Gnome: You're correct, there is no "Queen of Ontario", while there is a Queen of Canada. However, the situation is not such that the Queen of Canada is uniquely or even predominantly part of the federal government and the provinces derive their power from her in that context. Instead, the Queen of Canada is shared equally by all eleven co-sovereign jurisdictions within Canada - the one federal and ten provincial - the Queen of Canada being as much a part of the Ontario council, legislature, and courts (the Queen in Right of Ontario) as she is a part of the federal council, parliament, and courts (the Queen in Right of Canada). This has been the case since 1882, when the Lord Watson ruled in Maritime Bank v. Receiver-General of New Brunswick that "the Lieutenant Governor... is as much a representative of Her Majesty, for all purposes of Provincial Government as the Governor General himself is, for all purposes of Dominion Government." (Hence, the need for full federal and provincial consent to amendments affecting the office of the Queen.) Ontario's system of government (and, by extension, those of all the other provinces) thus, as with the Canadian federal government, meets the definition of constitutional monarchy. But, it's true that Ontario's system of constitutional monarchy exists within the larger Canadian federal monarchy.
Can the Canadian provinces be said to each have a "parliamentary democracy within a federal constitutional monarchy"?
BTW, much of this is covered at Monarchy in the Canadian provinces. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I had done some further checking and discovered that I was both right and wrong. Take a look at Provinces and territories of Canada with the unsourced "In modern Canadian constitutional theory, the provinces are considered to be co-sovereign divisions, and each province has its own "Crown" represented by the lieutenant-governor, whereas the territories are not sovereign, but simply parts of the federal realm, and have a commissioner.", Monarchy in the Canadian provinces, Canadian federalism and Political Systems of the Canadian Provinces. It would appear that while the provinces are CMs the three territories are not. So as Arctic.gnome points out above this is not the correct way to present the information. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 19:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand you when you say "the provinces are CMs [constitutional monarchies]" and then say "constitutional monarchy" is not the correct way to define the provincial government in the infobox. Is it that "constitutional monarchy" alone is not sufficient for the infobox? If so, I could agree with that and hence made a proposal above as to what might be suitable. Are there any reactions to it? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
What I mean is that by implementing it that way Nunavut, Northwest Territories and Yukon are then all listed as CMs. Which Arctic.gnome realised. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 21:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
The provinces are not constitional monarchies (i.e realms). There's 16 Commonwealth realms, not 26. Please note the following article titles (for example) - Monarchy in Prince Edward Island, Monarchy in New Brunswick, Monarchy in Manitoba etc etc -- they're 'Monarchy in & not 'Monarchy of. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the excuse silence equals consensus is a poor & (tbh) 'annoying' excuse. The broken silence here, is obviously not in favour of the change made months ago. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure who you think you are. Policy and guidelines aren't to be ignored because you personally find them "annoying". Consensus by silence is the weakest kind of consensus, but it is still valid and the basis behind the rule that long-standing content is left as is until a new consensus establishes what the change should be. We're also not here to be dictated to. If you think the system of government used in the Canadian provinces is not constitutional monarchy, mount an argument and provide the reliable sources to support it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
It's best to describe them as parliamentary. By labeling each province as a constitutional monarchy, you're labeling each as a 'realm'. That would bring the Commonwealth realms total to 26. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I half agree with Miesianiacal. The LGs can represent the crown in the same way that the GG does, but only when we are talking about legislative jurisdiction. I think that the provinces are still subdivisions of a constitutional monarchy rather than a constitutional monarchy in their own right, because the LGs are appointed by the GG, serve at the pleasure of the GG, and are paid by the federal government (Const'n 1867 ss 58-60). If the provinces were their own constitutional monarchies, the LGs would be appointed by the Queen on the advice of the provincial cabinet. I think that "parliamentary democracy within a federal constitutional monarchy" is an accurate description. For the territories, I'm sticking with something like "parliamentary democracy exercising statutory authority". —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
We do need another 'term' to describe the provincial governments. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
We could leave it blank, but I think it would be useful to have something there. If I knew nothing about Canada but wanted to know what kind of government Alberta has, I would appreciate the infobox telling me that the province is a parliamentary democracy, as opposed to a congressional democracy or a federally-designated council. But if we say "parliamentary democracy", we have to mention the monarchy element to be technically correct. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I meant another term other then constitutional monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Canadian federalism! I'm happy if "parliamentary democracy within a federal constitutional monarchy" is acceptable to all concerned here. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I'll accept it if Elizabeth II is excluded from the infoboxes-in-queston. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
BTW, another option is Westminster system. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
But wouldn't that mean we would have to include QE2? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 05:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I suppose. When's the 'Parliamentary democracy within a federal constitutional monarchy' gonna be implimented? GoodDay (talk) 05:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether we need to include QE2 if we are saying "within a CM". The fact that the LGs serve at the pleasure of the GG rather than of the queen kind of confuses things. The LGs are the highest-ranking people that actually have "of Province-name" in their title. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
We don't include the monarch, because the provinces aren't monarchies. GoodDay (talk) 06:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
What are they, then? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
They're parts of a monarchy, the Canadian monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
So, then, the federal jurisdiction isn't a constitutional monarchy, either? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
She's Queen in those provinces, not Queen of those provinces. You've made that clear in the related articles you've created. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You're basing your demand that the sovereign's name not be included on a notion that the provinces aren't constitutional monarchies but instead "parts of a monarchy". Following that logic, since the provincial jurisdictions are ten of the eleven equal and identically governed parts of Canada (each with a crown in council, parliament, and courts), the eleventh, the federal jurisdiction, isn't a constitutional monarchy either. Is that the case? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth II is not Queen of Prince Edward Island, Queen of Saskatchewan, Queen of Ontario etc etc. I'm not changing my stance, on that fact. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Fine. But could you perhaps stop evading the question? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand the question. I'm concerned with appearances & having Elizabeth II in the infoboxes of the provinces & territories, creates the appearance of 13 extra commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and I'm trying to point out to you that there might be an inconsistency in your thinking. If you agree the federal government is a constitutional monarchy, and that the provincial governments are equal in status in Confederation with, and structured the same way as, the federal government, then it follows the provincial governments are constitutional monarchies. If it's therefore okay to show Elizabeth II as monarch in the "Government" section at Canada, why then would it not be okay to do the same in the same sections of the infoboxes on the provincial articles? The "13 extra Commonwealth realms" concern (don't you mean 10?) is a red herring. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
The Federal Government is 'above' the provincial & territorial governments. GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
No, it isn't. In 1982, the Supreme Court found "Canada was essentially a classic federation, with equally sovereign levels of government".Banting, Keith G.; Simeon, Richard (1983). And no one cheered: federalism, democracy, and the Constitution Act. In 2007, Jason Kenney said "The provincial Crown, and your role as Lieutenant Governors, are essential in defining the nature of our federation as one in which both orders of government have full and equal authority in their own areas of jurisdiction."Kenney, Jason (2007). Lieutenant Governors Meeting David E. Smith in 2010: "over time executive power in the provinces was found to be co-equal with legislative power."Smith, David E. (2010). The Crown and the Constitution: Sustaining Democracy?
If Elizabeth II is part of the federal system of governance, via the governor general, then she is equally a part of each provincial system of governance, via the relevant lieutenant governor; that's been the case since 1892, when it was found in Maritime Bank v. Receiver-General of New Brunswick that "the Lieutenant Governor... is as much a representative of Her Majesty, for all purposes of Provincial Government as the Governor General himself is, for all purposes of Dominion Government."Kenney (2007)
The provinces (since we're focuing on them) are not sovereign states & thus are not commonwealth realms. To create the impression that they are (within their infoboxes) is a dis-service to our readers. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Again, you raise the "extra Commonwealth realms" canard. That's not relevant. We're discussing whether or not the provincial infoboxes should be treated in the same manner as the that used in the article Canada, at least insofar as whether or not to mention the name of the monarch who forms a part of each governmental system. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I raise that argument, because it is relevant. The provincial infoboxes shouldn't be treated the same as the Canada infobox. Harper nominates those who serve as provincial LtGs, are we gonna add Harper to the provincial infoboxes, too? GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Are you disputing the sources I provided that demonstrate the provincial governments are equal to the federal one? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Here's another from a former lieutenant governor: "There is a common misconception that Lieutenant Governors are somehow subordinate to the Governor General in the constitutional sense. That is not correct. Each is the Queen’s personal representative and the institutional embodiment of the Crown. Each is governed by the same rules and conventions, and each has the same responsibilities. Everything that I say about the powers of a Lieutenant Governor is equally applicable to those of the Governor General."Roberts, Edward (2009). Ensuring Constitutional Wisdom During Unconventional Times --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Why don't the Premiers nominate the LtGs? GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Why do the provinces have representation in the Canadian Parliament (Commons & Senate)? GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Why are there no ambassadors between Ottawa & Winnipeg, between Charlotteown & Victoria, between Regina & Edmonton etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Why are there only 16 Commonwealth realms & not 26? GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Are you disputing the sources I provided that demonstrate the provincial governments are equal to the federal one? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Do they? how so? GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
"Canada [is] essentially a classic federation, with equally sovereign levels of government."
"[The Canadian] federation [is] one in which both orders of government have full and equal authority in their own areas of jurisdiction."
"[T]he Lieutenant Governor... is as much a representative of Her Majesty, for all purposes of Provincial Government as the Governor General himself is, for all purposes of Dominion Government."
"There is a common misconception that Lieutenant Governors are somehow subordinate to the Governor General in the constitutional sense. That is not correct."
I trust that's clear now. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm concerend about our readers. PS- see my compromise below. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding co-sovereignty, the provinces are co-sovereign because the Queen of Canada is constitutionally required to only take the advice of the provincial governments on provincial matters and from the federal government on federal matters. In areas of provincial jurisdiction, the provincial governments may directly ask the Canadian sovereign to implement a law without going through the federal government. The provincial governments are not asking their own sovereign to implement that law; there is no sovereign in their jurisdiction. Regarding the infobox, putting the name of the Queen in the provincial infobox gives the misleading impression that the province has its own monarch that it can ask to sign laws. If we want the infobox to say where the provincial government gets its authority, then instead of saying "Monarch: Elizabeth II", we would have to say something like "Sovereign: Queen of Canada (Elizabeth II). —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

