Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Book:Canada

I've greatly expanded the book recently, but I don't know if I got everything of importance. Could you give a look/feedback/add what you think is missing? Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

A project for the geography hounds

I've got a cleanup job that requires a willing assistant or three, if anybody's got the time. A user recently created a basic stub for almost every place on List of communities in Ontario that was still a redlink — however, there are a number of problems that require some attention:

  1. Firstly, he described each place as being a "municipality" rather than a community. None of the places in question are incorporated municipalities, as all of the incorporated municipalities in Ontario were already written up — each and every one of them is a community within an incorporated municipality.
  2. Secondly, he categorized all of them directly in Category:Settlements in Ontario, instead of following the existing practice of subcategorizing them by their appropriate Category:Communities in Ontario by census division.
  3. Some of the redlinks were in fact misspellings or improper titles for things that already had articles (e.g. Nairn, Sudbury District, Ontario, which was already at Nairn and Hyman, Ontario, and Melanchton, Ontario, which was already at Melancthon, Ontario.) Nor do I have any idea who ever actually thought that we would ever actually require two separate articles for the Howard Township and Harwick Township portions of New Scotland, Chatham-Kent, Ontario, either. Chatham-Kent is a single municipality, guys! The township line has no actual bearing on anything! But I digress.
  4. In truth, keeping with the principle of WP:RS, some of them — specifically, those places for which it's not possible to write a reasonably detailed and referenced article — should really just be redirects to their parent municipalities anyway. If all we can genuinely manage is a one-line stub which only says that "X is a neighbourhood in Y City", then X doesn't actually need its own separate article.

Is anybody willing and able to help out a bit with this? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 03:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The New Scotland issue may have been my fault - I added redlinks for both to a disambiguation page (specifically, New Scotland, Ontario). The user who created them may not have been aware they referred to the same place. (I think we should maintain those as redirects, of course.)
As far as confusing the terms 'municipality' and 'community', that user isn't the first, and won't be the last. I've changed countless entries with this mistake as I come across them. I'm not sure there's much more we can do about this, other than to leave a polite note at each editor's talk page as we notice such mistakes.
I'll try to review a few of that user's edits as time permits. He has created hundreds of microstubs about places in Jamaica and Australia, and thousands about places in many Canadian provinces. (For those that want to review them - see this contributions log, or the more readily available list on his userpage; placename articles for Newfoundland and Labrador were created between 4-6 December 2009; Nova Scotia on 4 December; BC on 3 December; Ontario between 26 November and 2 December; Quebec between 25-26 November; PEI on 24 November; New Brunswick on 22-24 November; Manitoba on 22 November; Saskatchewan on 17-22 November). This is going to be a lot of work, even for a group of editors. Mindmatrix 17:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I'm getting Prince Edward Island cleaned up rather easily, but it's a special case — with only three counties, it's pretty much "look at location map, HotCat the category change", and he didn't make the "municipality" error on those. I doubt any of the others will be nearly as straightforward. Bearcat (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

A vote to move Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom to Elizabeth II is being held at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. —what a crazy random happenstance 02:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Book:Calgary

Created this tonight, but I'm not from Calgary so I can't really judge if the book give proper balance to things (or if I missed important stuff). Could you give a look/feedback/add what you think is missing? Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 08:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone please check my bias at Legislative session

I reverted this edit because all of the new information sounded too biased, except maybe the party funding as the reason for the coalition and the mechanisms for re-introducing bills after prorogation. Can someone please check that I wasn't just editing to my bias when I undid? Thanks. I also would appriciate any advice on how to organize information about the current prorogation and whether it should all be grouped in one article. ----Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Bombardier CC-144 Challenger

FYI, the Aircraft wikiproject is talking about merging Bombardier CC-144 Challenger into the main aircraft article. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

New award??

Could we make an award for the Music project...
i bring this up here as i take it this would have to be a broad decision
..something with our logo LIKE:

A Barnstar!
test
Awarded for outstanding contribution to Canadian music

tks in advance !!! Buzzzsherman (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Reviewers wanted for John Diefenbaker

Hi, I've nominated John Diefenbaker for peer review and also, since that process is moving slowly right now, for good article. Either way, the idea is to get it to Featured Article Candidates by the end of the month. This would be the first Canadian PM to make it to FA, and I hope members of the project will be willing to review the article as it goes through the process. I should add that I already have the first UK PM(Neville Chamberlain) and first Soviet Premier (Nikita Khrushchev) to make FA on my trophy shelf, so this is a very serious attempt. Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The article is now at FAC, and although there are no opposes, there are no supports either. Reviewers desperately needed, esp from this WikiProject. This would be a breakthrough, the first Canadian PM to make it Come on. Please?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Mass deletion of Alberta settlements

