Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

Discussion regarding Ontario navboxes and categories

Please see this discussion regarding changes to the navbox template and the categorization system of all roads in Ontario. Commenting is appreciated before April 30, 2017. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 03:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Attribution missing

NOTE, Veillg1 (talk · contribs) appears to be translating articles from French Wikipedia about Canadian topics without proper attribution (lack of edit comment mentioning French Wikipedia source, no attribution template on the talk page {{translated}} ) This would seem to violate WP:CWW, WP:COPYRIGHT, and severs contribution history since it appears to be content fully made by Veillg1 and not the original writers. -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 04:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The only attribution that is required per Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate and Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Translating from other language Wikimedia projects is to comment on the first edit and optionally placing a {{Translated page}} on the talk page to supplement copyright attribution. If you know that these are translations, you could add the link in an edit comment. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Kevin O'Leary

There is an edit war over at Kevin O'Leary about him milatary service...or should I say lack there of. Again more info box drama....editor blocked....but there should be a talk.--Moxy (talk) 05:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

New article: International Boundary Commission

I have just created a new article titled International Boundary Commission, about the commission that maintains boundary markers on the boundary between the United States and Canada. It could use more work. In particular, perhaps some additional other articles should link to it. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

New terms being used on residential school article.

A new editor is using new terminology on the Battleford Industrial School article. " the society of the settlers" is being used instead of European-Canadian society (or the like) and "Notable Survivors" is being used instead of Notable alumni (or something similar). I understand what the editor is saying but is it okay to use these terms.-- Kayoty (talk) 04:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

"Notable survivors" is definitely not acceptable. Notable alumni is the normal header and is neutral. I will restore that. "society of the settlers" seems OK, but is not very descriptive. I'll leave that one in pending any more discussion. Meters (talk) 04:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Political infoboxes

The Right Honourable Sir John A. Macdonald GCB KCMG PC PC (Can) QC
1st Prime Minister of Canada
In office July 1, 1867 – November 5, 1873
Monarch	Victoria
Governors‑General	The Viscount Monck The Lord Lisgar The Earl of Dufferin
Preceded by	Office established (see Canadian Confederation)
Succeeded by	Alexander Mackenzie
In office October 17, 1878 – June 6, 1891
Monarch	Victoria
Governors‑General	The Earl of Dufferin Marquess of Lorne The Marquess of Lansdowne The Lord Stanley of Preston
Preceded by	Alexander Mackenzie
Succeeded by	John Abbott
Leader of the Opposition
In office November 6, 1873 – October 16, 1878
Monarch	Victoria
Prime Minister	Alexander Mackenzie
Preceded by	Alexander Mackenzie
Succeeded by	Alexander Mackenzie
Leader of the Conservative Party Leader of the Upper Canada Tories (1856-1867) Leader of the Liberal-Conservative Party (1867-1873)
In office May 24, 1856 – June 6, 1891
Preceded by	Allan MacNab
Succeeded by	John Abbott
Premier of Canada West
In office May 24, 1856 – August 2, 1858
Monarch	Victoria
Preceded by	Allan MacNab
Succeeded by	George Brown
In office August 6, 1858 – May 24, 1862
Monarch	Victoria
Preceded by	George Brown
Succeeded by	John Sandfield Macdonald
In office May 30, 1864 – June 30, 1867
Monarch	Victoria
Preceded by	John Sandfield Macdonald
Succeeded by	Office disestablished (see Canadian Confederation)
Minister of Justice Attorney General of Canada
In office July 1, 1867 – November 5, 1873
Preceded by	Himself
Succeeded by	Antoine-Aimé Dorion
Minister of Colonial Militia and Defence
In office 1860–1867
Preceded by	Étienne-Paschal Taché
Succeeded by	George-Étienne Cartier
Attorney General of Canada West
In office 1854–1862
Preceded by	William Buell Richards
Succeeded by	John Sandfield Macdonald
In office 1864–1867
Preceded by	John Sandfield Macdonald
Succeeded by	John Sandfield Macdonald (Attorney General of Ontario)
Member of the Canadian Parliament for Kingston
In office November 6, 1867 – September 17, 1878
Preceded by	Office established
Succeeded by	Alexander Gunn
In office February 22, 1887 – June 6, 1891
Preceded by	Alexander Gunn
Succeeded by	James Henry Metcalfe
Member of the Canadian Parliament for Victoria
In office September 17, 1878 – June 20, 1882
Preceded by	Francis James Roscoe
Succeeded by	Noah Shakespeare
Member of the Canadian Parliament for Carleton
In office June 20, 1882 – February 1, 1888
Preceded by	John Rochester
Succeeded by	George Lemuel Dickinson
Member of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada for Kingston
In office October, 1844 – June, 1866
Preceded by	Anthony Manahan
Succeeded by	Office disestablished
Personal details
Born	John Alexander Macdonald January 11, 1815 Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
Died	6 June 1891(1891-06-06) (aged 76) Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Resting place	Cataraqui Cemetery, Kingston, Ontario
Political party	Conservative
Other political affiliations	Upper Canada Tories (1843-1867) Liberal-Conservative (1867-1873)
Spouse(s)	Isabella Clark ​ ​ (m. 1843;  1857)​ Agnes Bernard ​ ​ (m. 1867;  1891)​
Children	3
Profession	Lawyer
Signature
Delegate to the Charlottetown Conference
In office September 1, 1864 – September 9, 1864
Constituency	Province of Canada
Delegate to the Quebec Conference
In office October 12, 1864 – October 27, 1864
Constituency	Province of Canada
Chairman of the London Conference
In office December 4, 1866 – July 1, 1867
Monarch	Victoria
Military career
Nickname(s)	"Old Tomorrow" "Old Chieftain"
Allegiance	Upper Canada
Service / branch	Loyalist militia
Years of service	1837–1838
Rank	Private
Unit	Kingston militia
Battles / wars	Rebellions of 1837 Upper Canada Rebellion

Was just cleaning up the infobox at John A. Macdonald...see Talk:John A. Macdonald#Infobox and was thinking we should add to our MoS that we only list the highest office they were in.--Moxy (talk) 22:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree, with the caveat that we should include a lower office if something notable occurred for the subject while in that role. For instance, Paul Martin was minister of finance for a sufficient period and introduced budgets that I would expect to see it listed alongside prime minister. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree that in some cases its ok .......as you can see the info box is overwhelming and not good for mobile accessibility. How should we word this for the MoS --Moxy (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Another case would be Pearson's service as External Affairs minister, he won the Nobel Prize. But agree, short is best.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

No, the infobox should list any political position that would be normally expected to be present in the infobox. If we listed only the most notable position, for example, then where would we place Macdonald's predecessor and successor for the riding where he was an MP, or his predecessor and successor as premier of the pre-Confederation Province of Canada? Bearcat (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Predecessor for prime minister of Canada? The point is otherwise well taken. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Wait sec Bearcat you saying the infobox here is ok? Look at it with phone as 50% of our readers do.....this type of problem is being talked about at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#First 2.5 paragraphs of the lead--Moxy (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm saying where else do his predecessor and successor in the "less" notable roles go if they're not in the infobox? The answer to that is neither "nowhere" nor "reinstate the deprecated old succession footer boxes" — the identification of Alexander Gunn as Macdonald's successor as MP for Kingston is required to be present in Macdonald's article, in exactly the same format and the same location as Macdonald's identification as Gunn's predecessor is present in Gunn's article, and that requirement is not up for debate: if it goes in Gunn's infobox, it goes in Macdonald's too, and the only alternative to that is some completely new format that gets it out of all infoboxes while still ensuring that it's consistently present in all articles in the same new place and form. Sure, it's important to give consideration to the fact that so many people are now reading Wikipedia on smartphones, but that cannot be at the expense of consistency of presentation of essential information.

Is there, for example, a way that we could force the mobile version of Wikipedia to collapse an infobox until the user chooses to expand it, instead of trying to strip important details from the infobox itself? Mobile has also caused a wild uptick in people thinking that a Wikipedia article is supposed to be formatted introduction first then infobox after that even on the main website, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't still correct that when we see it. Bearcat (talk) 22:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Bearcat: Wouldn't succession be better handled with succession boxes at the bottom of the page? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

No. Those are (a) deprecated, and (b) ugly as sin, and under WP:TCREEP the base principle is to minimize the number of templates that an article has to contain rather than adding even more. A new way might be theoretically possible, but simply undeprecating the old succession footers isn't the way to go. For an example of why that's a bad idea, look at Ray Frenette, where his roles as premier and MLA for Moncton West are in the infobox but all of his other political titles are still succession-footered, literally to the point that the table of succession footers is actually longer than the body of the article — that's nothing for any other article to aspire to, because it's just bloody hideous. The only reason I haven't poleaxed it there is what the funk am I supposed to do with all of that, when it exceeds even the maximum positional capacity of the infobox code? And at any rate, if the goal is to reduce page bulk for mobile readers, replacing the infoboxes with an even bulkier substitute obviously isn't the right solution. Bearcat (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Another alternative suggestion: recode the infobox so that the position sections are collapsible, so that the information is present there but unobtrusive unless a reader chooses to open them? I know it's possible, because city infoboxes offer the capability to collapse the lists of MPs, MPPs/MLAs and city councillors serving the city so that they're present but not displayed unless the user chooses to do that.

All of this said, I will grant that Macdonald's infobox doesn't need to include his delegateships to the constitutional conferences. That, I'll acknowledge as just silly overkill. Bearcat (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I am simply not convinced that our readers need or want to see and scroll through links to 20 different people before any real info on the man himself. Helping with navigation is fine ..but not when it impends real bio info. Will have to disagree on this one....as to me we are talking about stuff that should be seen last on the page not the fist thing. -- Moxy (talk) 01:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Putting it last on the page makes it look like the Ray Frenette article — which is, again, a strong candidate for just about the last thing any Wikipedia article should ever be allowed to look like. Again, there may be some new alternative that can be devised with smartphone users in mind — but undeprecating the old succession footers, so that articles are made to look like Ray Frenette again, is simply not on. Bearcat (talk) 03:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem with the succession boxes in the Ray Frenette article. How could putting all that in an infobox possibly be an improvement? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Replacing the entire article with the text of La Marseillaise would be an improvement over a grotesquely ugly table of succession footers the approximate size of a Russian novel. Bearcat (talk) 03:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

What kind of response is this? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The kind that represents a person's legitimate view on a serious matter, even if he is sticking his tongue a little bit in his cheek.Bearcat (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

It's unhelpful noise that tells us no more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Bearcat: can you point me to where succession boxes were deprecated? I have to agree with Moxy—succession is not what infoboxes were ever supposed to be about, and were originally designed to be floated, which doesn't happen on mobile. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Some Wikiproject talk page a good decade ago at least. I ain't spending the next eighteen hours of my life trying to track it down. I've said it before, but I'll repeat it again — if somebody's got a new alternative in mind whereby succession information can be moved out of the infoboxes without making the articles look like Ray Frenette's, I'm all ears. But simply undeprecating the old succession footers and moving all succession information back down to them gets you an article that looks like Ray Frenette's. Bearcat (talk) 03:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Bearcat: But we're just supposed to "know" that? Not that I distrust you, but I'm not about to simply take your word. The fact that succession boxes continue to proliferate says the deprecation hasn't gone well. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and that proliferation makes articles look like Ray Frenette's. That's the point I'd like to see you actually consider and address: for a politician who has as many political positions and successions to list as Macdonald does, reinstituting the succession footers makes the article look like Ray Frenette, and it's flatly impossible for it not to. Again, I'm willing to discuss new alternatives that address the Ray Frenette problem, but it's a problem that has to be addressed and so far you seem to simply be ignoring it. You can't possibly think that Ray Frenette is a reasonable model for what an article should look like — go actually look at it, if you haven't yet as I suspect. Bearcat (talk) 03:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Bearcat: I don't know why you would suspect that. I have absolutely no problem with how it looks, and you've yet to give us a reason why cramming it all into an infobox would improve it in any way—particularly in light of the mobile issue. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I do have a problem with how it looks, and I completely fail to understand how any reasonable person could possibly not — and even if you don't, your view does not trump mine. That table is, at the very least, (a) ugly, (b) obtrusive, and (c) a violation of the principle of creeping templatitis (and I'll probably have five more bad things to say about it tomorrow morning once I've slept on it, to boot.) And kindly note that I didn't say converting all of that to infobox would be an improvement either — the body text of the article is so short that infoboxing it all would be a festival of vacant whitespace, not to mention that the infobox doesn't even have the coding capacity to hold all of that. But if there's one thing that table most certainly is not, "an improvement over the infobox" is that thing. If there's a solution here at all, it's some new design method which is neither "infobox" nor "reinstating the old succession footers if an article that looks like Ray Frenette's is the result". Bearcat (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

So you've got a thing about the aesthetics of succesion boxes? Seriously, I'm having trouble figuring out exactly what actionable problem you have here, and the discuccion is getting further and further from the topic of discussion. The succession boxes are well organized, functional, and out fo the way of the main body of the article, so they don't interfere with the mobile view or the desktop article (whictespace, etc, as you point out). I honestly don't see where your actual argument that they are a worse solution than infoboxing is. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

You don't get to dismiss my concerns as "non-actionable" just because they don't happen to align with what you care about. Wikipedia does have policies and guidelines about aesthetic expectations, to make sure that content is not organized in a way that makes readers not want to read the article because it looks unappealing — that is, for example, why we have rules about where images can or cannot be placed, why we have rules about keeping navbox and infobox formatting relatively standardized, why we have rules about breaking a long article up into sections, why we have rules about not overloading an article with templates, it's why "whitespace" is an issue that could be raised in this discussion in the first place, and on and so forth. We do have certain design principles that we're expected to follow — they are not "non-actionable" issues just because you don't happen to shive a git. The succession footer table in Frenette's article is excessively long and violates numerous Wikipedia principles of what an article is supposed to look like — and it is obtrusive, because regardless of whether you're viewing the page on a computer or a mobile device you may not have to scroll through all of that mess to read the body text, but you do still have to scroll through all of that mess to get to the categories if you need to. You're free to not personally care about the aesthetics of a Wikipedia article, or the category maintenance needs — but you're not free to decree that anybody's issues with it are illegitimate ones just because they aren't what you care about.

And again, I've said more than once that I was open to discussing an alternate solution that addressed both your concerns and mine. Like, maybe there's even a way to make succession footers smaller and less obtrusive, so that they can be used without turning the whole page into a Frenette fiasco — or a way to collapse the information in the infobox, so that the size and scroll time of the infobox in mobile view can be reduced without having to implement a solution that isn't an improvement. But instead of trying to work toward a real solution, you seem way more interested in simply dismissing the notion that I have any valid concerns to address in the first place.

And hey, let's not get started on articles where the person was notable in two different fields of endeavour, such as Carla Qualtrough, that end up containing two parallel infoboxes for different subsets of her overall notability...also a thing we need to, y'know, solve somehow. Bearcat (talk) 06:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

"You don't get to dismiss my ...": You've gotten awfully heated over this, Bearcat, and are reading things into my comments that aren't there. I have no idea how to approach a discussion with you. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Just like to point out that succession footers are one of the few nav templates that are seen in mobile view. Needless to say the community is trying to address infobox data overload and this is a great example of what we should not do. Making our readers scroll through so much info before even seeing a word of propose text is the exact opposite of what we should be doing.--Moxy (talk) 05:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Bearcat. The succession boxes at the bottom are generally ugly and unwieldy. Keeping the information, and using the collapse function like in Winston Churchill would preserve the information and avoid forcing all the information on the reader unless requested. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Funny Winston Churchill is one of the examples at the debate on what to do..... in mobile view there is no collapse option. We need is that debate to conclude with the collapse option for mobile view. All are aware that at the bottom of all articles there is a mobileview option. Don't need to have a phone to see what 50% of our readers see.Moxy (talk) 05:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The point is that all offices of sufficient importance should be in the infobox, because that's information readers will expect there. Collapsing not being in mobile view is a reason to fix (our admittedly bad) mobile view, not hack valuable information out of articles. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Patar knight: Please explain how putting this information into the infobox gets over the "ugly and unwieldy" problem. Navboxes are also collapsible, thought there's less of a reason to as they don't obstruct the text. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Succession footers are neither "navboxes" nor collapsible. The only collapsible element on Ray Frenette's entire page, for example, is the "Premiers of New Brunswick" template that follows the insanely overlong table of uncollapsible succession footers. Bearcat (talk) 06:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

You really think it's better jamming all that information into the infobox, thus making our readers have to scroll and scroll is better idea? Was thinking adding a note to our MoS about not making our readers do this was common sense and would be a note for new editors....I was off.--Moxy (talk) 06:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

You really think it's better jamming all that information into an excessively long buffet table of succession footers like Ray Frenette's instead, as if that was somehow not "making readers scroll and scroll" also? As if, frex, nobody ever had any legitimate reason to get all the way down to the categories at the end? Bearcat (talk) 06:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

"Succession footers are neither "navboxes" nor collapsible": they sure are: {{S-start-collapsible}}---and have been since 2007, no less.

"You really think it's better jamming all that information"---yes, I do.