That's my point, there's no Queen of Prince Edward Island. GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
If you're gonna have Elizabeth II in those provincial infoboxes, atleast have it as Canadian monarch, not just Monarch. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) "[T]here is no sovereign in their jurisdiction." That's not true. The sovereign has long been regarded as a part of the government in each provincial jurisdiction ("Queen in Right of Ontario", "Queen in Right of Saskatchewan", & etc.), just as the sovereign is regarded as part of the federal government in the federal jurisdiction ("Queen in Right of Canada").
It may well be fine to say in the infobox "Elizabeth II (as Queen of Canada)". But, since the systems in the federal and provincial areas of governance are identical and equal, we might want to consider doing the same in the infobox at Canada; i.e. have there "parliamentary democracy within a federal constitutional monarchy" as the government type and the same as whatever is decided for the provinces in the "monarch" section. Otherwise, it will appear as though the provinces are subordinate to Ottawa, which isn't the case. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Why haven't you moved the following articles Monarchy in Quebec, Monarchy in Manitoba etc etc to Monarchy of Quebec, Monarchy of Manitoba etc etc. Why haven't you added the 10 to the Commonwealth realm lists? You know why, 'cuz those monarchies don't exist. Now, there's nothing wrong with having Elizabeth II described as Canadian Monarch in those 10 infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with Miesianiacal's statement that the two levels of government are equal. The geographic area of Canada has only one sovereign source of authority: the Queen of Canada. That one sovereign is constitutionally required to only follow the advice of the federal government when making s91 laws, and to only follow the advice of provincial governments when making s92 laws. When we say "Queen in Right of Canada" or "Queen in Right of Ontario", we are talking about whose advice the one sovereign is following; we are not saying that there are two sovereigns, like there are between the Queen of Canada and the Queen of the UK. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
You can certainly disagree with me, but are you disagreeing with the sources? Nobody disputes that there's one Queen of Canada, one Canadian Crown. However, what the sources I've provided (and there are more out there) assert is that the one queen isn't a "possession" of Ottawa alone, but, rather, of all eleven jurisdictions equally; the Queen in Right of Canada (i.e. the Queen in her federal parliament, council, and courts) is not superior to the Queen in Right of [Province] (i.e. the Queen in her provincial parliaments, councils, and courts). In addition to what I've provided above, another reiteration, this time from Michael Valpy: "No province... was unmindful of the 'watertight compartments' doctrine of Confederation, judicially first expressed in 1892, in which supreme constitutional authority - the 'Crown' - was deemed to be parallel and coequal in concurrent jurisdictions: provincial Crown and federal Crown, provincial lieutenant-governors and federal governor-general, none subordinate to the other and each acting independently as the Sovereign's representative."[4] And another from Kevin MacLeod (the current Secretary to the Queen) "Lieutenant Governors fulfil the responsibilities and functions of the Sovereign in the provinces as does the Governor General in federal jurisdiction. In their respective jurisdictions, they exercise the powers of the Queen as head of State and symbolize provincial sovereignty and constitutional status as full members within Canadian Confederation."[5] --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with those quotes; the LGs and the GG can both directly exercise the sovereign's power. Even though the LGs serve at the pleasure of the GG and not the Queen, I agree that the LGs do, by law, act directly in her name when signing provincial laws just as the GG acts directly in her name when signing federal laws. Nevertheless, that doesn't change the fact that there is only one single sovereign in the country from which the GG and LGs are getting their power. The geographic jurisdiction of that one sovereign is Canada, which is why we can say "monarch: Elizabeth II" on the Canada article. Even though the government of Ontario and the LG of Ontario can act independently and directly access the sovereign's power just like the federal government can, they are still using the power of the sovereign of Canada, who is choosing to let Ontario directly access the sovereign's powers for s92 matters. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
BTW, isn't claiming 'two levels of government are equal', a contradiction? GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Miesianiacal means that the two levels have the power to govern in their own spheres of jurisdiction and cannot overrule eachother, which is true. I think that the term "co-sovereign" is better than "equal", but Miesianiacal is not wrong in calling them equal. However, that's irrelevant to my point: that the monarch's jurisdiction is "of Canada" and she chooses to only take the advice of different levels of government for different issues. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
That's what I've been getting at, Elizabeth II is the Queen of Canada, no matter how her sovereign powers are shared within the country. GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but how her sovereign powers are shared within the country is pertinent to the treatment of the infoboxes in the articles on each of the country's eleven jurisdictions. If the Crown's sovereignty is derived by each equally, the Crown forms a part of each equally, why are the infoboxes to be treated unequally? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
We treat those infoboxes differently, because she's not Queen of PEI, Queen of Quebec, Queen of Alberta etc etc. There's 16 Commonwealth realms, not 26. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I can't believe you're going to turn this stupid wheel around yet again. Royal titles are a total red herring here. We're discussing the government section of the infoboxes in the articles on Canada's eleven jurisdictions. The governments of PEI, Quebec, Alberta, etc., etc. and Canada all derive their authority equally from the same Crown; the same Crown forms a part of the government of each equally. Why are the infoboxes to be treated unequally? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
There's only 1 monarchy in Canada, not 10. That's why you've created articles named (for example) Monarchy in Saskatchewan, not Monarchy of Saskatchewan. The suggestion that the 10 provincial governments are equal to the federal government, is OTT. GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
There's one monarch who acts equally as eleven; note that Monarchy of Canada distinguishes between and covers both the federal and provincial guises of the one Canadian Crown. Since, in each jurisdiction, the Crown is the government, the fact that the eleven governments in Confederation are equal is very much at the core of this discussion. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
If you're gonna have 'Elizabeth II' in the infoboxes of the 10 provinces, she must be described as Canadian monarch, not just Monarch. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
And what of the infobox at Canada, then? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Canada is a sovereign state, therefore Monarch will do. I assume you don't want to use British monarch in there. GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Canada is a sovereign state made up of eleven jurisdictions that derive their sovereignty equally from the one Canadian monarch who's equally and identically a part of the government of each.
Are you perhaps having difficulty discerning between "Canada" as a federation of eleven jurisdictions and "Canada" as the federal jurisdiction alone? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
There's no British Columbian monarch, no Albertan monarch, no Nova Scotian monarch etc etc. PS: Please don't comment on the contributor. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
It was a valid, completely impersonal question, like the others you've ignored. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Saying "monarch" is fine in the article Canada because the geographical area discussed in the article is exactly coterminous with her jurisdiction; she is the queen of Canada. The fact that the provinces have the exclusive right to advise her on s92 matters does not affect that. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed & saying Monarch in the 10 provincial infoboxes, is misleading. GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