Please review the mass afd nomination for Alberta settlements at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 January 9. --Qyd (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I know that a mass deletion seems rude, and 110 articles qualifies as a mass deletion, but it is small in comparison to how many Alberta settlement articles already exist, 385 registered hamlets, plus an unknown amount of articles about communities with historical significance. But where do we draw the line, what community is too small to be notable? 117Avenue (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

While some communities don't really have very much properly sourced content that can be written about them and are more realistically dealt with as subsections of the articles about their parent municipalities rather than as independent standalone articles, any named community that exists is notable enough to be considered a valid potential topic for an article — because any sort of "communities must be X size to be notable" standard would fail Wikipedia's injunctions against imposing arbitrary cutoffs on inclusion guidelines. So any community that can be verifiably shown to exist is entitled to either a standalone article or a redirect. Bearcat (talk) 04:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
So where is the line between standalone and redirect? 117Avenue (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Whether or not we can adequately reference an independent article to reliable sources, and whether or not there's a viable target for it to be redirected to. For example, even without references, Hunta, Ontario can't be redirected anywhere, because it isn't part of a larger entity. Bearcat (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Getting stressed at Senate of Canada

Will people take a look at the recent edits at Senate of Canada? I'm not in the mood for dealing with n00bs today, so I'm already losing my patience. -Rrius (talk) 03:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you leave a bit more detail as to what the issue is? DigitalC (talk) 16:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

What is Canada doing to help victims of the Haiti earthquake?

I have been following the Haiti earthquake events unfold at Wikipedia and this morning found this and thought to myself surely we can do better, can't we? (I am not sure where to post this to get the attention of Canadian Wikipedians, so if this is the wrong place I would appreciate some kind of direction) Ottawahitech (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I added another item of which I'm aware - Rogers is donating $250,000. PKT(alk) 15:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia has now split this into two different artciles:

Defenceman -> Defenseman

Defenceman has come up for renaming again, to the American spelling, again, see Talk:Defenceman

76.66.197.17 (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Portal:Northwest Territories

Hello! I have recently nominated the Northwest Territories portal for portal peer review. Someday I hope to help this portal get promoted to featured portal status. I would love it if you could join in the discussion at this page. Thanks! JulieSpaulding JulieSpaulding (talk) 13:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

New article

Ok i have made a new article Indigenous American genetic studies ....First I think we should find an appropriate title for it !!...but that is being dissused at the Wikiproject ..I am here to as you all to add this to your watch list pls !!! ..Buzzzsherman (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:Public Houses in Canada

Category:Public Houses in Canada has been nominated for renaming to Category:Drinking establishments in Canada... seeing as I haven't see "public house" used in Canada (or at least my region, and the regions I have been to), I was surprised to see such a category... 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

There must be a foreign definition that you are implying, because I am Canadian and, when you say public houses, I think of public housing in Canada. NorthernThunder (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
"Public house" is a formal UK-ism for what they (and we) would more commonly know as a pub. 76 is right, however, that the longer term isn't particularly known in Canada; it's also true that while in the UK almost all drinking establishments are pubs, in Canada there are several different varieties which aren't all pubs. Bearcat (talk) 07:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Prime Ministers infobox or category?

Right now the Stephen Harper article has both a category and an infobox in his name. Should we stick with both a category and an infobox for every Prime Minister or is one enough? I personally think that the infobox alone is enough. NorthernThunder (talk) 10:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

FA review of Sydney Newman

Sydney Newman was never tagged or assessed for this WikiProject; I think it might have been a much better article had it been. Anyway, I've tagged it for an FA review, precisely because it glosses over or omits any substantial reflection on his roles in Canada as head of the NFB, and involvement at the policy level in just about major cultural agency (CRTC, CBC, Sec State), including his controversial role in censoring such rising Quebec filmmakers as Denys Arcand, etc. I wasn't sure if this belonged on the notice board, but I'll list the FA here in case anyone's interested:

Voyage of the Karluk

This article, which deals with events during the Canadian Arctic Expedition of 1913-18, has recently been expanded from a stub. In view of the article's Canadian relevance, would the Project like to include it in its portfolio? Brianboulton (talk) 09:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Montreal Oil Refining Center