"making readers scroll and scroll": a vanishingly small number of readers expect to see this information on the first screen of the article, and a large percentage are aware they're at the bottom, which they can get to with the "End" button. This is not only reasonable, it's what I'd expect from an article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The infobox lists the most important offices they held, which is information expected by readers. AFAIK, there's no evidence what % of readers are aware of succession boxes at the bottom of the page, but it's surely less than the % of readers aware of infoboxes at the top of pages, which are nearly ubiquitous in any decent article. Depending on the "End" button both assumes readers know what that key does and have one, which isn't necessarily true given that many people are very technologically illiterate and many people use Macs or mobile devices. Even if 100% of our readers regularly used the "End" key, it's less convenient than having the information at the top. That information though, should be restricted to the most important offices though (e.g. the delegate positions should go) and ideally be collapsed if unwieldy.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The solution on Churchill is pretty great, and would be better if adapted for mobile view. It preserves key information at the top where it should be, without being too long. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Klondike Trail

I noticed Klondike Trail but I'ven't heard of this one. The one I've heard of is the one from the coast of Alaska (Skagway and Dyea) to Dawson from the Klondike Gold Rush days. This article has a onesource tag, while the other route seems to be missing an article (we have articles on two portions of that trail, Chilkoot Trail and Dead Horse Trail) -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 07:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikimania 2017 in Montréal

Wikimania 2017

This year, Wikimania is happening in Montréal, from August 11 to 13, and for the Hackathon and the Sourcethon, from August 9 to 10! You want to give us a hand? We need YOU as a volunteer!

Contact Antoine2711 at abeaubien@wikimedia.ca.

Come make a difference with a great team of passionate Wiki people.

--Antoine2711 (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Coincidentally, it's the 375th anniversary of the founding of Montreal in 2017 -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 07:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Harperism

Funny to see this back...was deleted years ago in favour of Premiership of Stephen Harper as Wikipedia is not dictionary of terms...at best we can merge this one paragraph into the main article.-- Moxy (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Weatheradio Canada logo

The current logo on Wikipedia for Weatheradio Canada shows Environment and Climate Change Canada. That logo is not the correct logo, and should reflect the actual logo of Weatheradio Canada as shown here. I attempted to change the logo myself, but was unable to! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.166.233.2 (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not clear what the image is, but there instructions for uploading files at Help:Files, but if the logo is copyrighted, it can't be uploaded. Once it's on the project, we can then apply it to the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

CA wikidata

(@Frietjes: I continued the discussion here for wider input)

As per the discussion above (#2016 census data and Wikidata), let's create a template to retrieve wikidata for use in {{infobox settlement}} templates. The following properties should be included as a start in {{CA wikidata|property name}}:

• area_code
• area
• capital_of
• commons
• country
• province
• elevation_m
• established_date or founded
• image_skyline
• image_caption
• image_flag
• image_seal
• image_shield
• image_map
• image_map1
• map_caption
• map_caption1
• iso_region or iso_code or coordinates_region
• leader_name
• motto
• nickname1
• official_name
• population_as_of
• population_demonym or demonym
• population_point_in_time
• population_total
• postal_code
• website

Next step would be to populate these properties in Wikidata. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada

Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada (new article). Should we just redirect this to List of Canadian conservative leaders as this old article explains the different parties. Basiclly the new article seems to simply omit the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada time period. What do others think here ? -- Moxy (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Only the images and inclusion of the Reform and Alliance parties are different in the new article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done ...I went ahead an redirected this. Older article links to all the sub articles. Not a good idea to change the links all over to a page with less info and less ability to navigate the topic at hand. Simply was not a productive edit. --Moxy (talk) 12:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Where do I get the Climate charts for articles about a community in Ontario?

Good morning, I am working to improve many of the articles about Ontario communities (small and mid size) such as Kingston, Ontario. Often, these do not have a Climate chart.

Many others do, that they were obviously obtained from the same source. But where do I get them? Could anyone provide instructions on how to find, copy and insert?

Thanks, Peter K Burian (talk) 13:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Likely somewhere on environment Canada's website. Have you checked there? I started with one of the articles on my watchlist. I clicked through to the climate section. There was a reference present. I clicked on it. I went up one level to http://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_normals/index_e.html so that is likely the place to start. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Peter K Burian: The IP that does most of these uses this site that is sourced to Environment Canada. But the ip uses one of these pages as the source for his addition.--Moxy (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

ok, thanks Walter and Moxy; in the next few days, I'll try to find time to figure it out. Peter K Burian (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Dominion of Canada (1867–1982)

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

New fake era article Dominion of Canada (1867–1982) just copy of other articles no researcher invested . What to do this time? Redirect/delete?--Moxy (talk) 05:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Could probably be deleted under A10 (recent creation of an article which duplicates an existing topic). Unlikely search term, redirect is not a plausible search term. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 06:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Which other articles? I searched for phrases and found none. I suppose if it's all addressed in a specific article, we redirect it to that one, but it seems to be gathering info from several and points back to them.

Is there a gap here or is there an article that discusses this period of Canadian history in a one or more articles? Is an overview needed? Is this covered in the Canada article? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

yup we have articles that cover this period.--Moxy (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The history section is made up of the leads of the articles linked in the "main article" section. Canadian Confederation, Military history of Canada during World War I, and Military history of Canada during World War II. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 06:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

In that case, {{Uw-copying}} should be posted to CL's talk page and it should be made clear what the problem is. The text of the warning reads:

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from {page name}; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {copied} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you.

I would invite CL to discuss here or on the article's talk page if you think it would get anywhere. For the number of issues that CL has caused, we may want to discuss with ANI or another admin board to see if they have any advice. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

My main concern is that there is no verification going on....just copy and paste. I think he's a sock....but will do more investigation before I bring this up at the ANI-Moxy (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

BACKLOG OF THE WEEK

Category:Canadian musical groups missing province or territory--Moxy (talk) 12:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done.....thanks for the help everyone .....1 left proposed for deletion.--Moxy (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Do we number the premiers?

Just curious, do we number the premiers? At the article John Buchanan (who was Nova Scotia's 20th premier, serving from 1978 to 1990), @Mewulwe: seems to think not. GoodDay (talk) 13:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a pre-Wikipedia source that describes him as such? Mewulwe (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we commonly number the premiers. Examples are easily found. PKT(alk) 14:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Uh, if "we" means Wikipedia, of course. GoodDay himself added most of them. But the question surely is, is it a fixed practice in Canada in the same way U.S. presidents are numbered? Surely not. The only references to numbered premiers of Nova Scotia I find on Google Books contradict each other, with both Buchanan and MacLellan referred to as 24th premiers,[1] with no hits at all for any other number. This clearly indicates that those two cases were just arbitrary counts, which naturally depending on the counting system can yield different numbers. There is zero evidence of a fixed system, and arbitrary numbers don't belong in infoboxes. Mewulwe (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

WHY are you only deleting from Buchanan, while leaving the numbering for all the other NS premiers? GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

As many sources describe Stephen McNeil as the 28th premier, then counts back to Buchanan being the 20th. Note that Nova Scotia counts Mcdonald twice (12th and 14th), as he's served non-consecutive terms. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, I suggest you check the edit history of the NS premiers-in-question. Last month, an IP messed up their numberings. I've just restored them as they were. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Because you're reverting, as I told you before. I'm just sending a signal. Only once you finally stop the insanity, can things be cleaned up. Why do you think sources describe McNeil as the 28th and no such earlier numbering can be found? Because everyone mindlessly copies from Wikipedia. And where does "Nova Scotia" count Macdonald twice? Seems to me it's just whoever numbered the Wikipedia list who did it. Mewulwe (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

So, all the news people who describe McNeil as the 28th premier of Nova Scotia, are doing so because of Wikipedia? I recommend you seek a consensus to get the numbering system removed from all provincial/territorial premiers. Leaving on the Canadian Prime Ministers numbered. GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I've asked @Moxy: to weigh in. He's got a better handle on this stuff. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mewulwe, wrote, "But the question surely is, is it a fixed practice in Canada in the same way U.S. presidents are numbered? Surely not." Absolutely it is normal practice, and not just for provincial Premiers. As I responded earlier, examples abound. I have yet to find a provincial Premier (or a Lieutenant Governor or Governor-General) whose ordinal number isn't indicated in their article and/or infobox. And if there is one whose ordinal number isn't there, I would add it. PKT(alk) 00:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

You seem to have a hard time reading. You're even quoting what I say only to ignore it and repeat your point about practice on Wikipedia rather than practice in Canada. Mewulwe (talk) 08:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

First, don't be insulting, it doesn't help your case nor build consensus. Yes, I ran over your point - we typically don't refer to the ordinal numbers of major public/political figures in day-to-day conversation in Canada. Wikipedia, however, is a global reference work; it is not meant to reflect day-to-day conversation, it is meant to keep track of minutia that people can refer back to when they want to check on details. PKT(alk) 14:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, if these numbers were objective facts, there would be no problem. But they depend on arbitrary numbering systems. Mewulwe (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mewulwe:Have you tried to look? There are many lists like list of premiers of British Columbia and all you have to do is click on the individual entries to see what the entries look like. The spot check I made shows that for BC it does (except those that have served multiple, nonconsecutive terms. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

See above. Mewulwe (talk) 08:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I can't find a numbered source Province of Nova Scotia, - canadianencyclopedia.\ - PARLIAMENT of CANADA....that said...does this fall under WP:CALC? Do people dispute that so and so was the 12th or whatever ect...?--Moxy (talk) 06:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not WP:CALC. Different counting systems lead to different numbers. And in any case it shouldn't be put in the infobox in a way that gives the false impression of it being an official or common practice equivalent to the U.S. presidents' numbers. Mewulwe (talk) 08:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Many sources have McNeil as the 28th premier, Dexter as the 27th premier, etc. It doesn't take a genius to figure out the Macdonald is counted twice, to bring the numbering up to 28. Mewulwe, if you're so opposed to numbering on Infoboxes, then open up an Rfc for the entire Wikipedia. Right now, under your argument, numberings should be deleted from all the Canadian provicinal/territorial premiers infoboxes. Your opening up a Wikipedia-wide Rfc on this matter, would be less time consuming, then your creating these mountains out of molehills per article disputes. GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes they should be all deleted, so why are you adding more instead? We had a central discussion before, hence [2]. Mewulwe (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I DID NOT add the numberings. I merely RESTORED the numberings, that used to be there. IF you're so sure of yourself? then go ahead and DELETE the numberings from ALL the Canadian provincial & territorial premiers infoboxes. PS: Don't be too surprised, if others revert your deletions, though. GoodDay (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Restoring them is as good as adding them in the first place. So someone did what you're asking me to do - remove all the numbers. And yet you restored them. So I'm not wasting my time removing dozens of numbers, since indeed "others" (i.e. you) will revert me. But I'll keep removing individual numbers as I come across them. Mewulwe (talk) 23:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Removing them because a pre-Wikipedia source cannot be found is not a valid reason to remove them though. Wikipedia relies on RSes. We cannot determine whether they are using Wikipedia or not. We must trust that they have editorial oversight.

Removing them from all provinces because there may be some ambiguity in one province is also not a valid solution. Read: don't drag the rest of the country into your quarrel.

If sources can be found that give numbering, COUNT is appropriate to work backward. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Blind reliance on supposed RSs is stupid, when it is often more than clear they are copying from Wikipedia. We can't effectively cite ourselves and then put the blame on others. Of course every entity has to be looked at individually, but it is an issue that is affecting not only all of Canada but the world, and the fact is that outside of the U.S., this whole practice of numbering officeholders is exceedingly rare. Mewulwe (talk) 10:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Stupid? The foundation of Wikipedia is stupid. Great. I stopped reading after that. WP:BURDEN is on you to show that they are copying from Wikipedia and you can't do it. WP:STICK applies. Add the numbers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Gee, I wasn't aware that "blind reliance on supposed RSs" is the foundation of Wikipedia. I thought WP:IAR was more foundational. You are only proving my point with your blockheaded sticking to some rule even where it leads to manifestly absurd results. Since it is naturally almost impossible to prove that any particular source is copying from Wikipedia, you just put your head in the sand and pretend this doesn't happen. It is more than sufficient evidence if numbers can only be found for Wikipedia-age officeholders and practically none before. Mewulwe (talk) 11:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Open up a discussion at a Wikipedia-wide forum, if you don't like the way things are done. Your practice of 'edit warring' on individual articles to make a WP:POINT is disruptive. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

We've been there. The policy is in place, you're ignoring it. Mewulwe (talk) 10:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Wow. Ignoring reliable source by stating that we have a "blind reliance" on them and stating that they are supposedly reliable sounds a lot like original researc to me. Tackling the second first. If you don't think a source is reliable, take it to WP:RSN. If you want RS changed, take it there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Mewulwe, again STOP removing the numbering from John Buchanan's article. You're merely being disruptive at this point. GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a few more inputs, say from @Resolute:, @Bearcat:, @Djsasso:, @Moxy: etc. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Mewulwe, consensus seems to be against you here. Until you can prove the sources are not reliable, you should not be changing this.

I would ague that if you don't stop, the next option for the community would be to request a topic ban on Nova Scotia premiers (a fairly narrow topic). Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm honestly indifferent on whether we number premiers or not. Consequently, my position would be to retain status quo. I will add that IAR is not a valid justification for removing them in this instance, however. Resolute 00:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject and related task forces have signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post on Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/Popular pages.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding reach of WikiProject Philosophy, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at meta:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, The Community Tech Team, through Johan (WMF) (talk) 11:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Senate Conservative Caucus

The page Senate Conservative Caucus has popped up today. I have proposed it for deletion since this caucus is in no ways independent or autonomous from the main Conservative parliamentary caucus, but is actually part of it, unlike the Senate Liberal Caucus which is not recognized by the main Liberal Party. Charles lindberg (talk) 00:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

While I agree with the PROD, in that the article is unsourced and should be slightly more substantial. That the Senate Conservative Caucus is not independent or autonomous from the main Conservative parliamentary caucus is not my understanding. That was the case when the Mike Duffy affair happened. The Senate Conservative Caucus sat separately, but they did answer to the PM (and possibly the PMO). Is there some support for their ties to the house caucus? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The Senate Conservative Caucus is a component of the larger Conservative parliamentary caucus, but it also meets on its own and elects its own officers. For example, on March 28, Senate Conservatives elected Larry Smith as their leader, and is able to expel members as per this article. The article is a stub that needs sourcing, otherwise, it can be merged with Conservative Party of Canada. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 01:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The recent Stephen Greene incident shows that the Senate Conservative Caucus can make news independent of the overall party. I would rather the article be merged to a Conservative parliamentary caucus article (if one exists) then to the main CPC one, since we shouldn't stuff every possibly notable Conservative thing onto there. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Of course they will act autonomously on some issues such as electing a leader in their chamber the same house elected Candice Bergen as opposition house leader, but they do not drive separate policies from the CPC. They are not at all independent the way the Senate Liberals are. Charles lindberg (talk) 02:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if one is independent of the other at all. As long as it passes the WP:GNG, for which recent and earlier news coverage would almost certainly suffice, it's a valid article. I fail to see why this content on the history of Conservative Senators and their leadership elections should clutter up the main CPC page. We're not obligated to shove every little detail about Conservatism in Canada there when they can be validly spun-off as their own articles.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Two editors have removed the PROD and Charles keeps putting it back. If you want a deletion discussion please open an AFD. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 02:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

It's there because of the discussion going on here, and one prominent user (Walter Görlitz) has already agreed it should stay there. Charles lindberg (talk) 02:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

If there's a discussion going on then there needs to be an AFD. PRODs are only if the deletion is not controversial (ie no discussion needed). It's not that complicated. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 02:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion "PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected. It must never be used simultaneously with a deletion discussion" - is that clear enough for you? The fact that there is a "discussion going on" in not a reason to keep a PROD in place, it's actually a reason for removing it and proceeding with an AFD instead. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 02:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it may be best Charles gets a mentor as they seem to have problems all over.--Moxy (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

PMs in the infoboxes of Opposition leaders

IMHO, the prime minister should be excluded from the infobox of the leaders of the opposition section. The Leader of the Opposition is not a member of the cabinet & so shouldn't be treated as a cabinet minister. GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Infobox: links to PM & their numbering

Howdy. @Discospinster: has been linking both the Prime Ministers office & its numbering to just one link - List of Prime Ministers of Canada. For years, we've had separate links - the numbering to the List article & the office to Prime Minister of Canada. Which should we go with? GoodDay (talk) 02:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The former, per MOS:LINK. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I adopted what you did with some of the governors general infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 04:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Term limits

Over the past few weeks, an anonymous IP has been persistently adding content to our article on Ottawa city councillor Allan Hubley, concerning his early pledge when he was elected in 2010 to only serve two terms in office and criticizing him for not openly reaffirming that promise 1.5 years ahead of the 2018 municipal election. And further, both their writing tone and the placement of the information right in the introduction directly imply that this lack of reaffirmation is one of the most salient and important facts that a reader would need to know about Hubley, more important than even his anti-bullying work following his son's suicide.

But for one thing, obviously very few politicians would ever announce their intentions to run again or not barely halfway through their term in office — that's normally a thing you announce one way or the other a few months before the election campaign, not a few years before. And for another, if he does decide in 2018 to go back on his pledge and run for a third term on council, it's for his voters to decide whether that's an issue or not, not us. Simply put, it's an WP:NPOV violation for Wikipedia to maintain any content about such trivial piffle at all yet — if he does decide to run for a third term, and a voter backlash against him for that gets into the news, then it would become appropriate for us to maintain some neutral, non-commentary content about that backlash. But the anonymous IP appears to be trying to stir a preemptive backlash against the possibility a full year before any reasonable person would actually expect Hubley to announce his intentions one way or the other, and that's not an appropriate use of Wikipedia.