So, are you saying the "Government" secion in the infobox at Canada refers to something different than the "Government" section in the infoboxes in the provincial articles? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm concerned about our readers, we can't have them being mislead by the infobox. If one recalls, the majority of editors here, are in favour of deleting Elizabeth II entirely. My compromise should be enough. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Miesianiacal, you do make a good point there. The government section of the Canada infobox includes two different kids of bodies: the Canadian Crown, which has both s91 and s92 powers, and the federal government, which only has s91 powers. I don't think the infobox allows any way to clarify that. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Aaahhh... Well, now we may be getting closer to the crux of this messy matter. But, I would say the reference to the monarch in the "Government" section of the infobox at Canada is quite specifically to her place in the government of the federal jurisdiction, seeing as the same section also includes the other figures related only to that body: the federal viceroy and the federal prime minister. Since the "Government" sections of the infoboxes in the provincial articles cover the provincial equivalent (the provincial viceroy and the provincial prime minister), I can't see why they wouldn't similarly include the monarch's name.
How the infobox at Canada deals with the two definitions of "Canada" is another matter, entirely. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Including the monarch's name in the provincial infoboxes under the title "monarch", would still be wrong. The only way I can think of resolving that is, first, for the provincial infoboxes to list the Canadian monarch in Right of that province (as the source of the provincial governments' s92 powers). Second, the Canada infobox would list her twice: once as the sovereign of the geographical land area of Canada, and once as the Canadian monarch in Right of Canada (as the source of the federal government's s91 powers). I guess doing that would be technically true, although seeing her name twice on the Canada infobox would probably be confusing to casual readers, so I'm not sure if it would be a good idea. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, actually I've had comparable possibilities run through my head. But, I haven't quite yet found one that I feel confidence in, noting likely problematic consequences similar to those you note. Will have to give it more thought. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Compromise