Montreal Oil Refining Center has been nominated for renaming, see Talk:Montreal Oil Refining Center

76.66.197.77 (talk) 05:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Edmonton Oil Refining Center was also renamed by Fredoues, and has been nominated for being moved back to Refinery Row. 117Avenue (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Evanka Osmak

I was going through the list of sportscasters appointed to cover the 2010 Vancouver Olympics and when I found a bio for Evanka Osmak, I could not determine her nationality. It says she was born in the American state of New Jersey and yet she appears on Rogers Sportsnet. She obviously moved to Canada, but would she be referred to as Canadian or American? How would she be categorized? NorthernThunder (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Right now, we shouldn't state a nationality, but we can state where she was born and where she works. She could be a Canadian born in the US, an American who moved to Canada, or of some other ethnic background. Mindmatrix 14:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
"I worked on water and sanitary main services, elevations and everything," says Osmak, who was born in New Jersey but raised in Oakville. Which doesn't really answer the more determinative question of whether her parents were Americans who moved to Oakville after she was born or Canadians who happened to be temporarily living (or travelling) in New Jersey. Though the same blurb does say her parents are still in Oakville. Bearcat (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Mass naming change for electoral districts

Based on what I deem to be an inappropriate source added during this edit, User:K.d.stauffer has renamed many district pages by changing em dashes to en dashes, which may cause problems for many Quebec districts. I don't think the source provided (A Guide to Authors: A Guide for the Preparation of Geological Survey of Canada Maps and Reports from NRC) is authoritative for this, so we should probably revert these changes, but I wanted broader input about this. Mindmatrix 17:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the articles moved so far are in that user's list of contributions (of course). Mindmatrix 17:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
These dash issues and MOS:DASH being used for page names, I think, is rather horrible. They should just use the standard ASCII character, then there would be a simple representation and no need for arguments between which version of what should be used in the article title. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 02:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
In this case, though, Elections Canada uses both en and em dashes in order to distinguish placenames within an electoral district name. For example, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia and Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière in Quebec both use em and en dashes. If there's a better way to deal with those, then we can certainly consider an alternative format. The article renaming by that user has broken many links, and was only applied to a subset of electoral districts, resulting in significant inconsistencies in Wikipedia coverage of Canadian electoral districts. Mindmatrix 18:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Every style guide I have seen prescribes en dashes for joining place names in English, including those from the Geological Survey of Canada (above), the federal government (The Canadian Style, 2nd ed., Translation Bureau, Public Works and Government Services Canada, 1997). and the Editors' Association of Canada (Editing Canadian English, 2nd ed., 1997). Elections Canada uses en dashes (when permitted by the medium). Em dashes represent a significant break (e.g. used instead of colons, semi-colons, periods, etc.), and so should never be used to create compounds. Some district names contain both hyphens and en dashes, but not em dashes. I'm not sure what the accepted style is in French, as editing Canadian French is not my speciality (whereas editing Canadian English is). Using an en dash instead of an em dash is a common error, since most people are not familiar with their different uses -- but also because en dashes are often impossible or difficult to type on most computers. Generally, when dashes are not available, en dashes are replaced with a single hyphen and em dashes are replaced with a double hyphen -- although this practice differs. However, since their official names are spelt with en dashes, the articles should reflect that, with redirects from spellings with hyphens or em dashes.K.d.stauffer (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The point is that there are two different classes of dash used in electoral distict names for different purposes. Dave Van Kesteren's district, for example, cannot be denoted as Chatham-Kent-Essex, because that's two distinct place names (Chatham-Kent and Essex), not three. En-dashes join elements of a single geographic name (Chatham-Kent, Jeanne-Le-Ber, etc.), while em-dashes join multiple geographic names (Nipissing—Timiskaming, Chatham-Kent—Essex, etc.) And where em and en dashes aren't available, you see both single and double hyphens in the names, sometimes even both in the same name (e.g. Chatham-Kent--Essex). That's the point I think you're missing here: Elections Canada uses both of them for different purposes that aren't interchangeable with each other. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Aside: see also previous discussions about this: one, two, three, and four. There are likely others. Mindmatrix 18:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion at this point on the issue being discussed, but I do strongly believe that there should be no further page moves until the issue is resolved. K.d.stauffer must cease and desist until the issue is resolved. Ground Zero | t 19:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Every official thing I've seen from Elections Canada uses em-dashes, or sometimes a double dash '--' as a substitute. I definitely think this should be reverted and we should go back to the em-dashes. - SimonP (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Why does Quebec use en-dashes instead of spaces in composed names (Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Quebec)? Does anyone have a clue on that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qyd (talk • contribs) 22:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That's just standard French. Look, for example, at place names in France: the départements of Ille-et-Vilaine, Haute-Garonne, Côtes-d'Armor, etc., or the cities of Clermont-Ferrand, Aix-en-Provence, Saint-Denis and the like. It's just how composite names of that type are formed in French. Bearcat (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
And besides...Niagara-on-the-Lake and Chatham-Kent suggest that it's not unknown in English, either. Bearcat (talk) 07:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems that K.d. Stauffer's work has created a bunch of redlinks at List of Canadian federal electoral districts nd who knows where else. To me, this is a pretty good argument for moving the articles back. If s/he's going to move articles, then s/he also has to take responsibility to ensure that existing links from other articles are maintained. Ground Zero | t 21:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the changes again. There's no excuse for breaking links to established articles. This article (and others which list these ridings, including templates) should be the last one edited, once all moves are complete, if that's the result of this discussion. Mindmatrix 01:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:National parks of Canada