I've reverted their changes several times now, and applied temporary sprot to keep anonymous IPs off the page for the time being, but (a) it's nowhere near serious enough to justify permanent protection, and (b) the anon has already tried to sneak around the sprot by registering the inflammatory username "Bearcatisstupid" (I've already blocked that account for violating username policy, but they may try again under other usernames.) But I've been the only person who's ever actually caught this when it happened, so I wanted to ask if anybody else is willing to add the article to their watchlists to monitor for it. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 12:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I've added Allan Hubley to my watchlist. PKT(alk) 13:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Another one for the watchlisters

Following the Elliott Moglica situation a few months ago, in which Moglica himself used extensive sockpuppetry to try to defend his own self-created promotional WP:AUTOBIO and was editblocked accordingly, an anonymous IP has started trying to readd Moglica's name to the list of alumni of Niagara College again (which he also tried to do numerous times before the article actually existed in the first place, despite being told more than once that the list wasn't allowed to contain redlinks.) I've already applied an editblock on the basis of the Moglica SPI, but of course other IP numbers may also try to do the same thing ($6 per month to a VPN provider is all it takes, and his persistence about it in the past strongly implies that he won't just stop this time either.) So is anybody willing to add Niagara College to their watchlists to monitor for this? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

It's on my watchlist and Moglica is on my radar. freshacconci (✉) 15:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The more the merrier...grin Bearcat (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Plans to update page for Chartered Professional Accountant

Along with other work I'm doing for Canadian pages, I'm planning to start an overhaul of the Chartered Professional Accountant page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartered_Professional_Accountant) given how out of date the information is and how complicated the merger has been. If anyone has feedback or suggestions as I work my way through the details, I'd be happy to collaborate and discuss. SaturnsRings27 (talk) 08:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

New templates for politics

We have new redundant templates being made again. Template:Justin Trudeau series-Template:Andrew Scheer series-Template:Elizabeth May series ....these type of boxes have been deleted by this project in the past.......as simply regurgitation of info in the main box and the fact it causes (in mobile view) readers to have to scroll even more before the lead is seen. I personally think our infoboxs on politicians are already overwhelmed with info......last thing we need is a second box regurgitating the same info, links and images. What do others think of theses redundant infoboxs .......should we spam them all over or nip this in the butt? We all like pretty boxes...but does it help or just repeat stuff?--Moxy (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I think for some of them it could be seen as spam and it is not that helpful, however for the Stephen Harper one, it does include a lot valuable information in a neat way that's easy to read and understand. Like the links to pages about his term as Prime Minister of Canada. As well as his elections, and the merger that he accomplished while leader of the Alliance. None of this is available in the infobox. I agree with Moxy, that this is probably just useless spam for people like Scheer and May since they haven't really done anything that can't be accurately shown in an infobox, however I don't think the same can be said for Harper or Trudeau. Charles lindberg (talk) 00:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, about the mobile view thing, these don't show up in mobile view, its a sidebar. Charles lindberg (talk) 00:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

What I see is a bit of Wikipedia:Gaming the system ...after #Political infoboxes was clear with no consensus to spam all links in the infobox you have now created a new type of box that goes under the infobox to by-pass the no consensus and link everything...we have bottom templates for this purpose. Thinking a mentor might help with all the conflicts your in all over. Its not normal that over 60 percent of an editors edits are contested.--Moxy (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Will these be used in one article or many? If one, then they don't need to be templates at all. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I can speak for Charles...but the Americans have them in every related article see here. Perhaps they can be used in this manner but just not on main pages that have infioboxs already. My main concern is boxes over propose text. Editors involved in creating great leads and source propose text are not a fan of overhauling our readers with boxes over propose text.--Moxy (talk) 01:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Another reason not to be an American. Or two, depends how you count. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

LOL.....they do lots of template spam click show at Meryl Streep#External links....just nuts.,--Moxy (talk) 01:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I think they should go on major articles associated directly with the person where they can be of most value, like Premiership of Justin Trudeau, and Domestic policy of the Stephen Harper government, etc. nothing frivolous. Charles lindberg (talk) 04:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I would advocate a moderate use of the sidebar the way it is used for Theresa May, Malcolm Turnbull, and Matteo Renzi rather than excessive use of the U.S. politician series'. Charles lindberg (talk) 04:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Merger Discussion

Formal request has been received to merge: McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom into Burano (building); dated: 15 May 2017. Proposer's Rationale: ...the creator of the McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom article strongly objects ... this may require a third party to determine consensus. Discussion is at Talk:McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom#Merger proposal. Discuss here. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 17:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

2nd Ministry of Sir John A. Macdonald?

Are we going out of our way to confuse people? 3rd Canadian Ministry called 2nd Ministry of Sir John A. Macdonald? Anyone ever seen this name structure before?--Moxy (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

That article page move should be reverted back to 3rd Canadian Ministry. The editor who moved it, has been making quite a few changes in Canadian articles without discussion, lately. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Dame did not notice it was just moved......was bringing it up because Education board has 3rd Canadian Ministry listed as an assessment soon.....but the link was to 2nd Ministry of Sir John A. Macdonald. I see who was involved now....wasting alot of our time they are...noone likes having to fix so many problem edits.--Moxy (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted all the page moves accept 2nd Ministry of Sir Robert Borden, which needs an administrator to move it back to 10th Canadian Ministry. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Ohhhh i see many just moved....wow great job "speedy" GoodDay. --Moxy (talk) 22:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@Charles lindberg: we'd like your participation here, concerning why you think the articles needed to be initially moved. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Bloc infobox

Bloc Quebecois
Seats in the Senate (Quebec seats)	0 / 24
Seats in the House of Commons (Quebec seats)	10 / 78

There is a conflict on whether to include all the seats in the Senate and House of Commons for the Bloc, or just the seats from Quebec. I am proposing just the seats in Quebec as shown here, since the party only runs candidate in that province and pushes secessionism. There is precedent for this with the Scottish National Party infobox in which only Scottish seats are highlighted in the graph. Thoughts? Charles lindberg (talk) 23:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

IMHO, we should include the entire Senate & House of Commons seats. This give a more accurate look of how many seats the BQ have in each respective body. The BQ is treated as a federal political party. GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually it gives an inaccurate view of how many seats they have, since the Bloc does not run candidates anywhere else in Canada. including all 338 seats makes it look like they compete for those seats when they certainly do not. Charles lindberg (talk) 00:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

But, the can compete for all 338 seats & the can have a party member appointed to the Senate. GoodDay (talk) 00:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

But, they* do not, because their goal is to separate from Canada... Charles lindberg (talk) 00:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Yet they can. We're not going to agree on this, so best we let others weigh in. GoodDay (talk) 00:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I would start by asking what is done with other Canadian parties? We should follow that precedent. The goal is to indicate their relative size in each house, not to indicate their relative power in their electorate. Sure, they'll never run a candidate in BC, but that just means they'll never win that seat. They have made choices going in to an election. In the past, when the NDP and Liberals were trying to defeat the Conservative parties, they were deciding on whether they should run candidates in all ridings. The NDP has decided not to run candidates in some ridings so as to not split those votes. (For the record, the Liberals steadfastly refused to not run a candidate in a riding that they had no chance of winning). In those cases, would you want the NDP's number of seats reflect the number of candidates they fielded or the percentage of power they had? It would always be the latter. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, in the event the Liberals and the NDP chose not to run candidates in certain ridings, I agree that nonetheless all seats should be shown on their graph, however the Bloc is significantly different in that they are a strictly regionalized party trying to secede from Canada, unlike the Liberals and the NDP. Gilles Duceppe even said during a televised leaders debate in 2011, that he would "certainly not" want to be Prime Minister of Canada. Charles lindberg (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

An analogue is the Scottish National Party which has its House of Commons seats graphed out in the manner that Charles advocates. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 01:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

This does seem like the perfect analogue, both parties are regional, and have the intention of seceding from their countries. Charles lindberg (talk) 06:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree. I wouldn't repeatlink Quebec in the infobox though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Change has been made accordingly, Quebec only linked once. Charles lindberg (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

For the purposes of the main infobox on a political party's article, what's relevant is not the ratio of seats they won to seats they actually competed in as candidates; it's relevant in certain other contexts, absolutely, but not that one. Rather, the germane fact, in that particular spot, is the ratio of seats won to seats that exist — the key piece of information that particular piece of the infobox is meant to convey is "how much power does this party have in the House of Commons?" Had the Charlottetown Accord passed in 1992, and there were accordingly certain classes of language-related legislation that had to pass a special "double majority" provision (i.e. a majority of the House and a majority of the Quebec contingent), then there would certainly be cause for a field to denote their percentage of Quebec seats in particular — but even then, that would still be supplementary information to their percentage of the whole HoC and not an outright replacement for that. The fact that the party's goal is to secede from Canada is not relevant; they haven't successfully accomplished that yet, so they still sit in a 338-seat legislative body and not a 78-seat one. Bearcat (talk) 11:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the key piece of information is the degree of influence the party has within the legislative body and so the total number of seats in the House of Commons should be given as context, not just the number of seats in Quebec. isaacl (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Personally I think both should be included, both have merit, it does not have to be one or the other. Charles lindberg (talk) 18:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Charles lindberg: - As a consensus has not yet been reached, can you please revert your changes? isaacl (talk) 01:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted the changes; until a consensus agreement has been reached to make any changes, the page should be left at the status quo. isaacl (talk) 04:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

They have banned Charles.....just need to watch out for socks.--Moxy (talk) 10:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Aboriginal or Indigenous

Given the above section I found it interesting to come across this so quickly. So are we supposed to be using Aboriginal or Indigenous? Even the government doesn't know what it is doing and uses both at the same time, INAC. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

We talked about this a few months ago....personally I have NP moving Aboriginal articles to indigenous. But it seems we are waiting on the first legislation identifying the term or using it. We have organizations switching back and forth on the term.-- Moxy (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The federal department has changed its name. Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I've proposed a name change from Aboriginal peoples in Canada to Indigenous peoples in Canada over here. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I listed a bunch more at Talk:Indigenous peoples in Northern Canada#Requested move 3 June 2017. I didn't realise that some were being moved as I wrote it up. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

There are also a number of Categories that need to be moved i.e. Category:Aboriginal peoples in Canada and many of its subcategories. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I was going to wait on those until the articles were done. Then it is much easier to change the categories. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Changing First Nations to Aboriginal

Just a heads up. I couldn't find it in the archive but I'm sure this came up before we have a shifting IP that inappropriately changes First Nation to Aboriginal, see here. Almost all the changes are not correct and need reverting. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Ontario general election, 2007

A user named Kndimov has been editwarring over the photograph of John Tory that's being used in the infobox at Ontario general election, 2007, persistently reverting back to a significantly older image than the one that's been on the article quite stably for at least two years. Initially their argument was that because the election took place in 2007, the image used in the box had to date from 2007 and the later image was inherently invalid — as if his appearance has changed all that much? — and then when they were reverted because that's not a rule, they rereverted with the new argument that "I vote for the older one" with no reason given at all why it was actually preferable.

I don't want this to be a one-on-one edit war, so I was wondering if anybody's willing to come weigh in one way or the other about which image should be used. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

reference links on BC L-G bios need updating

The reference link to the LG website is now a 404, would be the same on other similar pages. Sample: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Wallace

All former L-G bios on the LG site are now at http://www.ltgov.bc.ca/gov-house/history/timeline.html some maybe in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography Online, quite a few are I'd think.

he's of interest right now as he was viceroy in the 1952 and 1953 elections; '52 has some parallels to the current "interregnum of sorts" in BC.... as of today [http://www.theprovince.com/news/local+news/politics+27uncharted+territory+legislature+poised+tussle+over/13425353/story.html this is the current non-issue in the media0, I'm curious to see what Wiki has for BC election coverage; it ain't over yet, the election is...but not the resulting impasse..... 2001:569:72C0:BC00:55F2:908E:9EB2:6B5D (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Advice on terminology...

A quick favour to ask... Does anyone involved in this project have a good understanding of when it is most appropriate to use adjectives/nouns such as First Nation, Aboriginal peoples, Indigenous peoples, Indian, Métis or Inuit in the context of Canadian history? Normally, I'd just follow the secondary sources, but I'm very conscious that the preferred terminology has evolved even over the last couple of decades. I'm having problems in drafting as a result, and any advice - or perhaps being pointed at a helpful link which might summarise current best practice - would be very gratefully appreciated. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Generally, First Nations, Métis and Inuit are the preferred terms, even when dealing with historical subjects, unless it's a quote from the time period. If you can be or need to be specific you can use individual group names (Dene for example) but when talking about the larger groups, those three terms are your best bet. I have seen Aboriginal and Indigenous used but Indian is now considered wrong (in Canada -- in the US I believe it's still used). Personally, I always just go with First Nations, Métis and Inuit for consistency and accuracy. freshacconci (✉) 17:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd second what Freshacconci said. On the other hand don't stick an s at the end of Inuit. There is a guide from Public Works and Government Services Canada here. There may be one for First Nations or Métis as well but I get an error when trying to search. Just to make things worse there are rare places where Inuit can be written as inuit. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

VMT! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

remember to use "Inuk" in the singular, and if only referring to two people, "Inuuk". For modern/accepted spelling of First Nations people consult their ethno-pages (some have remained at old/disused spellings since a rampage by someone in Alberta to title them all with their colonialist names; most BC tribe names have been fixed, but not all. Wiki-inertia and closings of RMs etc by closers/admins from the UK/Eire ignorant of Canadian English usages and norms and contempt for Canadian rebuttals are why.2001:569:72C0:BC00:55F2:908E:9EB2:6B5D (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Honorific Maitre

Just added a new page on the Honorific "Maitre" which seems to be in use in only English Canada outside of the Francophone world of Quebec, France, etc. Take a look and add as necessary - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma%C3%AEtre Namtug (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

R v Jordan (2016)

R v Jordan is q Supreme Court of Canada legal precedent with ramifications that are already reverberating across the country. Some very serious criminal cases have already being dismissed even though they were in the pipeline before the Jordan verdict. Murder, sex assault cases among those tossed due to delays in Canadian courts I would hardly classify this topic as low on the importance scale. As for it merely being of import to Canadians, two men have had their second degree murder charges dismissed. One is about to be, and the other already has been, deported back to their home countries. Quebec murder suspect set free due to trial delays to be deported within weeks Man accused of killing Montrealer with a machete returns to U.K. Maybe we can take a 'sober second look' on the classification of this article. For some context here is an article that Wikipedia: Law has rated as mid level in importance. R v Smith. 50.64.119.38 (talk) 06:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

AfD for Michael Ching (businessman)

Happy Canada Day everyone! The article for the Chinese-Canadian businessman Michael Ching (businessman) has been nominated for AfD. You're welcome to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Ching (businessman). -Zanhe (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Cheese cutters

Bet you haven't heard that term in a while. We need a photo of them. If you don't know what they are, you are not Canadian. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Visible minorities

I have an issue I need to raise regarding List of visible minority politicians in Canada. It's a valid list in theory, obviously, but in actual practice it's been wandering off the path from what visible minority means in reality to include anybody who has any form of hyphenated-Canadian connection to a non-European country at all. I know that the term doesn't exactly map to "people of colour" per se, but it's also not meant to include people of "traditional" European descent who merely happen to have been physically born somewhere other than Europe proper.

For instance, I've already had to remove Gérard Deltell, a completely white guy of completely European descent who merely happens to have been born to parents who were Algerian pieds-noirs (i.e. the European colonists of Algeria) of French and Spanish and Italian, not native Algerian, descent; John Rodriguez, a completely white guy of completely European descent who merely happens to have been born in Guyana, at a time when it was still a European colony with a large population of European settlers, whereas ethnically Guyanese people would normally be classed as black; and Vic Toews, a white guy who may have some actual Latino descent by virtue of having been born in Paraguay, but it isn't verified by our article about him (his father was a German immigrant to Paraguay and his mother's ethnicity isn't stated, but circumstantially the evidence isn't strong as her maiden name was Peters), and certainly isn't visible in his physical appearance at all (and, like Rodriguez, he isn't "Latino" just because he was physically born in South America if we can't source any ethnically Latino heritage for him.) I haven't removed, but am still iffy about, the likes of André Arthur and Sarkis Assadourian, who are Armenian and thus Caucasian and white, and Tony Clement, who's Greek (the difference between a Cypriot-Greek and a Greece-Greek being one of nationality, not of ethnicity, so being technically from Cyprus doesn't ethnically separate him into a different "visible minority" group distinct from all the Greek politicians that aren't included in the list.)

I do wonder if it's really a useful list at all — is there really much value to a single common list of every MP who's of non-European descent, rather than splitting them up into smaller and less editwar-prone lists like "List of Black Canadian MPs" or "List of Latinx Canadian MPs" or "List of Arab Canadian MPs"? That's a discussion for another time, however, as I'm not prepared to mount any sort of argument that it should be deleted outright. The main thing here is that, at minimum, the list needs to be reviewed to ensure that everybody who's listed on it belongs there. I haven't seen any problematic entries besides the ones I mentioned above, but it still needs a few more eyes to ensure I haven't missed anything. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this list is highly problematic. At least one person, Michael Chong, would likely object to his inclusion on the list. He self-identifies as an un-hyphenated Canadian, ... his father just happens to have been born in Hong Kong. Although some members are clearly qualified for inclusion, others are open to question. What ethnicity constitutes "visible"? Why does Spanish Chilean or Spanish Columbian heritage qualify but not European Spanish? What fraction of one's parentage qualifies one for inclusion in a minority?

At the very least, should we remove people such as Meili Faille and Keith Martin whose WP pages do not clarify their "visible minority" status? Tunborough (talk) 02:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Watchlisters unite

Just a reminder to everybody that we're going to need increased scrutiny on the article about Julie Payette. Leaving aside the standard possibility of vandalism that's already pretty well controlled, there's now the new risk of somebody prematurely denoting her as the incumbent GG as of today — which she isn't yet, as the date of the initial announcement and the date of actual investiture aren't one and the same. So just a reminder to everybody to be on the lookout for this — the article has 49 watchlisters as of right now, but I'm willing to bet those are mostly NASA geeks watchlisting her because astronaut, who thus might not be familiar with the political issues the Canadian politics geeks know to watch out for now that she's a political figure as well. So just a reminder to everybody to be vigilant. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Watchlisting request

Due to today's announcement of criminal charges against Thunder Bay mayor Keith Hobbs, I'm requesting some willing watchlisters to assist in watching the article for BLP issues. I've applied semi-protection for the time being to prevent drive-by IP assassinations, and of course we can always up it to full protection if needed — but for the moment, registered editors are not blocked from editing the article. At present, however, there are only four people on all of Wikipedia watchlisting the article including me — so we need additional sets of eyes to monitor the WP:BLP-related legal sensitivities. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 00:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Naming conventions on articles on federal Ministers (positions), departments and problems with Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Youth

It appears that the titles of articles on federal Ministers use the current styles of the position (e.g. Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship instead of Minister of Citizenship and Immigration). I wonder if it may be wise to use the "actual" title of position (e.g. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Minister of Industry) for these articles since they are provided by law and don't change easily by government of the day. I understand WP:COMMONNAME might ask for the currently commonly used name referred to by government and media; however as WP:OFFICIAL explains as one rationale to use the common name: "Official names may be changed at any time, at the whim of the authority concerned. Common names change more slowly, reducing the maintenance required to keep them accurate and current." In this case the statutory names change more slowly and would only change with significant government restructuring.