  • If we're gonna have Elizabeth II included on the provincial & territorial infoboxes, she should be included as the Canadian monarch. GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree. There is an okay argument to include her given that she is the source of the provincial governments' authority, but calling her the monarch of the province isn't correct. I think that calling her the Canadian monarch is an acceptable compromise. Now, whether the Canada infobox decides to differentiate between the Canadian monarch and the monarch in right of the federal government is another matter. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so would this be agreeable to everyone? I've used Ontario as an example, and have given the current setup on the Canada and Ontario articles for comparison.

Ontario Proposal
Government Parliamentary democracy within a constitutional monarchy
Queen of Canada Elizabeth II
Lieutenant Governor David Onley
Premier Dalton McGuinty (Liberal)
Current Canada
Government Federal Parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy
Monarch Elizabeth II
Governor General David Johnston
Prime Minister Stephen Harper
Current Ontario
Government
Type Constitutional monarchy
Lieutenant Governor David Onley
Premier Dalton McGuinty (Liberal)

—Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Help with a template?

Hi, all,

I'm wondering if someone could help me with a template issue.

I've been working on some pages relating to decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and I think it would be helpful to have a template we could use on all of them. However, I lack the technical skills to make a template, and wonder if someone else would be able to make one that we could use.

The Persons case has a template, which I think is adapted from elsewhere, maybe English court cases? I think it would be a good model, but with some modifications:

(1) adding a maple leaf to it, so that whenever it's used for a JCPC case relating to Canada, there's a symbol to show the Canadian connection. Is there a way to add the maple leaf that is used on the WikiProject Canada info?

(2) change "Judge(s) sitting" to "Judges sitting", since the JCPC always sat as a panel;

(3) add a new field: "Decision by: " to be able to show which judge wrote the decision;

(4) change "Prior action(s)" to "On appeal from", since the JCPC was an appellate body; and

(5) delete the field "Subsequent action(s)", since the JCPC decision was the end of the road.