If we don't change the naming convention, then we need to fix the articles. Some articles problematically refer to the statutory names as previous or former names when they are still the official names in law.

As well, the articles related to the Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs have misleading information (perhaps due to the confusing common names/styles). Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs still exists but styled as the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Youth is also misleading since the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Youth does not exist (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister of Youth are separate positions); and it's wrong to say it's "previously" the Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs when the Minister of ICIA still exists. (I'm trying to restructure these articles.)

In a similar vein, it might be better to apply the statutory names for the federal departments (e.g. Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada as Department of Industry (Canada)).

At least, the statutory names for ministers and departments should be reflected in the article and infobox.--Zhantongz (talk) 16:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Zhantongz: I agree. If COMMONNAME is going to change every four years, this is a case where OFFICIALNAME makes more sense. --—Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Monarchy of Canada

There's a discussion continuing for over a month here, more input would be appreciated. GoodDay (talk) 10:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

August 2017 at Women in Red

		Welcome to Women in Red's August 2017 worldwide online editathons.
		"Indigenous women" "Women in peace" "Canadian women"

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --

A new WiR initiative starting in August

		Introducing... WiR's new initaitve: 1day1woman for worldwide online coverage Facilitated by Women in Red
		Create articles on any day of any month Cover women and their works in any field of interest Feel free to add articles in other languages too (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Ipigott (talk) 11:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Major changes to Barrick Gold

There's been a recent rewrite on this article by an IP editor. It looks like some constructive changes and updates, but also a lot of removal of critical information on the company (revisions). I don't have a whole lot of time to examine the changes, but thought I'd flag it in case some else does. The Interior (Talk) 00:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

WikiClubs

Good day,

I simply wanted to let you know that Wikimedia Canada has put a new concept in place: WikiClubs. They are local groups of Wikimedians in a given city or region that gather to encourage local participation, meeting other Wikimedians, sharing resources and organize activities. If you are interested, please see the website. Some WikiClubs are already starting to organize themselves in some cities.

Do not hesitate to contact me for more information. I will also be at Wikimania for those who are going or are from the Montreal region. Thank you, Amqui (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Calgary airport question

Hello, I have been editing Calgary International Airport's article in an attempt to make it a Good Article. However I'm stuck at the large Airlines and Destinations table. Per WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT, "the implicit reference is the airline's published timetable. If the flight is in the timetable and not challenged, an explicit reference is not normally included." Would this statement violate WP:V? It's a lot of information with no clear reference that a reader can access. Searching the timetables can be a tedious process, for example with all of WestJet's destinations from Calgary.

These tables have been the subject of many discussions over at WP:AIRPORTS, including an RFC that pointed to my question. I'm not looking for a full-blown detailed discussion at this time (I'd do that at WP:AIRPORTS), but I am looking for some advice from editors outside the airport-editing sphere and without any such biases. Thank you. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 21:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I personally find those tables useful as a source to contribute to Wikivoyage lol. Amqui (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

That might be an indication that the tables are better suited for Wikivoyage, not Wikipedia... I'm starting to feel that just listing the airlines is much easier. An easy source is here. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 18:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

• We are allowed to sparingly use primary sources to verify uncontroversial information that doesn't impact the question of basic notability. For example, if a person's notability has already been properly demonstrated by reliable source coverage, then we are allowed to cite their own self-published website for supplementary biographical details like where they live, or the fact that they identify as LGBT, or things like that — the key is to understand the distinction between "source that is here to show notability" and "source that is not aiding notability per se but simply verifying additional information". The first kind does have to be media coverage independent of the subject's own self-published web presence, but the second kind doesn't. So it's not all that unreasonable to deem certain pieces of information which don't impact the base notability claim, but are there for purely informational purposes, as explicitly or implicitly referenceable to the airport's own website — it does raise the question of whether the article is getting adequately maintained if and when the airport's destination list actually changes, but even cited references don't always get updated promptly when they change or disappear, so having references explicitly given in the article wouldn't actually change that concern. Bearcat (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Good points, Bearcat. This would just be a case of listing destinations - no interpretation involved. So I think primary sources can be used, with explicit referencing like the rest of the article. Regarding adequate maintenance, for major airports in the US/Europe, there is regular updating by users and IP editors - I've seen new destinations pop up in the tables minutes after the news announcement (there are great sources like this one for such information). In the previous RFC there was a little talk about how articles on airports in other parts of the world don't get as much attention... Updating is not as frequent, but of course the tables do not have to be up-to-date 100% of the time. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 11:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Of interest

Members of this project may be interested in this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

National Contribution Month in Canada

Good day all,

In October 2017, Wikimedia Canada will host its second National Contribution Month in Canada where a series of contribution workshops to Wikimedia projects are held across the country. The goal is to give opportunities for local Wikimedians to meet and to initiate new contributors.

Contribution days are activities where Wikimedia's contributors, students, or anybody interested in contributing to Wikimedia projects meet up to collectively improve a predetermined theme. These meetings generally take place in a library where references are easy to access, but can be organised in any public community space. We hope you will join us in bringing the Canadian Wikimedia community together!

If you are interested in hosting an event in your region, please see Wikipedia:Contribution Month in Canada 2017 and you can organize on the talk page.

Also, this is a great opportunity to set up a WikiClub in your region. See wmca:WikiClubs.

Thank you and do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or suggestions. Also, do not hesitate to contact me if you think that you will need additional ressources to organize a local event. Amqui (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Correcting article title "Tla A'min"

Hello, I would like to contest the title of the article Tla A'min. The First Nation refer to themselves as the Tla'amin Nation (formerly Sliammon First Nation), as per their website.. First Voices Canada uses the IPA /ɬəʔamɛn/, which would correspond to <Tla'amin> (see especially the glottal stop position). I am yet to see convincing evidence of <Tla A'min> as a spelling, but I am also not in any sense an Indigenous authority. Thanks, PaulSutherland (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

This seems like an uncontroversial request since both the nation in question and the Canadian government use your suggested spelling. I've moved the page. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I support the move. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

References

List of Maritime Disasters

I noticed there's a List of Maritime Disasters and a List of maritime disasters and a List of disasters in Canada

If there was a List of Maritime disasters it should be about the Maritimes, so a title like List of Maritime Disasters I think should be about Canada, or be a disambiguation page. Since Wikipedia takes capitalization into account, the capitalized "M" disqualifies this to redirect to the "maritime" topic. -- 70.51.46.15 (talk) 05:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The word "maritime" refers to the sea or sailing in general, and not to the provinces known as The Maritimes. The current List of maritime disasters is fine as is. If there was to be a list as you suggest (which I wouldn't support because it would overlap with List of disasters in Canada), it would have to be called something like List of disasters in The Maritimes. PKT(alk) 12:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:DNFTT Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Canadian encyclopedia dead links

Dear editors: Some time ago the Canadian Encyclopedia changed its URL format, throwing many of our links to it into disarray. I made a list at the time of the page affected, and have been gradually replacing the old links with the new ones. It's a big job, though, so if you have worked on one of these articles and have already fixed the links, I would appreciate it if you would edit this page and remove the fixed item from the list to save me having to check it:

User:Anne Delong/CE links needing update

Thanks!—Anne Delong (talk) 10:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Is there a pattern to how things were replaced? If so, we could commission a bot to do the work for us. If not, tools like AWB could be useful. Not volunteering (yet) just making suggestions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Grand Coteau (North Dakota)‎

Battle of Grand Coteau (North Dakota)‎ has been vandalised. can someone fix it please. -- Kayoty (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Not fixed yet -- Kayoty (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The 10,000 Challenge first anniversary

The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada will soon be hitting its first-anniversary mark. Please consider submitting any Canada-related articles you have created or improved since November 2016. Please try to ensure that all entries are sourced with formatted citations and no unsourced claims.

You may use the above button to submit entries, or bookmark this link for convenience. Thank-you, and please spread the word to those you know who might be interested in joining this effort to improve the quality of Canada-related articles. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Featured list removal candidate: National Parks of Canada

I have nominated List of National Parks of Canada for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Yilku1 (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest

Hi. In November The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There will be over $4000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. If this would appeal to you and you think you'd be interested in contributing new articles on Canadian women during this month please sign up in the participants section. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate and raise money to buy books about women for others to use, this is also fine. Help would also be appreciated in drawing up the lists of missing articles. If you think of any missing articles for your project please add them to the appropriarte list by continent at Missing articles. Thankyou, and if taking part, good luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Numbering of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia general elections

An issue has been brought up via a CfD about our numbering of general elections in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Because the election authorities in these provinces number general elections from Confederation, and not from the colonial origin of their legislative assemblies, while the assemblies themselves number in order from the house's first sitting, there are (or may be) two apparent numbering schemes for elections these provinces. For example, the New Brunswick general election, 2014 (numbered the 38th by Elections New Brunswick, source) elected the 58th Legislature (source). Naturally, this election may be viewed as the 58th since it elected the 58th Legislature and is the 58th since the origin of the legislative body, notwithstanding the fact that it is numbered the 38th by the official overseeing body.

The solution until recently was to disambiguate the numerals (e.g. 38th New Brunswick general election). However, this creates a series of WP:TWODABS pages, and in many cases these pages fail WP:ONEBLUELINKDAB. The category containing these redirects was nominated at CfD (link above) and another editor took it upon themselves to flag all of the disambiguation pages for deletion, which I think is not the right approach (I undid a number of those tags before thinking discussion would be better). I've suggested that the dabs should be replaced with redirects to the officially-numbered elections, with hatnotes to the unofficial sequential system where pages on those elections exist. For example, 6th New Brunswick general election redirects to New Brunswick general election, 1886 which now has a hatnote to New Brunswick general election, 1816. That's a bad example because the older election is a redlink, but it illustrates my point. The wording of the hatnote may need tweaking as well, especially with the post-1867 elections.

Before I start doing this with the rest of the disambiguation pages (there are roughly 80) is this approach preferable? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Redirect with hatnotes The fact is, the election numbering is determined by the election authority in the province and the claim that, say, 7th New Brunswick general election can refer to both the 1819 and 1890 general elections is original research. Moreover, there is only one blue link in the articles in question meaning that a disambiguation page is inappropriate according to WP:D. These articles would be like creating dismabiguation page for 45th President of the United States that disambiguates between Obama and Trump because, as Grover Cleveland served two non-consecutive terms and is officially both the 22nd and 24th POTUS, one can argue that Trump is really the 44th President and therefore a disambiguation page is needed. It would be an action based on original research.Nixon Now (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • It's not original research to point out that Xth general election does not elect the Xth legislature in these provinces. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The original research is saying the 20th New Brunswick general election is also referred to as the 40th New Brunswick general election when no sources refer to it as such.Nixon Now (talk) 23:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
    • It's hardly original research to think that someone would think the ordinal number for general elections would match up to that of the legislature elected by that election. After all, the 42nd Canadian federal election, elected the 42nd Canadian Parliament. It wouldn't hurt to have a hatnote that says something like "This is about election X, for the general election that elected the Xth legislature, see Y". ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

You're talking past each other again. Nixon Now's point is that that the 20th New Brunswick general election is associated with the 40th New Brunswick general election, in other words, different ordinal numbers. You're saying 42nd Canadian federal election is associated with 42nd Canadian Parliament, in other words the same ordinal numbers. Please address the other editor's comments, and stop using bullets for indenting. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood my comment. My point is that people should expect that the Xth general election elects the Xth legislature, but it doesn't, so a hatnote could address this entirely reasonable mistake. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not objecting to hatnotes, I'm objecting to disambiguation pages. In fact I explicitly called for redirecting with hatnotes at the top of my first comment. Nixon Now (talk) 11:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Redirecting to the correct election number and hatnoting to an article for the correct legislature number seems fine. Or make a list article about all the general elections. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

As it happens, we already have List of pre-confederation New Brunswick general elections and List of post-confederation New Brunswick general elections. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Nova Scotia general election, 2013#Requested move, which resulted in the creation of these pages. 117Avenue (talk) 02:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that link, it's good to see past discussions. That one addressed why the articles are named by election date rather than by ordinal, but doesn't address the disambiguation/navigation issue that we're discussing here. I'll look into the PEI situation. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Following up on the PEI question raised in that earlier discussion: Elections PEI doesn't ordinally number general elections, they are named by election date. The current legislature is the 65th, elected in the 2015 general election (not the "65th election" or whatever number it is counting from 1867). Although I see our articles (e.g. Prince Edward Island general election, 2015) have ordinals inserted in them anyway. However, there's no dual system as there seems to be in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, so I guess that's outside the scope of this discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I've changed the PEI general election articles intros, from "Xth Prince Edward Island general election" to "Year Prince Edward Island general election", with the exception of the 2000 & 2003 editions. I've don this, as Elections PEI doesn't number the elections as so. Recommend that 66th Prince Edward Island general election article be moved to Next Prince Edward Island general election. PS - I won't protest if anyone reverts my changes, as admittedly, the "Xth" version does read better. GoodDay (talk) 13:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

BTW: A quirk about PEI is that the legislature is know by two names General Assembly and Legislative Assembly. The former is a throw back to when the legislature was bicameral. Since it became unicameral in 1893, it's been called the Legislative Assembly of Prince Edward Island. The latter (General Assembly of Prince Edward Island) is used (I think) when including the lieutenant governor. Sorta a headache that's so simple, it's confusing. GoodDay (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh my, and we have a whole article on both of them. That is confusing. The next PEI election should probably be at Prince Edward Island general election, 2019 as that is the next fixed date. It's possible for there to be a general election earlier than that, but unlikely, and we could move the article if it does happen. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

So can we proceed with deleting the disambiguation pages now and using hatnotes instead? Nixon Now (talk) 19:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

The Sparrows

I've proposed that the article Jack London & The Sparrows be merged into The Sparrows (band), as they're not really two distinct article topics for the purposes of WP:NMUSIC — it's one band, split at the departure of one member, whose strongest real notability claim is that they were a forerunner of a vastly more notable band. But this was proposed previously, about eight years ago, without ever really generating enough attention to establish an actual consensus either way — so I'd like to bring this to WikiProject Canada's attention, in the hope of getting more people involved in the discussion than there were last time around. Thanks. See Talk:The Sparrows (band) for the discussion. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Jean Swanson

I have a question about Vancouver anti-poverty activist and Order of Canada recipient Jean Swanson, which I need some assistance with. Until a few minutes ago the article was including her in the categories Category:Macavity Award winners and Category:Agatha Award winners, on the basis that there are a couple of critical guides to mystery fiction (By a Woman's Hand, Killer Books and The Dick Francis Companion) credited to a writer named Jean Swanson — however, neither the article text nor her campaign website for her recent Vancouver municipal by-election run actually makes any mention whatsoever of those books, both mentioning only the politically-oriented book Poor Bashing: The Politics of Exclusion, and I can't find confirmation anywhere else either that the mystery literature critic and the anti-povery activist are the same person.

But obviously, we have to assume that they're not the same person unless and until somebody can prove that they are, not vice versa — it's far from rare enough a name to jump to that conclusion — so I've removed the categories and unlinked her in the relevant award articles in the meantime. But if they are the same person, then does anybody know of a source that would actually confirm it? Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

And while we're at it...

Could somebody with more knowledge of BC politics than I actually have take a stab at adding some real substance, and real reliable source coverage, to Vancouver municipal by-election, 2017 itself? Normally a municipal by-election wouldn't qualify for its own standalone article at all, but would simply be briefly addressed as a subsection in the article on the prior regular election — what makes this one a stronger potential candidate for a standalone article than usual is the fact that the whole school board was up for election because of a controversy that resulted in the entire old board getting dismissed by the provincial government. To warrant a standalone article as a topic in its own right, what the article needs is some actual substance and sourcing about the background to why the school board was up for reelection — but as currently written, it's exactly the sort of boilerplate "this happened, the end" article, sourced only to the raw vote totals on the city's own self-published website, that led us to establish the consensus against standalone articles about municipal by-elections in the first place.

So it needs a lot of work, but as a resident of Toronto with only cursory knowledge about the situation, I'm not the right guy to fix it. Any Vancouverites willing to take a stab at making it an article that's actually worth existing? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Justin Trudeau image

Can someone look at my revert here where I reverted the change of the diplomatic image vs the addition of a rock star looking picture. I don't have time to explain the problems. What do others think....as I don't want to edit war with anyone. Whats best here a newer image vs long standing presidential looking image.--Moxy (talk) 02:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I advocate for the 2017 image because it is of better quality. WhatsUpWorld (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Now I see what this is about. The 2017 image is not better quality, it's just different than the 2015 one. For instance, the lighting casts shadows on his face. The image is framed in such a way that the subject is actually smaller in the frame. The image also fails to portray him in a statesman-like way. Did someone say he looks more like a rock star?

The 2015 image looks like a bad high school yearbook photo though but otherwise, it is a more appropriate image.

There was one added yesterday, File:Justin_Trudeau_June_2016.jpg, that makes him look terrible and it fails in so many ways it's difficult to start a discussion on it. The only thing it has going for it is the even lighting on Trudeau's face. It should be deleted from commons. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I think a review of image changes by WhatsUpWorld may be prudent. this image was replaced with this at Jean-Luc Mélenchon. --Moxy (talk) 21:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes because the second one is of better quality. However in the Trudeau case, I think the image currently used is just a weird mugshot. WhatsUpWorld (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

On what grounds is it better quality? I just gave objective grounds for why it's poor quality. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

WhatsUpWorld was talking about the second Mélenchon image, in contrast to "the Trudeau case". Bearcat (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I think we should use the 2015 image as it is a more formal looking photo. The article for the prime minister of Canada should be as formal as reasonably possible in my opinion. To add: Yes, this is actually not the PM article but I still feel the same way. Air.light (talk) 02:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the 2017 picture is of better quality because it is not a zoom in a pre-existing picture and Trudeau's face looks better. WhatsUpWorld (talk) 20:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

We do the norm for political articles .....not action shots - but portraits. Basic stuff... Athina Karatzogianni; Dennis Nguyen; Elisa Serafinelli (2016). The Digital Transformation of the Public Sphere: Conflict, Migration, Crisis and Culture in Digital Networks. Palgrave Macmillan UK. p. 320. ISBN 978-1-137-50456-2. --Moxy (talk) 00:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Responding to WhatsUpWorld. The 2015 image, File:Justin Trudeau and Benigno Aquino III November 2015 cropped.jpg, in its original file is 675 × 900 pixels. When rendered on my screen in the infobox, it's at 250 x 333 pixels.

The 2017 image, File:Justin Trudeau - Global Citizen Festival Hamburg 01.jpg, in its original file is 2,119 × 2,582 pixels. When rendered on my screen in the infobox is 250 x 305 pixels.

That either was cropped or resized is immaterial at that point since it is a small rendering.

We have all stated that his face does not look as good, but you have ignored the fact that in the 2017 image, his face has shadows on it and he does not look professional. Do you care to comment on either of those concerns? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

And one more

An editor whose name I don't recognize, with a pretty thin edit history overall, has been editing By-elections to the 42nd Canadian Parliament today to add poorly sourced (their sole "reference" being a Google search) information about the fact that the non-winning Conservative candidate in Lac-Saint-Jean yesterday is the father of Andrew Scheer's deputy chief of staff. Obviously, we have no reason to give a flying fig about this — person who lost is father of another non-notable person! Ermagherd, call Ian Hanomansing! — but it's already been reverted twice now, so if they try to readd it again I won't be able to deal with it without tripping WP:3RR. Any willing assistants? Bearcat (talk) 23:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it. Meters (talk) 23:18, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Added a warning to supply edit summaries. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Turkish Canadians

A recent edit to Turkish Canadians updated the population figure based on the Canada 2016 Census (the article previously had the 2011 numbers). However, the actual source cited wasn't changed. The wikipedia census page doesn't include info on Turkish Canadians, and I had absolutely no luck navigating the Statistics Canada website. I reverted the edits made to the article (there were other issues as well), that figure really should be updated, with a cited source. Can someone help with this? Thanks. Jessicapierce (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

does this help? --Moxy (talk) 00:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I've updated it. Mindmatrix 01:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

That's ethnicity, not nationality. How do you break down the Kurds? Some may be from Turkey. Of course, there are other ethnic groups who are from Turkey. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Someone should visit the EL section. It's quite long and I'm not sure it follows WP:EL. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Gail Kim

Gail Kim, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Canada 2016 Census

... article is listed as being of little importance; this may be true in Canada only. RCNesland (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The importance rankings are not a question of how important the topic is in the world; they're an assessment of how important it would be for a novice reader who knows nothing at all about Canada yet to read the article as part of their learning process. Census data doesn't rank very highly on that list, no matter how valuable its existence may be in the real world. Bearcat (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

SaskTel Centre

Was wondering if anyone from WP:CWNB might be able to help sort out WP:COIN#SaskTel Centre? I reverted the edit in question per MOS:STATUSQUO so that it can be discussed, but feel free to revert my revert if it was in error. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Poutine

Our article on poutine has recently been subject to editwarring over whether the article should be rewritten to describe it as a Québécois dish instead of as a Canadian dish from Quebec. There's a discussion about it at Talk:Poutine, but it has yet to attract any comments from anybody but the editwarrer, the person who was directly reverting them, and me. Some additional input from other people would be welcome. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 18:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

There is now an RfC on the talk page. Comments from neutral hosers are sorely needed, eh? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Can we get some more eyes over at Talk:Poutine got 2 RfCs on the go with 2 editors posting walls of opinionated text with zero sources. --Moxy (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Vacancies in provincial districts

Myself & @Bearcat: are in disagreement on this topic. If we're not going to show 'vacancies' within districts (example:Charlottetown-Parkdale, which Bearcat recently deleted vacancy), then we should add note that MLA resigned or died in box, to explain mid-term change (something I added, that Bearcat 'also' deleted). GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The very fact that Doug Currie's term ended and Hannah Bell's term began in the middle of a legislative session, whose session information rowspans both lines, already inherently communicates that there was a resignation and byelection. There's no need to add a special footnote on Currie's name, or a blank vacancy line between them, to recommunicate information that the table already communicates. A vacancy line only needs to be maintained in an electoral district's MLAs table if the vacancy is still current, or if the timing is such that the new member's term begins in a different year than the old member's term ended — and even in that latter case, it's only necessary so that readers don't mistake one date or the other for a typo. But if the byelection (or a general election that supersedes it) is scheduled such that the vacancy is filled in the same year that it was created, then it's entirely unnecessary to permanently maintain a vacancy line between the members since the table's structure already shows that a vacancy occurred.
If the table were coded to include the complete exact day-month-year dates of members' terms, then yes, a vacancy line would be necessary — but it's coded to include only the years, so it's not necessary to maintain a vacancy line when the existing structure of the template already communicates that the representation changed in the middle of an assembly session. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

We don't know what happened to Currie, however. Did he resign or did he die, a mid-term change should be explained to our readers, if we not going to show 'vacancies' that actually happened. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

We are showing vacancies that actually happened, because the very fact that Currie's term ended and Bell's term began within the 65th assembly already plainly shows that a vacancy happened. And a reader who needs to know whether Currie resigned or died can easily find that information out by clicking on the very helpful link, provided right within the table, to Currie's own article about him as a person. Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Currie's fate should be directly shown in the district article. Anyways, we aren't going to agree on this, so we'll let others weigh in. I'll accept what ever is decide by WP:CANADA. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Why does the district's article need to make a special note of whether Currie died or just resigned? Currie's article can and should certainly do that, and a person who needs to know can find out by clicking on the helpful link to Currie's article that's present right in the table — but the table doesn't need to contain a special note whether the vacancy resulted from his resignation or his death, because vacancies and by-elections aren't handled any differently based on how they came to be. At the district level, it has the same effect and the same result either way — it's relevant to note in Currie's biography, but it's not necessary to point it out in the district's article. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm using Currie as an example. The same should be done for Robert Ghiz at Charlottetown-Brighton, etc etc. Either that, or restore the 'vacancies' to the tables-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Not necessary there either, for the same reason that it's not necessary in Parkdale's. The reason for the vacancy is relevant to the member, but it doesn't change anything about how the vacancy affects the district. And the vacancy lines that you want restored don't clarify whether the vacancy resulted from a resignation or a death either, so that's a completely separate issue from whether or not the tables need to contain footnotes about whether the outgoing member resigned or died. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I'll concede the un-necessity of having resignation/death tags, as they weren't used when the 'vacancies' were in the tables. But, I still maintain that the 'vacancies' should be restored. PS: I'll go along with what's decided here (via other editors comments), even if it doesn't fall into what I think should be done. GoodDay (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The existing structure of the table already makes it plainly apparent that there was a vacancy and a by-election, by virtue of the fact that the representation changed in the middle of an assembly session. A vacancy (whether it resulted from resignation or death) followed by a by-election is the only way it's even possible for a change of representation within a single assembly session to happen at all. So why is it necessary to retain a permanent vacancy line between (e.g. but obviously not limited to) Currie and Bell, when the table already communicates the fact that there was a by-election? Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm with Bearcat here: there's no need to note a vacancy when the seat is vacated and then contested within the same legislative session. I think there are rules about how long a seat is allowed to be vacant, so it wouldn't really come up that a seat was vacant over a long term (I can't think of an example, anyway). Resignations are probably the most common reason that seats are vacated. As for where to note the reason for the byelection, see comment below. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear, our existing practice has been to retain the vacancy line if the timing resulted in the vacancy extending into the following year because the by-election still hadn't been held by December 31 of the year in which the vacancy initially occurred — but as I noted above, the main reason for that is so that readers don't mistake the difference between the old member's end date and the new member's start date for a typo. Bearcat (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

BTW: Anybody know, how this is done in the provincial/territorial electoral districts of other provinces & territories? Are they all consistent? GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if there's a pattern. Summerside-Wilmot is another PEI riding with a recent byelection, it's handled the same way as Charlottetown-Parkdale. I went looking for others but the only one I know of off-hand is Hamilton East (electoral district), Sheila Copps' riding in 1993 when she did her resign-and-run-again stunt over the GST. That article just notes Copps' resignation in plain text in between the tables, which doesn't look very polished. The way the two PEI articles handle the situation is better, in my opinion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The "list of by-elections" pages deal with the reasons (e.g. List of Manitoba by-elections). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Here's one: Ottawa—Vanier: the incumbent died in mid-2016 but a by-election wasn't held until April 2017. There is no vacancy indicated in the table. I've been clicking through the districts pretty randomly but I haven't found one with a past vacancy noted yet. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah, found it: if a Member resigns or dies, a by-election has to be called within 180 days, and if the seat remains vacant when a general election is called then the seat is contested in the general election. So there should not be any instances where it would be useful to note a past vacancy (current vacancies are another matter, I guess). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

There were historically a few instances at the provincial level where seats stayed vacant for much longer than would normally be expected today for some reason, possibly even two full years. (I suspect that provincial by-election laws tended to be less strict in the past than they are now, so a premier could more easily get away with just not calling a by-election at all if his party was likely to lose it. But I'm not 100 per cent sure if that's the explanation, I just know that there have been a few isolated instances of seats being vacant for a full year or two without a by-election.) But that would fall under the exception I noted above where the vacancy extended beyond December 31 of the same year. And, of course, all of this would change, and permanently retaining vacancy lines would gain value, if there were a consensus to actively convert the member tables in electoral district articles so that they were listing the complete day, month and year of members' terms instead of just the year alone. Bearcat (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I've found one of the examples I was thinking of. The provincial electoral district of Sudbury was vacated on June 18, 1954 by Welland Gemmell's death, but there's no reliably sourced indication that there was ever a by-election to replace him; the seat simply stayed vacant until the provincial election on June 9, 1955, just nine days short of a full year later. Even there, however, there isn't actually a vacancy line present in the table, but just a dagger next to his term-end year. Bearcat (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we should consider adding a 'dagger' for those members who've died in office & another symbol for those who've 'resigned'. We should be making it easier for readers to get this information. GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Reading this conversation, it seems like the practice of showing non-current vacancies isn't useful. But that's separate from the issue of notifying readers why the officeholder changed mid-parliamentary session. I agree with GoodDay that the reason should be noted, if only briefly (e.g. symbols, or a small bit of text in parentheses (e.g. "retired"/"died in office"). Given that the page are about the electoral district, it makes sense to include something to notify readers of this. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

That information is certainly relevant in the officeholder's own biographical article. But I'm far from clear on why it's important to note in the district's article, since it doesn't affect the district any differently and a link to the officeholder's biography is already provided if a reader wants more information. The question of clarifying whether the outgoing member resigned or died is about the person — beyond the simple fact that a vacancy and byelection happened, the reason why the vacancy happened isn't especially relevant or important to the district article. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Canada

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 13:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Referendums listed in provincial electoral districts

I've noticed that the Ontario MMP reform referendum has been placed in some of the Ontario provincial districts & the Quebec sovereignty referendums have been placed in some of the Quebec provincial districts. This shouldn't be done, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

You're probably right, AFAIK referendums aren't counted on a district-by-district basis. Do you have an example of one? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Here's two examples: Ottawa South & Hull. The former shows the Ontario electoral reform referendum, 2007 & the latter shows both the Quebec referendum, 1995 & the Charlottetown Accord. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, ok, I'm wrong, referendum results are counted district-by-district, although the overall result is based on overall vote total and not on district-by-district results. And in that case I don't see any reason not to include the results for individual ridings when those ridings vote on a referendum - it's useful information to know how one district voted in these matters. However, listing the Charlottetown Accord (a federal referendum) under a list of results for Hull (a provincial riding) is incorrect. Although it could be that at the time the federal and provincial ridings were the same, I still think it's not right. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

In the case of the Charlottetown Accord, results were released in Quebec by provincial riding, but in the rest of Canada by federal riding. I agree it is a fundamental part of the understanding of the history of a riding to see how it has voted in past referendums and plebiscites, and it is indeed relevant as the results of referendums and plebiscites are usually released on a riding by riding basis. But I will defer to the opinions of the community on this. -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hm, I didn't know that about the Charlottetown Accord. It's odd, but if that's how it is then that's how it is. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

It's because technically speaking, Charlottetown was actually two parallel referenda, one in Quebec and one in the ROC, rather than one fully unified national vote — within Quebec it was conducted by the provincial elections agent, while in the other provinces and territories it was conducted by Elections Canada. Bearcat (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

It's true that referendums pass or fail on the total overall nationwide or provincewide result rather than by passing or failing individual districts per se, but the vote count does take place through the same election infrastructure as general elections — each regular electoral district operates as its own counting node and has its local results reported as such, and the result in any individual district just doesn't change anything outside of its contribution to the overall nationwide or provincewide total. But there is value in including the riding-level results for a referendum in the electoral district's article — it reveals the patterns of regional variation, such as the fact that the Gatineau area is much more strongly federalist than the Saguenay region is, or whether some areas were more strongly in favour of or opposed to an electoral reform proposal than others were. So I consider it data that we should include if we have access to reliable riding-level data to reference it with. Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Well said. And we should have easy access to the data in most cases, as it's the same electoral authorities that maintain that data as maintain data for general elections. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I should also add, however, that I do also think that referendum results should be a separate standalone section of an electoral district's article rather than simply being nested in between general election tables. Bearcat (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I endorse this solution. Having a separate section or subsection would both be less confusing and aid navigation.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

General elections or just districts

One editor seems determined to place PEI's 2016 electoral reform referendum in just 1 district (Charlottetown-Parkdale). GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

If these referendum are to go any wheres, then put them in a provincial general election article, which it most closely relates to. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I would put it in all the districts, but I'm not going to invest the time if you're going to keep reverting its inclusion. I don't see why it belongs in the article on the general election, though I can see the relevance for having the information on the actual page of the plebiscite itself. Anyway, the consensus so far seems to be that they should be included, so the default should be to include the plebiscite result on the Charlottetown-Parkdale page unless we decide against it. If we ultimately agree they should be included, then I can go ahead and add results to the other ridings. -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Your inclusions keep effecting the district table. They make the party colour bands wider. These referendums should be stand alone articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The results of the 2016 plebiscite don't belong in a general election article, it was a separate election. There is talk of a second plebiscite to run concurrent with the 2019 election, in which case it would make sense to include that plebiscite's results on that election's page. As for adding the results to the district pages, I don't see why not. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I've restored @Earl Andrew:'s addition to the district-in-question, per what appears to be support by others here, with the understanding that he will add the referendum to all 27 districts. PS: I still think they don't belong in electoral districts, though. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Implementing consensus

FWIW @Earl Andrew: hasn't completed inserting the Electoral reform plebiscite in all 27 PEI electoral districts - see Alberton-Roseville, Tignish-Palmer Road & O'Leary-Inverness. -- GoodDay (talk) 02:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Patience, there is no time limit. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Royal tours of Canada by the Canadian Royal Family

Dear editors: I came across the above page which has been tagged for improvement. It currently has no talk page and hasn't been assigned to any WikiProjects.—Anne Delong (talk) 07:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

WPCanada banner has been applied........PKT(alk) 12:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I also added WP Nobility banner. {{cleanup}} is deprecated in favour of more specific maintenance notices, I'll see if I can refine it. Good find! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

That article has a tongue twister of a title. Is there anyway it can be changed to a more compact version? GoodDay (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking about that too. Would "Royal tours by the Canadian Royal Family" be concise enough? The Canadian Royal Family are only the Canadian Royal Family within Canada; if those individuals are touring somewhere else they're the royal family of that domain if in the Commonwealth, or the British Royal Family everywhere else. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, there's not many sources mentioning the "Canadian Royal Family" touring outside of Canada, though many for "British Royal Family". I think we need to hear from @Miesianiacal:, the article's creator. GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

A royal wrinkle

Huh. So there's already two different lists on royal tours of Canada: List of royal tours of Canada (18th–20th centuries) and List of royal tours of Canada (21st century) which are needlessly split, and formatted pretty awfully. I think there's a case to combine all three into one set index article possibly with stubs split off for the more developed tours already listed in Royal tours of Canada by the Canadian Royal Family. Good idea? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tomiko Tilden & Eastern Railway

The article Tomiko Tilden & Eastern Railway has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:DEL14 Have made thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify railway even exists. Does not appear on any historic or modern township (Ontario Historic/ current Mining claim maps) or railway (Atlas of Canada 1915 or 1957) maps. No other on-line reliable sources discovered. "Unreferenced" template on article for 3½ years.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --papageno (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, the article does say it's a fictional railway. Suggesting speedy deletion. PKT(alk) 00:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, noticed that, but left open the remote possibility there was such a fictional railway, so went for the normal rather than speedy deletion process. Seems like someone has now deleted the article, so I guess this item is  Done. --papageno (talk) 05:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Red River Rebellion

Can I get some more eyes over at Red River Rebellion.....as we have a new editor adding bios to this article. I was going to revert as we don't normally have bios in articles especially for those that don't have articles here .....but I do think the info is good and should be saved...moved...whatever. What do others think here? Copyvio Detector --Moxy (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

That's pretty obvious copyvio, or at least close paraphrasing. Should be removed immediately - there is way more shared with the biographi.ca source than the copyvio detector link you shared indicates. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Remove all his/her edits -- Kayoty (talk) 03:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

List of fatal cougar attacks in North America

A discussion has been started regarding the factual accuracy of some of the information in this article. Your input is requested here. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 16:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Stephen Harper

Can interested editors please have a look at this article? There are two sections marked with NPOV tags and there may have been some cruft added over the years not suitable for one of our Good Articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Any Yukon experts?