Anyone interested in trying it?

Thanks,

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 05:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I know nothing about templates, but isn't it simply a matter of going into edit mode in the article itself and replacing the text one wishes to change? By the way it is nice to see someone working on Canadian legal stuff. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Addition: I may be wrong, but it seems like there isn't an infobox called "court case" in existence. I found this on how to design one: Help:Designing_infoboxes#Creating_a_new_infobox Ottawahitech (talk) 15:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
The template being used is Template:Infobox court case. That is a simple standardized template for court cases at any level in any country. There also exists Template:Infobox SCC, which is designed specifically for the SCC, and is significantly more complicated, allowing for things like multiple concurring opinions (see R. v. Grant for an example). Either one of those templates could be modified for JCPC cases about Canada. If we use the general template, we'll only be able to make a few small changes, like adding a "country" field or maybe giving an option to remove the (s). Modifying the SCC template to allow other Canadian courts would give us a bit more freedom, but it would be more complicated, and would require us to send a bot through the articles already using that template to add court=SCC so that they remain unchanged. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
thanks for the comments. Ottawahitech, I have just been copying and pasting the box from the Edwards article, where I first saw it, and you're right - changing the info in the fields works. However, I'd like to change the fields themselves, and I don't how the syntax works for that. I tried doing it a couple of times and the box got all screwed up. I also don't know how to add an image, say of a maple leaf; again, I tried and the box got screwed up. Arctic Gnome, thanks for pointing out the source for the box. I don't know that using the SCC box is the best option, since it's got the image of the Supreme Court building on it - the whole point of this info box is that it's not the SCC. As well, I understand from looking at the SCC case template that it automatically fills in the judges of the Court based on the date of the decision; don't want those sorts of auto-fills, since they would not be accurate for the JCPC, which had a much more fluid membership; should be done on a case-by-case basis. Also, we don't need the option for multiple opinions, since the JCPC did not have dissenting or concurring opinions, only a single opinion by a single author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk • contribs) 13:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood me. If we modified the SCC template to make it usable for any Canadian court, we would make it so the automatic inclusion of the image and the SCC judges would only happen for SCC cases. Other courts would use other images and would require manual inclusion of the judges names. However, if the JCPC only ever gave one opinion, we might as well use the simple general template and leave the standardization of Canadian law articles to another day. If we want to modify the general template, we should be talking at Template talk:Infobox court case so that non-Canadians can speak to the changes (it's used in over 1000 articles from different countries). If there is no argument from that page after a few days, I can make the changes. Most of your changes will probably be non-controversial there. I see no reason not to include an optional "decision by" field and no reason not to make the "subsequent actions" field optional. Giving the options of turning off the "(s)" and the option of changing "prior action" to "on appeal from" might be deemed to be too much clutter for the template, but they shouldn't be too controversial. I have some ideas about how to make those changes in a way that would be useful to other people using the template. When creating the option to choose between "prior action/subsequent action" and "appealed from/appealed to", do we need to allow the two pairs to be switched independently, or will someone always be using either "action" for both or "appeal" for both? As for mentioning Canada, where were you thinking of adding the maple leaf? Would it be enough to just add the words "on appeal from Canada" after the name of the court? —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Aah, now I understand, Arctic Gnome - sorry that I wasn't following you. Changing the "court" template makes sense to me. (1) if there's an easy way to turn off the for the "(s)" for the various fields that use it, I think it would be useful not just for the JCPC cases - would make the template more customizable generally, to be adaptable to court decisions with single judges and panels of judges, and so on - I would think that would be a selling point for the changes, as it would improve the template generally. (2) for "prior action", wouldn't it be enough to just add a field for "on appeal from" and then the person using the template could fill in whichever field was appropriate for their case? again, would make the template more adaptable generally, for both trial cases and appeals. (3) for "prior action" "subsequent action" "on appeal from" and "appealed to", I would suggest that they shouldn't be linked at all, but each field would be optional, for the user - there's so much variety in court process, especially when you're looking at different countries, that we want to have maximum flexibility. For instance, a decision from an intermediate court might need both the "prior action" and "appealed from" to refer to the proceedings in the trial court decision; and "appealed to" if the intermediate appellate court is appealed to the final appellate court; and "subsequent action" if the final appellate court were to refer the matter back to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with its ruling, which is a common order from the SCOTUS dealing with federal issues that arise in state court matters, just as an example. (4) for the reference to Canada, I was thinking of a maple leaf (or maybe a red ensign, although I don't think that's as distinctive), either right over or right underneath the Royal Coat of Arms. But here's what I mean about my lack of understanding of templates - when I cut and pasted from Edwards to put the infobox into the R. v. Coote page, I couldn't see where the image for the Royal Arms is located in the template - there is a field for "image", but it's blank. How does the image get there? If we put a maple leaf over or under the Arms, we wouldn't want it to be too large, because then the box would definitely be getting too cluttered. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
(1) I could make an invisible parameter called "number of judges" that would make the judge(s) field use "judge" if 1, "judges" if anything else, and "judge(s)" if blank. Some people might call that an unnesiary complication for the template, but I think it's unobtrusive enough. (2&3) I was planning to use a series of if/then statements, but your idea makes more sense. We can just have all four fields in the template and make it hide whichever are not used. (4) If the image= parameter is blank, the template checks to see if the name of the court in the court= parameter matches any of the courts on Template:Infobox court case/images, and if it does, it uses the appropriate image. We could change the court field to "Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (on appeal from Canada). But I don't know if changing the image (or adding an image below it) would be a good idea. The current image is technically correct; the JCPC isn't like the Queen, who keeps separate "of Canada" and "of the UK" titles. Using a different image might lead some people who don't know much about Canadian legal history to think that Canada had some sort of jurisdictional control over the court. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
All of that makes good sense to me. Your point about Canada not having any jurisdiction over the JCPC is a good one, so shouldn't be reflected in the template image. Do you want to maek this suggestion on the talk page for the template? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I can go make the request. If people use all four action fields—prior actions, subsequent actions, appealed from, and appealed to—in what order do you think they should be? It would require far too much code to allow people using the template to choose the order of fields. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I would think prior actions, appealed from, appealed to and the subsequent actions, but I suppose there's so much potential variation that it would be hard to predict every possible pattern. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 07:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