On a recent spin through pending AFC submissions, I came across Draft:Crag Lake, Yukon — a thing which does exist, but not in the form claimed by the draft as written. It's not actually recognized or listed as a "hamlet" by either the Government of Yukon or Statistics Canada — it's merely a lake that happens to have a handful of residences on it whose mailing address is Carcross, not a standalone "hamlet" in its own right. It would still qualify for an article under our notability standards for geographic features as long as the article is accurate about what the topic actually is — but I can't accept the draft under our standards for the notability of hamlets or towns or cities, because that's not what it is. But the editor who originally created it has been sockblocked, and won't be able to repair it — so I wanted to ask if anybody who has more knowledge than I do about how to properly source lakes in the Yukon than I do is able to assist in getting it corrected. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a Yukon expert by any means but as it happens I'm the admin that blocked the article creator, a person or entity likely hired by an owner of a Yukon magazine which might be the in-flight magazine of Air North, I'm not sure. Yukon has only two hamlets: Ibex Valley, Yukon and Mount Lorne; the references presented in the draft support the notion that Crag Lake is a lake in the unincorporated community of Carcross as you said, but Crag Lake does not exist as a separate settlement designation or whatever. WP:GEOLAND suggests that named features are notable only if there is enough info for an article beyond basic statistics, and I don't think that's the case for this seemingly minor lake, and at any rate if an article were written on the lake it would be a complete rewrite of the draft. I see that the same sockfarm also edited Kevin Barr, listed in the draft as a "notable person" from the "hamlet", so I think it's likely the draft has promotional intent.

All that being said, clicking a few random entries in Category:Lakes of Yukon suggests that Natural Resources Canada's Place Names database is commonly used as the only source on minor lakes in Yukon, and here is the page on Crag Lake. Perhaps that's a start. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Recruit new editors for your project?

Happy new year! I've been building a tool to help WikiProjects identify and recruit new editors to join and contribute, and collaborated with some WikiProject organizers to make it better. We also wrote a Signpost article to introduce it to the entire Wikipedia community.

Right now, we are ready to make it available to more WikiProjects that need it, and I’d like to introduce it to your project! If you are interested in trying out our tool, feel free to sign up. Bobo.03 (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Collab for "Cannabis by province" articles for Canada

Greetings all, we over at WP:WikiProject Cannabis have seen a real spike in pageviews on Canada cannabis coverage this year, what with the upcoming legislative changes. Cannabis in Canada now gets ~900 views/day versus ~600 views/day for Cannabis in the United States, which is pretty remarkable.

In the last few years, WikiProject Cannabis has created articles for every single US state and territory (Cannabis in Montana, Cannabis in American Samoa, etc.) and it's been suggested that we create similar articles for each Canadian jurisdiction, given that each will have different cannabis regulations, as well as non-legal differences in terms of culture, economy, etc. It might sound over-niched at first, but with US states we ended up finding plenty of substantive facts to report for every single one.

Right now there are two such articles: Cannabis in British Columbia and Cannabis in Nunavut. I wrote the latter since I'm fascinated by First Nations sovereignty issues, as I also created Cannabis on American Indian reservations. If anyone is interested in helping expand our coverage yet further, here we list the current redlinks, as well as several ongoing drafts of Canadian by-province articles: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cannabis/Redlinks#Drafts.

I welcome any Canada experts, who are also finding the cannabis issue to be interesting, to hop in and help provide content for this huge upsurge in views for Canada cannabis articles. Thanks! Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 08:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I've written several of the articles for smaller states, but we could really use some collab help on Draft:Cannabis in Ontario and Draft:Cannabis in Quebec, along with whatever smaller provinces folks are interested in covering. Hopefully some of these new short starts give some idea of how easy it is to get the basic facts on screen. Check the template for which pages are completed so far. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 09:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I just tried to bring all of the Americas article on the subject matter up. Some were using one template, some another I just tried to homogenize them. Great work so far. CaribDigita (talk) 07:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Seeking feedback: floating a proposal Portal:Canadian Roads + Streets --> Portal:Canadian transportation?

Hi folks, I just wanted to float an idea and see what folks think about this. I've been a long time on the Canadian notice board, I'll admit I haven't always been the most active on this board. Usually, I am more of a WikiGnome working away behind the scenes. Of late within WikiCommons- I've been locating various Canadian Categories (some of which have been created but never attached to anything and I've been trying to attach them to the hierarchy that's already been setup. Usually I use Germany's, France's, or Japan's as a template.)

But I digress: Lately I've been noticing quite a bit of the non road transport articles: like: buses, rail, or intercity transit system articles are stubs, or not getting much attention. The roads articles are cooking now, (and thanks to all who've lent a hand). I am still trying to locate a good map of the Gardiner Expressway-Toronto if you have one for that article thanks in advanced. I was thinking it would be nice if Bus, Rail, Ferry, and aviation articles about Canada could get some more attention too.

So, I came up with an idea. Rather than creating a whole other portal namely: "Portal:Canadian transportation" and then attaching roads and also streets under that.

What would folks think about re-titling the current Canadian Roads to a Canadian transportation portal with roads within it?

Or does it make sense to instead create that whole other portal too? (in addition to Roads? and Streets?)

Other sources of inspiration: There is now a: Canada Roads—Canada provincial highways and Canada Streets—Canada city streets separate site. And here are some other locations that just have a consolidated transportation portal: China transportation, Germany transportation, Nepal transportation, Scotland transport. I did not intent to mash anybody's corns, or rock any boats but could this be an improvement? I just thought it could work well to have: roads/streets/avanues/blvds/ ports, bus, rail, aviation, bicycle paths, subway stations, bridges, tunnels, et al. under a single transport portal. CaribDigita (talk) 07:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it would absolutely make sense to have some kind of consolidated transportation project page — the thought has crossed my mind before, in fact, although I'm not experienced enough in setting up wikiprojects or portals to take it on myself. That said, I would think that keeping "roads" and "streets" as separate workgroups of an overall transport project would make more sense than simply merging them both into the top level of a single new project. Bearcat (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Seeking feedback: notability assessment

Hi! As part of the current WP:GOCE backlog elimination drive, I have been working to improve the article on Bob Hallett (of Great Big Sea notoriety). I reworked the article to improve the relevance and neutrality, and also added a number of citations to back up the content. I would appreciate feedback from more experienced editors regarding notability and the previous notability flag...if it is appropriate to remove that flag, please do so. Thank you! Laatu (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Canada Day

Comment at Talk:Canada Day#July 1/2. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 January 18#Non-free road signs used in list article

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 January 18#Non-free road signs used in list article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

National parks map

Not sure where to ask this but this seems like a decent place. Our map of National Parks properties, File:Canadian National Parks Location.png, was last updated in 2006 by an editor who last edited in 2012. I'd like to see it updated, as it would help greatly with a featured list review under way at List of National Parks of Canada. Would some canuck with more (any) experience in making these maps like to take a crack at this one? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

RfC about including a map of the school's attendance boundary

Should the article High Point High School include a map of the school's attendance boundary (meaning the area which the school draws its students)? This RFC is applicable to most US and Canadian public schools, which draw students from particular catchment areas.

See the thread: Talk:High_Point_High_School#RfC_about_including_a_map_of_the_school's_attendance_boundary

Even though the subject of this RfC is an Amerian school, this discussion is applicable to Canadian institutions as they also rely on school attendance boundaries. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Junos

With the Juno Award nominations having been announced this morning, I've started filling in many categories at Juno Awards of 2018 — however, I have obligations this afternoon and won't be able to finish the rest of them before I leave. Is anybody willing and able to step in and finish the remainder? The list is here, if you need the source — however, what I've been finding is that there's some kind of hidden formatting weirdness in their article that means you can't just copy and paste the names, because the hidden code will sometimes make a correctly spelled name for a topic that does have an article still redlink anyway if you copied and pasted it. So unfortunately you'll have to manually type the names, not copy and paste them over. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

URGENT: CBC Radio 2 vs. CBC Music?

Today, a newly registered user cut and paste the entire CBC Radio 2 article into CBC Music on the purported grounds that the network has rebranded, as well as repointing all the affiliation links on all R2 stations nationwide to the CBC Music article instead of R2.

It is, of course, entirely possible that they're right — but at the moment, what I'm hearing on the R2 broadcast is a wobbly mix of Odario Williams saying CBC Music, while station ID tags between songs are still saying "This is Radio 2", so it's not clearcut at the moment and I can't yet find a reliable source which supports the claim. Even the CBC Music and CBC R2 Twitter feeds are still two separate accounts which are still posting separate, non-duplicated content that isn't suggesting anything about the discontinuation of either feed. But even if it is true, we're going to need to handle it in a much more complex way than just cutting and pasting a longstanding article into another one — there will have to be page merges involved so as not to break the edit histories.

Can anybody assist on this one? Bearcat (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

It's still Radio 2. Radio 2 and Radio 3 are streams on CBC Music (as well as being a terrestrial network in the case of the former) and as a result there may be CBC Music idents carried on Radio 2 but it's still Radio 2 with shows such as Radio 2 Morning. See here for terrestrial networks. It's also possible the Radio 2 digital stream on CBC Music has CBC Music idents inserted into it which may be what the editor has been hearing if they are accessing Radio 2 online instead of over the air. Nixon Now (talk) 12:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

It's the other way around — the prerecorded idents were still saying "Radio 2" and the DJ was saying CBC Music, so your explanation doesn't really fit the situation. I did, for the record, find a post in the CBC's "Help" FAQs late last night which did state that Radio 2 is rebranding to "CBC Music" — however, it didn't give a specific date for the changeover, so given the wobbliness I heard on air last night I added it to the Radio 2 article as a source but held off on trying to merge the articles right away. But it is a thing we're going to have to figure out sooner rather than later, because it's been confirmed that it is happening and the only question left is whether it's fully official yet or not. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Hm, there is still going to be a distinction between CBC Music and cbcmusic.ca. Not sure if merging the articles is appropriate.Nixon Now (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

There's almost never any serious case for separate articles about a media outlet and its website. CBC Music was, in reality, always more of an "additional genre streams" extension of R2 than a genuinely separate division of the CBC per se — the real relationship was always virtually identical to that between Espace musique and espace.mu, with the only substantive difference being that the French service branding made that clear from the start, while the English branding is only now being aligned to match — so I don't see particularly strong grounds for us to maintain two separate articles, rather than giving the website a subsection for the few things about it that are genuinely distinct from the OTA radio service. And even if there were a consensus to keep two separate articles, the former R2 would have a clear claim to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the name, so the website article would still have to be moved to another title so that R2 could be moved to CBC Music, and a lot of inbound links would still have to be repointed accordingly — so there's still a project involved. Bearcat (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Category:Northern Ireland emigrants to Canada has been nominated for discussion

Category:Northern Ireland emigrants to Canada, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. 75.177.79.101 (talk) 04:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Review for Newmarket Canal

Is there any sort of official review process for this wikiproject? I'm going to be taking Newmarket Canal to FA, but I need some more review first. Is anyone here willing to give it a good read-over? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• I don't have time for a thorough review at the moment, but just a couple quick things. For one, your use of {{convert}} is inconsistent in the lede. For a featured article you need to decide whether it's metric (imperial) or imperial (metric) and make sure that every use throughout the article follows that pattern. Also, you have refs in the lede, which is not forbidden but is frowned upon; more importantly anything you've included in the lede must be a summary of info that's in the body of the article, and these two nicknames do not follow MOS:BOLD as far as I'm familiar with the guideline. I think you should also say when the project was abandoned in the lede, to set context, as I read most of the lede without being clear on whether this was a very old project or one abandoned just recently. I also see a few redlinks in the article body: this isn't an automatic fail but you should have a good reason to link to an article that doesn't exist. You might want to pipe these links to an appropriate related topic instead, or create a redirect at the redlinked title (see WP:POFR). And Henry Emmerson's name is not spelled consistently throughout. As for general feel, the lede is seemingly written from a point of view that the project was a government boondoggle, which will need to be backed up by sourced content in the body. Otherwise, I think it's pretty far along. That's my extremely cursory review. As for the process, once you request a featured article review you should have several experienced reviewers looking over the article anyway, and suggesting areas for improvements. I've only been through two FACs myself and haven't reviewed one so I don't have much more insight than that on what to expect. Good luck, anyway! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Groupe parlementaire québécois

The 7 MPs who quit the BQ yesterday have formed the Groupe parlementaire québécois. I'm wondering if I can have some assistance creating the article and adding the new caucus to the various templates and charts showing the standings in the House of Commons etc? Nixon Now (talk) 03:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Nutmeg (football)

I was reverting some vandalism at Nutmeg (football) and was looking through the rest of the article. I notice that it says the term used in Quebec is ""toilette" (toilet)" but is that for nutmeg or five hole? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 02:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Party colour: Independent Senators Group

Someone has chosen a hue of red as the party colour for the Independent Senators Group (see also List of current senators of Canada). While it's not the same red as the red used on Wikipedia for the Liberal Party of Canada, the implication is clear and is essentially an editorial opinion. While there might be an argument that the ISG is really Liberal the fact is that their position is they are non-partisan (and, as well, a number of ISG Senators were formerly Tories) so I'm wondering if a more neutral colour could be chosen? Unfortunately, since the ISG doesn't have a party colour they use themselves we need to assign one. I would suggest yellow since no Canadian party uses it. Nixon Now (talk) 13:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

{{Canadian party colour}} is already coded to provide #888888   for the Independent Senators Group. They're a group of declared independents, so a neutral colour seems fine to me. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

More to the point: for consistency, any instance of the party being assigned a colour in an article should be done by deploying {{Canadian party colour}}, so that it's the same everywhere. That's the point of creating a template for this in the first place. Nobody should be overriding it locally with their own colour. As for changing the colour in the template this is a fine place to have that discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, well I'm suggesting the coding assigned to ISG in {{Canadian party colour}} be changed to something neutral. Nixon Now (talk) 15:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It is, it's the grey colour in my comment above. Grey is pretty neutral, yes? That also matches the graphics in use for the Senate diagrams, at least the ones I've seen. Of course that could all be changed. FWIW {{canadian party colour|AB|Alberta First}} produces  ; I haven't gone through the entire list. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Really? It looks kind of maroon to me. Maybe it's how the colour is resolving on my screen? Nixon Now (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd have to say it's your screen. The HTML code is #888888, which equates to equal levels of red green and blue, about 53% of each. It's as grey as it gets. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Just as a matter of comparison, the definition I get from Google for maroon is #800000, or R128 G0 B0. That colour is  ; the grey is  . Do they appear alike on your display?

And furthermore the colour that the template returns for independents (not ISG) is #DCDCDC, also grey but lighter:  . Perhaps we could use that? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The grey and maroon don't look the same but to me the grey looks reddish. I think a lighter grey would be better though perhaps not exactly the same as the grey used for Independents (since the Senate also has five of those). Is there something in between? Nixon Now (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah, right, true independent senators, I forgot about those. Well sure, we can make it anything in-between that we want, within the stepping limitations of the palette, and some colours on the extreme ends don't render well on the web but I don't think this applies to greyscale. How about:   #A0A0A0;   #B7B7B7;   #CDCDCD ? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

You're correct that a neutral colour is what's called for. While it's true that most of them are former Liberals, you are correct that some of them are also former Conservatives (and may still be Tory-leaning and Tory-voting personally even if they aren't formally part of the Tory caucus), so the colour code for them should not imply a Liberal affiliation. That said, I do think the original default grey is a bit too dark — it could actually be confused with the maroon by people who have either badly-calibrated monitors or vision problems, because it doesn't have a very strong contrast to the maroon — and should be lightened up a touch. Bearcat (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, for the same reasons it shouldn't be too close to the actual independent colour. How about A0A0A0 then? (Compare:   Ind,   ISG) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Still a bit too dark. I'd prefer   #B7B7B7 (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

•  Done - I went ahead and made the change to B7B7B7. It may take time to propagate to all of the uses of the template, I'm not quite sure how that works. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 06:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Identification?

What am I?

What am I?

I took this photograph in Victoria, British Columbia. Does someone know if this is a monument or memorial of some sort? I think it is installed outside Hotel Grand Pacific. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, curious if someone knows the location/name of this fountain/sculpture? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The first one appears to be here on Google Street View, and that photo is described as "Confederation Fountain". There's some info on it here but no article that I can see.

The second appears to be here, described as "Centennial Square" and located outside Victoria City Hall. I don't know if the artwork itself has a name but we do have an article on Centennial Square. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I created a stub for Confederation Garden Court. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

List of archives in Canada

The List of archives in Canada needs much updating as to links, rearrangement into alphabetical order and writing of articles. I am working through the links here - anyone care to help on the list there or here on WP? Jackiespeel (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Assistance is requested for Ron Baird Draft

Hello!