looks good - but I notice that the info box on the Edwards page isn't showing the "Decision by", even though you've filled in that field? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

National emblem

Does Quebec belong in that article? I need input at that article, for clarification. GoodDay (talk) 08:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Not the way it is currently formatted, since it's an article about countries (states) and not nations. There are nations without countries of their own... like the Kurds, etc. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 07:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
It's not too late. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Another proposed deletion of a Canadian, sigh...

See William E. Andrew, chancellor of the University of Prince Edward Island, Canada. The prod has been removed. Ottawahitech (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

A standardized infobox for federated states

After a few discussions about {{Infobox province or territory of Canada}}, I'm starting to wonder if that template is even necessary. Two years ago, some users tried to merge all infoboxes of sub-federal states into {{Infobox settlement}}. Consensus ruled that doing so would not be a good idea because the sub-federal infoboxes purposefully do not include some of the features of {{Infobox settlement}} and do include other fields, such as the number of seats in the federal legislature and the date of joining the union. In those respects, the three infoboxes {{Infobox U.S. state}}, {{Infobox province or territory of Canada}}, and {{Australia state or territory}} are very similar to eachother, but they put fields in a slightly different order and look slightly different. In the interest of standardization, should we jointly create {{Infobox federated state}} to make sure that the infoboxes for states, provinces, and territories of the U.S., Canada, and Australia all keep a common design? I think that the differences that currently exist between the three templates are small enough that we could come to an agreement about how to resolve them. In order to keep replies in one place, please reply at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States#A standardized infobox for federated states. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Supreme Court Infobox

Now I have a new question: is it possible to create an information page for how to use the SCC infobox template? The court case infobox has documentation that explains how to use the different parameters, but there's no equivalent for the SCC info box, and I have no idea how to use it. (Sorry to be a pain about these things, but I'm afraid I'm rather unsophisticated technically.) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, I cannot answer your question - I am just as clueless as you claim to be :-) I wonder if this is the template you are referring to: Template:Infobox SCC? Ottawahitech (talk) 03:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
There is already a list of parameters on that template. Are there some parameters in particular that you don't understand. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Canada and POV

Would be appreciated if a few more eyes could be kept on this article - particularly admin eyes. It seems at least two people are now interested in using the article to promote their personal beliefs, in one case with particularly egregious WP:BLP violations attached. Resolute 19:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know much about this topic, but I'll try to keep an eye on editors who get up to level-4 warnings. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd rather not babysit it at all, but it was pretty obvious all along it would become a POV magnet. Wasn't expecting someone to call their opponent a racist, however. Resolute 03:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Question about house leaders

On more than one article, I've seen people claim that the Leader of the Opposition is the house counterpart of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. This seems wrong to me, I always thought of the positions as having a relationship like this:

Cross-Parliament party leaders House leaders Senate leaders
Government Prime Minister Leader of the Government in the House Leader of the Government in the Senate
Opposition Leader of the Opposition Leader of the Opposition in the House Leader of the Opposition in the Senate

At Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Canada), an IP user keeps making edits that I find a bit confusing, but I think suggest this arrangement:

House caucus-leaders House house-leaders Senate caucus-leaders Senate house-leaders
Government Prime minister Leader of the Government in the House Leader of the Government in the Senate Government deputy leader in the Senate and Government Senate whip
Opposition Leader of the Opposition Leader of the Opposition in the House Leader of the Opposition in the Senate Opposition deputy leader in the Senate and Opposition Senate whip

Which model is more accurate? Does anyone know of a good citation for this relationship? The Parliament website is not being very useful on this one. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello,
The problem seems to be one of terminology due to similarity of titles. Both the PM and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate are the parliamentary leaders in their particular chambers and therefore more analgous to one another than Opposition leader (senate) and LOinHoC (first description). The second of the two description better reflects the parliamentary roles of senators in their roles as party officers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.92.106 (talk) 03:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello Arctic Gnome,
The link inserted on the wikipedia http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Senate/Factsheets/leadership-e.htm briefly explains the roles of caucus officers in the Senate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.92.106 (talk) 04:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay. Your source doesn't exactly say that the LOinS is more analogous to the LO than the LOinH, but it does imply it. We should eventually find a source that makes it more clear. I believe that there are several other articles that imply the arrangement in the first table, so those will have to be changed as well. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Prime Minister of Canada