• I am trying to create an article for Canadian Sculptor Ron Baird,
• As I have a connection to the sculptor, I'd like to ask for assistance with the creation of the article
• Ron Baird is a famous Canadian Sculptor, one of his most notable works is the spirit Catcher
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_Catcher
• the next link is to the draft
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ron_Baird

Thanks for your time,

Artscanada (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Provincial and Territorial Orders

Noticed on WP:CAVA that the provincial and territorial orders have four different quality ratings (from Stub up to B) despite the fact that they are all pretty much the same. Wondering if there is an interest in making sure they're all standardized formatting and content, then deciding what class they all are. Looking at the different pages, I would propose that the following structure wouldn't require too much additional work. Mostly just formatting and creating List pages.

• Intro
• Structure and Appointment
• Insignia
• Living Members formatted as a table (Link to a full list of all members which would in some cases need to be created)

Wondering however if there is a general consensus on what quality the articles would all be at that point. I would think as they are, they should mostly be C-Class. From there, I think we would need to add a history section and make sure there are images of the actual award (not just the ribbon) to bump up to B-class. But even then I'm still a bit shaky on rating things above C. Kilgore89 (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Sandra Jansen

One for the Alberta contingent. Earlier today, an anonymous IP edited Alberta MLA Sandra Jansen's article to completely eliminate any acknowledgement whatsoever of the career bumps she hit in 2014 around (a) controversial public comments about a former caucus colleague, (b) reportedly travelling on the government aircraft at least once, and then (c) getting shuffled out of cabinet. Their rationale was that the content was "one-sided" and "did not articulate the full story" — but, of course, if there's context missing then the appropriate response is to add the missing context, not to sweep the whole thing entirely under the rug. What's significant about this, further, is that exactly the same thing happened three years ago over the exact same content — and that prior time, while it was a registered editor their username directly corresponded to the name of the then-president of Jansen's own constituency association (IOW, somebody with a direct conflict of interest.)

Could somebody who has more depth of knowledge about Alberta politics than I've got review the article to determine if there's any important and properly referenceable context that's missing from its handling of the controversial matters? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I will have a look, but I did remove the travel portion, as it was mentioned in one article about a larger issue about a different person, it does appear to be cherry picking to a degree. The shuffling of cabinet doesn't mention her at all, it appears that the cabinet was reduced in size and scope, and her position was abolished, but there is certainly no mention as to why. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Whatever the angle, someone from within the Government of Alberta (Service Alberta, to be specific) should not be editing articles on the elected members of that government without declaring their full conflict of interest, especially by removing controversial material. That alone is sufficient to justify your actions Bearcat. Pyrope 21:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Métis in Canada

Looking for eyes on this. article. Not really my field, but recent undiscussed edits appear to me to be POV wrt the "Only descendants of the Red River colony vs all Native/European mixes can call themselves Metis" argument. Meters (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

User in question has now commented in an old thread Talk:Métis in Canada#Eastern Métis. Meters (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Three Alberta designated place articles proposed for deletion

Please see the AfD here and provide your comments there. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 03:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Hwy43 for sharing here. The question we'd like input on: is a designated place still notable if it's located within an incorporated urban municipality? Madg2011 (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for candidate lists in election articles

Hi all, not sure if this the right place to post, but wanted to make a quick proposal:

Take a look at Ontario general election, 2018#Candidates by region as a current example of this issue. When we make candidate lists for election articles, standard practice on WP has been that any party running a candidate in a majority of ridings in a given "region" gets its own column in the table. That's why a separate column for the Libertarian Party appears throughout the tables in this article. In some regions of Ontario, the Trillium Party and the Northern Ontario Party also have their own columns. I don't know when this practice originated or if it's written down anywhere.

I have a couple issues with this practice. The first is that it's confusing to have different standards for "major parties" in different parts of the article. For example, there has been ongoing edit warring with people trying to add the Libertarians to the infobox of this article. We determine notability in the infobox by seats held and polling numbers, but in the tables by number of candidates. It's inconsistent.

The second, and more important, issue is that the "regions" into which ridings are grouped are not a real thing. They are only a tool used on WP to categorize ridings and make the results easier to edit and read. That's fine, of course - it's not WP:OR to say that a given riding is in a geographical area - but I think it's problematic that the threshold for a party to get its own column is that they need to run candidates in a majority of a made-up selection of ridings.

My proposal is that all parties in the infobox (ie. all "major" parties) get a column in the candidates tables, and all others fall under the "Other" column (regardless of how many candidates they run).

All feedback welcome! Madg2011 (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The problem with your proposal is that the 'other' column would become too confusing, unwieldy and cluttered if there are a lot of 'other' candidates. It's all a matter of aesthetics. Anyway, the matter was discussed at length in 2014 in an RfC -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Update, EarlAndrew - most regions in Ontario now has six party columns in addition to the "other" column. This seems more "confusing, unwieldy and cluttered" than the alternative. Madg2011 (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Earl, I wasn't aware of the RFC. This seems to agree that a column should be given to any party running a full slate (or close to it) or candidates. I could support that, but somewhere it got warped from "full slate" to "majority" and from "in the province" to "in a region." Would you say the arguments in the RFC still hold? Madg2011 (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I may just be confusing my own point of view with actual policy! But this issue did come up during the federal election, and from the looks of this 'majority in a region' seems to have prevailed, without my influence. -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Canadian Election Infoboxes

In the context of the 2015 election, this map doesn't really tell you anything particularly useful, yet is given a prominent location in the Infobox.

On the topic of Politics (as per above), I have an issue with the way that the popular vote is described in the infoboxes on the elections pages (such as Canadian federal election, 2015). I am generally against having the file File:Canada 2015 Federal Election.svg included in the infobox, as it is effectively meaningless. We don't elect via popular vote, and you don't vote for a Prime Minister in the same manner as the US President (notwithstanding the whole electoral college system). So the map shows what party got the most votes in each province, which again, while interesting, doesn't mean anything. While it does show the seats won, it is certainly not the dominant feature, which it should be. Further to this is the statement Popular vote by province, with graphs indicating the number of seats won. As this is an FPTP election, seat totals are not determined by popular vote by province but instead via results by each riding.

I have no idea why it references a FPTP election, the Prime Minister isn't elected in a FPTP election, which is basically what the infobox is summarizing. The election is a series of 338 FPTP elections, which make up one giant FPTP election I suppose, but the PM isn't elected, he or she is appointed by the GG. It would be more appropriate to say something like "The prime minister is the leader of the party which receives the most seats in the House of Commons, not by popular vote." Or something that actually summarizes what happens.

I guess my first preference would be to remove the map (which while interesting, mainly illustrates the popular vote, a statistic which is meaningless in the context of the actual election results), and replace it with one which shows the riding results (similar to File:2015UKElectionMap.svg, which is what I thought we used to do), as that is what actually determines the governing party and the PM. At a minimum I think the blurb needs to be rewritten. The whole thing just doesn't make sense to me, it's like saying "hey here is this cool map which isn't representative of the way elections in Canada work." --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

A simple solution might be to change the colouring from the party that won the popular vote in that province to the party that won the most seats in that province (shaded accordingly). A map of riding results will be unreadable at infobox scale. Madg2011 (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

As the map we are using right now sits, the seats won (which is the important piece of information) is illegible at infobox size, File:Canada Election 2015 Results Map (Simple).svg would be more readable. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 17:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, you're right, that would work. Madg2011 (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you that the "single colour for who won the popular vote provincewide" map format isn't useful or relevant; it doesn't tell the reader anything useful about how the Canadian election process actually works. It started that way because of the scale problems that made it difficult to produce a useful riding-level map before we started making it a policy to do maps in a scalable SVG format — the old way, clicking on a map to "zoom in" didn't actually make it any larger or more detailed than the infobox size, so we went with the single-colour format at the time because there was no viable way to make a usable riding-level map. But now that scalable SVG format is the standard for maps, the single-colour maps should have been replaced with riding-level maps, rather than simply continuing to do them the old way. The riding-specific map is much better and much more informative, so that's what we should be doing. Bearcat (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The proposed map (by Kelapstick) should be implemented. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

RFC on a subheader in Doug Ford Jr re hashish dealing allegations

• Talk:Doug Ford Jr.#RFC: Hashish dealing subsection and heading Should the subheading "Allegations of hashish dealing in the 1980s" be retained or should the relevant passages not have a subheading? 13:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

FLRC

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Prime Ministers of Canada by time in office/archive1. Nergaal (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Village Pump proposal to delete all Portals

Editors at this project might be interested in the discussion concerning the proposed deletion of all Portals across Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Ending_the_system_of_portals.Bermicourt (talk) 08:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I have a trophy, silver plated, “1st place 2 mile counties Amherst ’98 presented by H. J. Logan, MP”. Is this HANCE JAMES LOGAN member of Canadian Parliament? Amherst Point, Nova Scotia?Rickpwells (talk) 23:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Nova Scotia

The article Next Nova Scotia general election, should be moved to 41st Nova Scotia general election. Seeing as this is how we name such 'future election' articles, when the year isn't certain. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

There's a problem with that numbering, since 41st Nova Scotia general election is a disambiguation page listing all of the elections by year which are considered the 41st by different counting methods. At the moment this is standard practice for "<n>th <province> general election" articles in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick where there are several valid counting methods (c.f. Next New Brunswick general election is a redirect because the next NB election has a tentative date). There was a discussion about what to do about this on this page not that long ago, I'll find a link in a minute. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 24#Numbering of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia general elections. I guess that discussion fizzled without anything happening. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps the solution, is to move all the other provincial/territorial future elections to Next 'place' general election form. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Why would we do that for a province where the next election date is already known due to fixed-election date legislation? We don't have any rule that requires every province's next election to be named consistently with each other even if their actual circumstances are different. Bearcat (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why we have "next election" articles at all. If an election hasn't been called then these articles fail WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL, we're just accumulating cruft about an indeterminate future event. As far as I know, none of the provinces' fixed election date laws set the date in stone: they set a time limit from the previous election, but don't preclude an election being called earlier than that. PEI's next fixed date is 2019 with 2023 the next fixed date after that, but there's already speculation about an early call this year, then the next fixed date would be 2022. So these dates aren't really all that "fixed", not like in the U.S. where the elections always occur on a specific day no matter what. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree that there's not necessarily a tremendous amount of value in maintaining "next" articles at all in most cases — especially given that some people seem to think that one needs to be immediately rush-jobbed into place the very moment the current election gets its writ dropped, which it so very utterly doesn't. Accumulating cruft about an indeterminate future event is exactly what these are, in large part — every once in a while, we even have somebody raise the debating point that the party leaders should be entirely excluded from the "next election" article, on the grounds that it's WP:CRYSTAL to presume that they'll still be leading the party when that election rolls around, and yet if an election article can't even name the party leaders then the election article has no value at all.

I'm simply not convinced that they're actually necessary or valuable articles to maintain at all. But consensus hasn't supported getting rid of them yet, and as long as we're stuck with 'em consensus did determine that it's preferable to use the fixed election date as the title in the interim, and then move the page to the new date if and when an election call actually gets moved up, rather than preemptively assuming that all fixed election date legislation inherently means nothing at all. Sure, since fixed election dates became a thing in this country there have been instances where we've subsequently had to move the article up to an earlier date than the law predicted — but there have been more elections where we didn't need to do that at all than there have been ones where we did, and it's not actually any different in substance from having to move a "next election" article once the date was confirmed. Bearcat (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

An example is 66th Prince Edward Island general election, which could be moved to Next Prince Edward Island general election. GoodDay (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Reason why that's needed being...? Bearcat (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Because, we don't need to have them with "Xth election" titles. GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Why are you so opposed to using "Next" in the titles of these future election articles, that haven't had the year determined yet? I've noticed this resistance from you in the past, at the 43rd Canadian federal election article. Anyways, I've opened up an Rfc (see below). GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily "opposed" to it, per se, but you have yet to demonstrate any compelling reason, except for some blanket "consistency with other articles that have completely different circumstances" rule that Wikipedia does not actually have, why "next" would be preferable to any other naming format. For example, while it's true that fixed election dates are not invariable but rather an election can be moved to an earlier date if circumstances call for it, the fact that an article might eventually have to be moved to an earlier date is not a strong argument against using the presumptive fixed election date, because using "next" or the ordinal still results in an article that is also eventually going to have to be moved. So the permanence or impermanence of the current title is not an argument for or against any of the naming possibilities — and neither is "every future election across Canada has to be named the same way as each other for consistency", because Wikipedia has no requirement for invariable consistency across unrelated or indirectly related topics, but rather leaves plenty of room for variability based on individual circumstances and regional dialect variations and on and so forth.

What you're proposing is neither mandated by Wikipedia rules, nor so obviously the only correct answer that anybody who disagrees with you obviously lacks any common sense whatsoever. So it's not my responsibility to somehow have to justify why I disagree with your proposal, above and beyond the explanations I've already given, because it's not as though the need for this is inherently obvious and I'm just stubbornly "resisting" the "inevitable" for no rational reason — it's your responsibility to provide a substantive reason, besides the necessity of future page moves (which is shared by both options) or a requirement for invariable consistency across all Canadian federal and provincial election articles (which is not a real Wikipedia rule), as to why the articles' existing titles aren't acceptable. Bearcat (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Two new users editwaring

Not sure what's going on with 2 new editors User:PneumaticEditor and User:The CSOTK...they seem to be talking about military flags. Can we get someone familiar with our policies on flags and our military to look at the ongoing situation. SEE HERE. WILL send them a WELCOME. -Moxy (talk) 21:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Paul Anka, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Crazy long infoboxes

I made an edit to Andrew Scheer based on the model of UK politicians like Theresa May, and Winston Churchill to shorten an incredibly long infobox. In the case of Scheer, the indobox was going well down into his political career, hindering the readers ability to get to the point. I realize that using the collapsible format, this does not help mobile readers, I still think it is worthwhile. There are many articles where this could be useful but I would like to get some feedback first and use the Scheer article as a pilot to see what people think. Is this a good model to follow? --IDW5605 (talk) 23:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

in my opinion Canadian politician suffer from this greatly. I would endorse any attempt at trimming them. Problem is we have editors that's all they do is go around filling boxe parameters. It's the biggest downfall about merging all the old templates into one..... problem is those that like mergers think it's a good idea to have 200 parameters. They forgot that these were built specifically for each country and each topic with minimal specific parameters.--Moxy (talk) 23:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why Shadow Cabinet positions should ever be included in the infobox. They don't have any power or responsibilities, and we don't have articles about those positions to begin with. Another thing is the MPs who represent several different ridings at different times.. they could have their infoboxes trimmed marginally if we used the |constituency pararemeter instaed of the |riding parameter which creates a new header for each riding represented. --IDW5605 (talk) 00:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Riding= doesn't actually create a new header in and of itself, or, if it does, it shouldn't — it should behave exactly the same way as constituency=, because they're just different terms for the exact same thing. Rather, office= is what should be starting a new header. So if that's really how riding= is behaving, it should be corrected. (I have caught a few instances in the past where entry fields in that infobox were behaving oddly, such as American state legislators where if predecessor= was changed to succeeding= in order to not prematurely turn the incumbent flag on, that caused the box to override the legislature= field and denote them as a member-elect to the federal House of Representatives instead of the state legislature that was correctly specified in the correct place. I know nothing about complex template coding, so I wasn't able to fix that myself, but I got it fixed by posting an edit request to the template's talk page.)

That said, I agree with excluding shadow cabinet positions from the infobox, as well as parliamentary secretaries. Bearcat (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

The way the template works, |riding= creates a new header and so on articles like Justin Trudeau, the |office= parameter isn't even used in the MP section. I changed "riding" to "constituency" on Michelle Rempel which does not create a new header. --IDW5605 (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Article issues

Can someone look at Talk:Canadian National Vimy Memorial#Article issues? Otr500 (talk) 01:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Rhinoceros Party of Canada (1963–93)

An article which may be of interest to this project—Rhinoceros Party of Canada (1963–93)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 08:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

RFC: Making provincial and territorial 'future' election articles, consistent in titles

IMHO, we should move the following articles to new titles, making them consistent with the Next Nova Scotia general election article, which currently doesn't have a definite year. These would change, once a definite year was established.

• 30th Alberta general election to Next Alberta general election
  
• 42nd British Columbia general election to Next British Columbia general election
  
• 42nd Manitoba general election to Next Manitoba general election
  
• 50th Newfoundland and Labrador general election to Next Newfoundland and Labrador general election
  
• 66th Prince Edward Island general election to Next Prince Edward Island general election
  
• 29th Saskatchewan general election to Next Saskatchewan general election
  
• 39th Yukon general election to Next Yukon general election.
  

GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• In general, unstable tiles like "next X" or "current X" are a bad idea. As far as possible article text and all edits should be done from a presumption that the encyclopedia is getting burned to CD, or otherwise not edited again. What text or title should we save now, if it's going to be read by readers today and ten years from now?
  I'm not familiar with Canadian elections.... can they just be titled by year? Alsee (talk) 11:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Not exactly, we don't have fixed election dates like in some other countries. Canadian law (where there is such a law) typically requires an election within a certain time frame from the previous election, and sometimes specifies which day of the year the election will occur (second Monday in October, I believe), but does not preclude an election being called earlier than that on any date the Governor General decides (practically, is told). Federally, our most recent general election was in 2015 so the next is required in or before 2019, but if one were called this year, then the law would require the next election to occur before 2022. For the provinces, treatment varies. Essentially, we can't presume in which year the next election will occur until the election is called, so for most provinces we title the elections by their ordinal number, except that ordinals don't work for two of the provinces because they are numbered from two different origins: an election in New Brunswick or Nova Scotia is numbered from the British colony's founding in the 18th century and also from Canadian Confederation on 1 July 1867. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Correct. And the perfect example is the current coalition government in British Columbia. With a one-seat majority in the house (two if you count that the speaker is from the non-ruling coalition) and the balance of power held by the Green Party, a simple disagreement could result a vote of non-confidence. Weaver has stated that he will support the NDP until he has achieved his party's goals for the session. Alternately, a non-confidence vote could be triggered by the Liberals if they felt that the coalition partners were unprepared to win (and they thought they could win at the polls). So while the next scheduled election is in 2021, it could easily come earlier. So yes, bad idea until the writ is dropped, and unnecessary as WP:CRYSTAL suggests. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose It's poor practice to use article names that routinely change meaning, and there's also the question of when exactly a certain election becomes the "next" general election. Any confusion about the numbers would best be handled by a hatnote. –dlthewave ☎ 19:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

• I'm hoping someone has a compelling rationale as to why we need to move these pages? The "nth election" titles are accurate as the next elections in these provinces are definitively the <n>th election (New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are the exceptions but they're not included here), and once the date of the upcoming election is established our convention is to move them to "<province> general election, <year>". If we move them to a "next" title now, they will still need to be moved again, most of them soon, so what's the point? I don't mean to sound lazy or oppose change for the sake of opposing change, I just don't see any good reason to do this. Make the "next" titles redirects to the nth election articles if you want, but remember that someone's going to have to run around updating those redirects every 4-ish years. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

They'll need to be moved again, only when the year is established. Something that won't happen to all of them at the same time. Updating every 4-ish years isn't a big task, as there's only 13 of these articles in total. Right now, Nova Scotia is sticking out like a sore thumb. GoodDay (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict but relevant to the conflicted comment) Furthermore, the reason these titles are inconsistent with "Next New Brunswick" and "Next Nova Scotia" is because those provinces have two recognized counting methods, meaning (for example) the Next Nova Scotia general election is both the 41st and 64th, so it's more precise to use "next" for those provinces. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I know of this. But it's still odd to have 2 (currently 1, as we now have New Brunswick general election, 2018) out of sync with the rest. Since it's too complicated to bring the 2 (currently 1) in line, then why not bring the rest in line. Consistency shouldn't be a problem. GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Consistency of naming across all provincial elections is not a requirement that supersedes any other consideration. This is a solution in search of a problem, not a pressing or urgent need. Bearcat (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The problem with 'Next' in the title is it's a floater and the target keeps changing meaning a link to "next general election" (she decided not to run in the next Canadian federal election that's a few years old may be pointing to the wrong election.Nixon Now (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

They'll need to be moved eventually regardless of what title is used, so the need to move them is not a valid argument for or against any of the options. In fact, if the need to move the page again in the future is actually a concern, then that actually speaks most strongly toward using the presumptive fixed election date in a jurisdiction that has them — because while both "next" and ordinals guarantee that a page move will always be necessary in the future, using the presumptive fixed election date in the interim at least shifts that prospect from "always" to "maybe" in a way that neither of the other options does. Bearcat (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Why do they need to be moved? The 29th Saskatchewan general election is always and forever going to be the 29th Saskatchewan general election. Why don't we just make that the permanent name, and redirect from whatever year the election actually occurs? We could easily make that a national standard, if national standards are so important. As for the ordinal system in NB/NS, just pick one. Having a "next general election" title that is actually a different article depending on when you look at it is a WP:LINKROT problem, we should avoid doing it whenever we can. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The reason we can't just decide to make the ordinal the permanent name, and never move the article at all, is because Wikipedia has an established naming convention that election article titles have to have the year in them. Bearcat (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

That's not a good reason at all. That naming convention was evidently established among editors used to fixed election dates, in a system where it can always be determined on what date the next election will occur. We know that the next U.S. presidential election will occur in 2020, so we can make a permanent article at United States presidential election, 2020. That will definitely be the permanent title of that article, barring some incredible constitutional overhaul within the next year and a bit. The Canadian system doesn't work that way at all, the only certainty we have about the next general election is that it will be the one after the previous one. There's a pretty reasonable chance it won't be in the next two months, and it will be before fall 2019, but in between those two extremes it's anyone's guess. There's also the possibility that there could be two elections in one calendar year: although I don't know of any examples it almost happened federally in 1926, and many provincial governments have sat for less than a year. If ordinal numbering better suits the Canadian situation then we should ignore the rule. I'm not saying that's definitely the way we should do things, but "everyone else does it this way" is an exceptionally bad reason to do anything.

Alternatively, I would suggest that the next New Brunswick and Nova Scotia elections should live at a title numbered by the most prominent counting method, with the "next" titles as redirects, before being renamed to the date when it becomes apparent. That's kind of the reverse of GoodDay's proposal, but solves the national consistency issue while not creating an issue of linkrot or opening the potential for dislocated histories. I'm not sure which system is more prominent, but I think we've had that discussion on this page before. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

You suggested that we should move all election articles, even the ones that are in the past and thus have definitive and unchangeable years already known and locked, to their ordinal instead of their year. That's what I was responding to, so the continued variability of a future election date is not a relevant response to what I said. The fact that we don't have fixed election dates is not a reason to elide the year in an article about a past election, which was held in a specific year and can never move around at all. British and Australian elections weren't historically fixed-date either, but they haven't deemed that as a reason to completely eradicate years from articles about past elections on the grounds that election dates aren't fixed — the date of a future election may certainly still be up in the air, but the date of a past one that has already happened is locked and nailed, and cannot be retroactively rescheduled as long as time travel remains a science fiction concept rather than a thing humans can actually do. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I did suggest that, in the interest of nationwide consistency. And then I responded to my own suggestion (now below) that it doesn't work anyway, because national consistency doesn't exist (in a nutshell). And all I meant to say in the rant above is that doing a broken thing just because it works in other situations is not a good reason to do a thing that we know is broken, and if it were better to do things differently for Canadian elections, then we should do it. It was tossing out a suggestion, not really a concrete proposal. But I agree with you that numbering by date is better - it's far more universal and permanent, excepting the issue of indeterminate upcoming elections. As for whether to use presumptive fixed election dates for future elections in our quasi-fixed-date system, I guess that's fine, and it's fine for it not to be nationally consistent (I don't think all the provinces have fixed election laws, but I don't know). If we title by ordinal or use "next" then it's 100% certain that we will need to move the page at some point, but if we presume the date then it's, oh, I don't know, 50/50? And if it does come up some time in the future that there are two general elections in the same year I'm sure we'll be able to figure out that special case. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Relevant past discussion: Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 24#Numbering of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia general elections.

So, actually, neither of my suggestions above would work on a national basis, since PEI doesn't number provincial elections at all. Oof. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• The root of the proposal seems to be a difference in counting methods. The 39th Nova Scotia general election is officially the 39th election after confederation (2013 election), but it could technically refer to the 39th election overall (1933 or possibly 1928 due to a counting error). The question is, does anyone actually count it that way?

I'm not entirely convinced that all of these DABs and renames are needed, unless the potential source of confusion is shown to be an actual source of confusion or something that is reported differently by different sources. The counting errors mentioned at 39th Nova Scotia general election aren't even mentioned in the linked articles. All of the elections are unambiguously referred to as "nth general election" in the first sentence, so I don't see much evidence that they might be referred to by different numbers. –dlthewave ☎ 19:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Canadian Currency

Every article involving Canadian currency, 1 cent, 5 cent, 10 cent, 25 cent and dollar are totally Americanised. It's disgusting. In Canada there are no coins Penny (UK), Nickel (US), Dime (US), or Quarter(US). Sure we use these as nicknames for the coins styled after the American look-alike coins but for Pete's sake, we do not have any money spelled "Nickel". "Nickel" isn't even a word in Canada. It's bad enough that we blindly followed the US changing our counting system and the Canadian government doesn't even know when it changed. (Billion = bi-million = 10^12 but that is another argument and the CanGov sheeple backs it now)

These articles need to be turned around using Canadian spellings and dialect. Tiles should be Canadian one cent coin, Canadian 5 cent coin (nickle), Canadian ten cent coin (dime). we don;t need to start articles by referring to them in search engines by slang words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.2.76.28 (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

First, what's wrong with Americanization?

Second, the Americans also use the term "penny", and Canada no longer uses the currency.

Third, WP:COMMONALITY suggests that we should prefer vocabulary common to all varieties of English, and the nicknames for the coins are not universal so should probably not be used. I'm sure that there is a guideline that describes how to display and discuss currency, but I see no problems making reference to "cents". Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Nickle is an archaic form for a Middle English variant of the name Nicholas, or a misspelling for what in Canadian English is spelled nickel (c.f. the Big Nickel). It's also spelled nickel in both US and UK English. Frankly it's difficult to distinguish the IP's argument from outright trolling. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Beat me to it about "nickel". And "penny", "dime" and "quarter" are also perfectly normal Canadian usages per the Canadian Oxford. Meters (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

This appears to have been the anon's complaint, but I reverted it since it's clearly not a problem. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Fish Creek

Battle of Fish Creek needs a few more watchers. Someone has vandalised the page. Please check this editors previous edits. -- Kayoty (talk) 06:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Audio files

Earlier today, an editor named MiroslavGlavic started adding .ogg clips to many members of Toronto City Council of their names being pronounced. I can imagine that some editor somewhere might find this useful in the case of Cesar Palacio (Cee-zer? Ce-zahr?), but I'm having a harder time seeing why it would be needed for Sarah Doucette, Frank Di Giorgio, Frances Nunziata, Giorgio Mammoliti, Mark Grimes, Justin Di Ciano, John Campbell, Stephen Holyday, Michael Ford, Vincent Crisanti, Denzil Minnan-Wong, Jon Burnside, Jaye Robinson, David Shiner, John Filion, Christin Carmichael Greb, Josh Colle, James Pasternak, Maria Augimeri or Anthony Perruzza — whose names are all quite straightforward, and many (though just you wait for the punchline) are virtually impossible to mispronounce in any way.

And a few weeks ago, he also did the same on Michelle Holland, Michael Thompson, Paul Ainslie, Neethan Shan, Norm Kelly, Jim Karygiannis, Jim Hart, Glenn De Baeremaeker, Gary Crawford and Chin Lee, of which I can maybe see a case for Karygiannis and De Baeremaeker, but who in Christ's underpants can't work out how to pronounce "Jim Hart" or "Michael Thompson" or "Chin Lee" or "Gary Crawford" without having to listen to an audio pronunciation guide first?

And here's that punchline I told you to wait for: the user hyperarticulates John Campbell, such that he doesn't pronounce it anything like the normal "Camble", but instead splits it up into "Camp (pause) Bell", complete with a full plosive p on Camp. Said nobody else ever. And oh, he mucks up De Baeremaeker, too, basically rendering it as "Deebeemaker" where even Glenn himself pronounces it more like "Debearmaker" — and by getting that wrong, he thus blows the potential case for including it there either. And since I posted this comment, he's been continuing to add it to the rest of them, too — because apparently people are too dumb to work out the pronunciations of Gord Perks or Joe Cressy or Mike Layton or Paula Fletcher on their own, either.

So I wanted to ask if anybody else thinks these are as dumb and pointless and revertable as I do — and if so, is anybody willing to help with removing them (and being strength in numbers if it turns into a full-on edit war) so that one person isn't tackling this alone? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 22:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Funny you bring this up..... was reading Jim Karygiannis and thought it was a verbal version of the article.....to my surprise it was just the name. I don't see how it's useful...but see what others say. I would say remove.--Moxy (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm kind of familiar with Miroslav from Toronto politics Twitter back in the day (I avoid it now) and I did see him adding these files, and figured it was a harmless addition. It didn't really occur to me that maybe he actually doesn't know how to pronounce them. As for utility, remember that we're making an encyclopedia for everyone, including people who might not be familiar with pronunciation of Anglicized names, or locally prominent pronunciation of foreign names, or just not familiar with English pronunciation entirely. If the files are accurate, they're harmless. If they're wrong, then by all means remove them, but I'm also fairly confident this is an editor who wants to help and who you could talk to about it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

For some more complex names (I did single out De Baeremaeker and Karygiannis as examples) I can imagine that being a reasonable approach — but there is also a point at which a name's pronunciation is so straightforwardly obvious ("Hart") that a person who can't suss it out on their own inherently doesn't read English well enough to even be here to listen to the files at all, and I feel that more of the names involved here fall on the overkill side of that line than the worthwile side. YMMV, I suppose. Bearcat (talk) 00:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Some of those names you listed as having obvious pronunciations potentially can vary depending on the degree of anglicization that has happened from the original non-English pronunciation. I also think we shouldn't dismiss the helpfulness for foreign readers who may not have absorbed the various orthographic hints to pronunciation (and I'm not sure how much of this is explicitly taught in North American schools these days). I appreciate the relatively low added-value for straightforward names, but I think we should be careful about dismissing too many pronunciations as being obvious. isaacl (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

As a possibly relevant aside, when the TTC first started using voice synthesis for automated stop announcements (they were prerecorded human voice before that) they mis-spoke many locally eccentric pronunciations, famously "Spadina" as "spa-DEE-na". It turned out after making the rounds in the papers that it was actually a valid pronunciation that had morphed locally into "spa-DIE-na" for reasons nobody knew. Local forum thread about it.

Already addressed in the article on Spadina Avenue. And I struggle to see how it's relevant to the pronunciations of the names of incumbent city councillors. Bearcat (talk) 23:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Some of those examples aren't that straight forward. For example, is 'Perruzza' pronounced like it is supposed to in Italian (like the zz in pizza) or like an anglicized 'z'? Actually, this goes for all of the Italian names listed. They could be pronounced as they were in Italian, or a bastardized English version. -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Taking "Doucette" as another example, my personal instinct would be to say it as in French, but given that the person comes from the UK, I have no idea how it's supposed to be pronounced. (MP Pierre Poilievre is an example of someone whose name has been anglicized to sound completely different from its French origins.) And is "Holyday" pronounced like "holiday" or "holy day"? isaacl (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I deleted the link to the audio file for John Campbell this morning as it's clearly wrong. I'm fairly sure the file for Glenn De Baeremaeker is wrong too, but I'm not certain.....maybe it should be removed due to uncertainty? PKT(alk) 11:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I took out the file for Glenn De Baeremaeker this morning. De Baeremaeker is in the news this morning and the file doesn't represent how his name is pronounced. PKT(alk) 15:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Suggestions for better title for Isabella Jones and Ira Junius Johnson?

I created Isabella Jones and Ira Junius Johnson a few days ago, but the title's not very good—it's not a biography so much as an article about an incident (the KKK trying to prevent an interracial marriage). Can anyone come up with a more appropriate title? There doesn't appear to be a name associated with the incident in any of the sources I've looked through. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

cities/towns missing from historic places list-articles

Hey, in List of historic places in Eastern Ontario and similar list-articles, the display does not show a column for city or other municipality. In a single-city list like the one for Kingston, that's fine, but not in the list for a huge area! I see that this was also pointed out by User:Magicpiano at template talk:HPC row#Not showing municipality on 25 April. Anyone know how to proceed? --Doncram (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC) Pinging past template editors User:Arctic.gnome and User:Plastikspork. --Doncram (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

It does seem like Arctic.gnome's changes here caused that functionality to break - it looks like they removed the code that interpreted the switch and made it pull from wikidata only. I don't know enough about template markup or wikidata to troubleshoot and Arctic.gnome hasn't responded despite being pinged several times, so I have reverted to the last working version. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

"Swing" in election results

Whilst Wiki-gnoming this morning, I came across Vimont (electoral district), which had not been updated for the results of the 2014 Quebec elections. I found the numbers and added the results to the article, but I don't know how to calculate the "swing" for the overall result of the election. It wasn't something in the source I used (Elections Quebec). Can somebody help? Thanx in advance!..PKT(alk) 14:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure, it's the average of the percentage point difference of the top two parties. So, (A+-B)/2, where A is the percentage point difference of Party #1 and B is the percentage point difference of Party #2. -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Earl. I found another riding Verchères (provincial electoral district) where it's behind by 2 elections and am working on adding that info now. PKT(alk) 16:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

No worries. You got the swing calculation correct with Vimont. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Canadian Transportation Agency

The CTA has undergone some structural changes and I as an employee of the agency have been asked to reflect those changes in our wikipedia article.

Things that have been identified for potential improvement:

• Add a sidebar similar to what the CRTC has (date established, parent ministry, etc...)
• Updates to CTA mandate & structure (I can help interested editors find information about the agency's new structure and mandate if needed)
• Additional information about the legislation and regulations that the CTA is responsible for.

I am new to the editing game, and I want to play by the rules. Any help and/or direction would be much appreciated!

Apologies for not signing my post... Slipslopsloot (talk • contribs) 12:36, 23 May 2018

I have added Canadian Transportation Agency to my watchlist. I'll help you if and when you might need it, Slipslopsloot. As for the CRTC sidebar, it's created by using {{Infobox government agency}} and filling in whatever blanks you can. Ciao, PKT(alk) 23:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Slipslopsloot: As an employee, your edits will be a conflict of interest. While not forbidden, this is strongly discouraged. Please first read WP:COI and follow the instructions there, in particular the section "How to disclose a COI". Thanks. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the info @PKT: and @P199:! I tried submitting proposed edits using the templates outlined in WP:COI however they were rejected. The editor responsible suggested that I reach out to this group. Should I re-submit my proposed changes? Slipslopsloot (talk • contribs) 17:38 (UTC), 24 May 2018

If you haven't already, please also read Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure regarding the need to disclose your status as a paid editor (as you have been doing so far; you may find it useful to put a disclosure on your user page). Note all related edits require disclosure, even the ones you're making to this page, talk pages, or other discussion pages. isaacl (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Looking for help with working on cultural, crime and ethnic articles

I've been going through some Canada-related articles, and would like help on expanding these a bit more:

• Asüna

• American Canadian

• Chinese Canadian

• William Bennest

• Dodge Dynasty

• Emily Bett Rickards - needs to be WP:BLP compliant

• United States-Canada border

• Indo-Canadians

These articles need some work from an expert, but being no expert in the subject matter, I'd appreciate some help, and get consensus first on edits for them.

I'm new to WikiProject Canada but want to help out, maybe get the Emily Bett Rickards, American Canadian, William Bennest or Asuna article to featured status. --Chelston-temp-1 (talk) 12:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)