This article shows an individual as the PM's appointer (Michelle Jean), where's it should only show the office (Governor General of Canada) which appoints the PM. How does one change the infobox so as to replace appointed by with appointer? GoodDay (talk) 11:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, the infobox should refer to the position of the GG, not the incumbent. However, the template that we are using for that infobox (Template:Infobox minister office) codes that field as {{{person name}}} as {{{title}}}, so if we want to only include the office of the GG, we would have to get the keepers of the template to make the word "as" optional. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
except that the appointment is made in the name of Her Majesty, not in the name of the Governor General. The patents of appointment that I've seen at the provincial level state that it is Her Majesty who is appointing, and the LG is carrying it out by Her Majesty's command. I assume it's the same at the federal level. The Gov Gen does not have independent powers, but simply excercises those executive powers which are vested in Her Majesty by the Constitution. See ss. 9 & 10 of the Constitution Act, 1867. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
But, the way it is now, it create the erroneous message the Michell Jean appointed Stephen Harper. GoodDay (talk) 03:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Note that Prime Minister of the United Kingdom uses the template Template:Infobox political post, which replaces "Appointed by" with "Appointer" and removes the "as" if you name the office but not the officeholder. I think that the political post template is doing it right, and is used in a far greater number of articles. I'm not sure why the minister office template exists. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Why not change it to read: "Appointed by: The Governor General of Canada, acting on behalf of the Queen"? That would tie into into the "term length" section, which currently provides "At Her Majesty's pleasure". Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, right now the word "as" is mandatory in that field of the template, so it must always be "NAME as TITLE". That leaves us three choices if we want to only show the office-holder: (1) use a different template, like the UK article does, (2) change the current template to allow you to enter anything in that field, or (3) make the exact phrase "Governor General of Canada, acting on behalf of the Queen" an option in the template to ensure standardized wording across articles. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

For the record, the field would be entirely unnecessary in the infoboxes if it were going to be a standard generic line that contained the same information in every box. We'd be better off having no "appointed" line in the boxes at all than we would consistently putting "Governor General of Canada" without variation. Bearcat (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Cultural Properties of Quebec

I would appreciate any informed opinion, for or against, at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_December_6#Category:Cultural_Properties_of_Quebec. Thank you, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Ideas for new articles and templates

Hi! I found two things (an article and a portal) in French that don't yet have English versions:

Would anybody be interested in developing these? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The English title of the movie is Piché: The Landing of a Man (the title given by TVA Films on their DVD version of the film) 76.65.128.198 (talk) 08:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion at Talk:Canadian trademark law. Apologies if I'm misplacing this notice—please move it if there is a more appropriate place. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Air Labrador headquarters location

Hi! I look at Air Labrador's website, and the Contact us has... http://www.airlabrador.com/home/contact.htm

  • "P.O. Box 310, Stn A Happy Valley-Goose Bay, NL, A0P 1S0"

But that's only a post office box Where do I find the physical location of the head office? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 03:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Try the Industry Canada website (if it's federally incorporated) or the NL Registry of Companies. The incorporation records should have those details, otherwise check annual return filings (if they're available). Mindmatrix 16:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! It it didn't seem to be on Industry Canada, but I did find entries on the NL Registry of Companies. The entries:
Labrador Airways Ltd. - Company #44035
Incorporation: 2000-10-31
Last annual return: 2010-09-30
Registered office: 13 Duffy Place St. John's NL Canada
Mailing address: P.O. Box 13485 Station "A" St. John's NL Canada A1B 4B8
Labrador Airways Limited - Company #20668
Incorporated: 1986-10-31
Last annual return: 1999-12-31
Registered office + mailing address same as above
Labrador Airways Limited - Company #2031
Incorporation date: 1948-10-15
Last annual return: Unspecified
Registered office: MAIN HIGHWAY CHAMBERLAINS, NF
Mailing address: Unspecified
Names changed - Previous names include Newfoundland Airways Limited and Labrador Airways Limited
Is it likely that the registered office is also the head office?
I'll see if I can find annual return filings too...
Thanks
WhisperToMe (talk) 02:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Canadians "Spoken articles"

Request for a main article....Talk:Canadians#Audio Version
Looking for a copy edit of the article Canadians. It is being recorded in January as part of Wikipedia:Spoken articles and I was wondering if we could as many eyes as possible to look it over.Moxy (talk) 03:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Halifax, Nova Scotia

Halifax, Nova Scotia is currently a disambiguation page. This was not always the case. Based on discussion at Talk:Halifax, Nova Scotia, it appears to me that it is generally felt that the status quo may be confusing to most users of Wikipedia and that Halifax, Nova Scotia should point "somewhere" (I agree with the sentiments expressed in Can somebody tell me where the article on the place called Halifax in Nova Scotia is?) but exactly where appears to be contentious. --Big_iron (talk) 10:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem stems from people outside the area not understanding that the City of Halifax has ceased to exist. Halifax Regional Municipality is in essence the current "City of Halifax". Based on that particular section you link to its clear to me that they think the HRM article is about some wierd local governance and don't realize that it is the city itself. The City of Halifax article on the other hand is a historical article about the city that used to exist. But I do understand the confusion, outside the Halifax area the HRM is usually called Halifax still but it is usually called the HRM to anyone in the province. -DJSasso (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I am confused as to why we need two separate disambig pages on the same thing: Halifax and Halifax, Nova Scotia. Perhaps it would make sense to re-target Halifax, Nova Scotia to whichever page is felt to best represent what the reader is looking for, and use Halifax on the hat note? Resolute 16:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, they're not the same thing; Halifax is for all the Halifaxes around the world, whereas Halifax, Nova Scotia is for the Maple Leaf branded subset of the Halifaxes. PKT(alk) 17:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Resolute. In fact, Halifax, Nova Scotia is already redundant because every link on that page (except Halifax Harbour) is already under the Nova Scotia section of the Halifax dab page. When two pages are almost verbatim identical, they should be merged. The Halifax, Nova Scotia page should either point to the dab page, or to whatever level of municipal or country government people are most commonly referring to when they say "she's from Halifax". —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I believe that it should be kept a disambiguation page, neither the Regional Municipality or the former city is the primary topic. I don't think that the sentence "she's from Halifax" is as simple as Arctic.gnome would hope it to be. Does it mean that she has just travelled here from the Halifax Regional Municipality, or that she was born in the City of Halifax? I couldn't help but notice that City of Halifax was created by a cut and paste move, and that most of the history of Halifax, Nova Scotia actually belongs to that article. 117Avenue (talk) 05:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree that if there is no article that can clearly be called the primary article, then it should be a dab page. However, I still think that it is unnecessary to have a dab page that is identical to one sub-subsection of another dab page, so I recommend pointing Halifax, Nova Scotia to Halifax, or to Halifax#Nova Scotia if you like anchored links. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, per WP:INCOMPDAB, it should be merged. 117Avenue (talk) 03:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Now that I think about this some more, I'm not sure why we are treating Halifax, Nova Scotia differently than Vancouver. The word "Vancouver" could equally refer to the City of Vancouver or to the Greater Vancouver area. In fact, when I use the word I am usually talking about the later, yet the article is about the former. By the logic used for Halifax, shouldn't Vancouver be a dab page? —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I think Vancouver usually means the city. Every major centre has a metro, and because there is a named area, isn't enough to have a disambiguation page. Sherwood Park is in the Edmonton Capital Region, and because of their proximity, a resident of Sherwood Park may say on an out of country trip they are from Edmonton, that doesn't mean the city is no longer the primary usage. The logic I see for the Halifax Regional Municipality, is that different levels of incorporation follow different naming conventions. 117Avenue (talk) 04:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:Canadian elections/*

A template part of the Template:Canadian elections/xyz series was nominated for deletion at WP:TFD, see December 21. Most of these templates (Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Canadian elections/NLFirst) seem to be lacking in documentation, and needing to be wrapped in includeonly sections... and various cleanup. 70.24.251.113 (talk) 10:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_December_21#Template:Canadian_elections.2FNLFirst

Nominated for deletion as "Unused, purpose unclear" Bulwersator (talk) 10:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Canadian women on Wikipedia

Can any Canadian contributors help improve perspectives on Canadian women on WMF? Include information on leadership roles that Canadian women take on projects (admins, oversighters, arbs on Wikipedia, Wikiversity, Wikinews, Wikibooks in French, English and other languages) and in Wikimedia Canada, include information on the total number of women editing in certain areas, or mention areas related to Canadian women and how good or poor that content is? Or anything else related to Canadian women's involvement and coverage on WMF projects? :) --LauraHale (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Canadair CC-106 Yukon

The article Canadair CC-106 Yukon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is about a Canadian subject, but it is written, according to the talk page, with British English. Should this be changed to Canadian English? 70.24.244.248 (talk) 04:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

CanElec-series templates

several Template:CanElec### templates have been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_December_8. The concern brought up was that it is lacking in documentation. I have noticed that almost all of these templates (those nominated for deletion, and those that are not) are lacking in documentation. Someone might want to rectify that. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 06:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

We probably don't need so many nearly-identical versions of these when a few parser functions would let us merge them all. That said, someone would have to find the time to do so. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

At Template:Canadian_election_result have created a template the duplicates the functions of all of the 70-or-so existing CanElec templates. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

New Democratic Party of Canada

Category:New Democratic Party of Canada has been nominated for discussion. 117Avenue (talk) 11:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

National emblem

Does Quebec's Yellow birch, belong in that article? We need input there. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it's a list of sovereign countries, not a list of nations. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 04:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Except that some British editors insist on including the constituent countries of the UK, and one could make a good argument that Quebec is more sovereign and has more national identity than Wales. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 07:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
That's a pretty subjective argument to make, either way. Just because some British editors are insisting on buggering up the list doesn't meam that we need to contribute to the mess.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Highway 401 has been nominated as a featured article candidate

Ontario Highway 401 has been nominated as a Featured Article Candidates. Any input is welcome at the nomination page. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board/Archive_15&oldid=1166664053"