I have nomed this cat for renaming here. Please contribute to the discussion. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 00:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:Royal Canadian Mounted Police forts

Category:Royal Canadian Mounted Police forts has been nominated for renaming. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Olympics watch

Just a heads-up about articles associated with the games, and perhaps other BC topics - these will be obvious vandal and POV bait over the next while, so some extra watchlisting would seem prudent. Just undid some ip vandalism on 2010 Winter Olympics in recent hours, including restoring some outright section blanking. Dl2000 (talk) 03:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The blanking diff has been posted/published elsewhere, and I came here to post the same thing, encouraging editors to add these articles to their watchlists. DigitalC (talk) 02:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Another easy way to watch these articles is at Special:RecentChangesLinked/2010 Winter Olympics, which displays all changes to articles linked from 2010 Winter Olympics. This offers a really broad array of articles watched (though all relevant) and displays more than just the most recent edit, greatly reducing the chance of vand edits slipping through. -M.Nelson (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

the zipper

It looks like the Americans have claimed the zipper as their own, despite it understood to be a Canadian invention. What to do? NorthernThunder (talk) 07:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Well without sources saying anything different it would appear that it was a US invention. something lame from CBW 17:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the issue is where Sundback was "residing", among other things. It looks like he emigrated to Hoboken (in 1906?) and became an American citizen. Then he either moved to St. Catherines or visited there regularly. The invention looks to have been made in St. Kits. Sundbeck couldn't have been a Canadian "citizen" because there was no citizenship 'til 1947. However he may have been a British subject if he moved permanently. Apparently too he never surrendered his American citizenship, not sure if the US allowed dual-citizenship at the time. Without a much more detailed biography on Sundbeck, no way to tell for sure. Franamax (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Sundback never lived in Canada. His company's primary factory for actually making zippers was located in St. Catharines, but he lived in Pennsylvania and merely visited the facility, in his capacity as president of the company, from time to time. There's no sourced evidence that he ever took up permanent residence in Canada. Unfortunately, common understanding can be wrong sometimes — the actual manufacture of early zippers was done by Canadians, but the device wasn't invented by a Canadian. Pretty typical of Canadian economic history, actually... Bearcat (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Adam Giambrone

An apparent WP:SPA by the name of User:Rider11011 has been inserting repeated POV commentary about Adam Giambrone's presumed lack of credibility as a candidate for Mayor of Toronto in this fall's municipal election. First there was an unsourced claim that he's directly responsible for the TTC's operating deficit (as if the TTC wasn't already deep in the hole long before Giambrone became its chair), and today it was followed up with detailed and mainly blogsourced criticism of the candidate's initial campaign video — all right in the article's intro, as if "made a cheesy ad that some bloggers made fun of" were one of the most centrally important facts that a reader would need to know about him. I've temporarily pageprotected the article, but I'll be very surprised if the editor doesn't at least attempt to paint himself as the neutral party and me as trying to impose a pro-Giambrone bias, since that sort of counterclaim is pretty much par for the course in this kind of edit conflict. So could a few willing editors help keep an eye on this? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Done on my watch list now!!..Buzzzsherman (talk) 01:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hestia

Can someone help translate Operation Hestia into french? 70.29.210.242 (talk) 11:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

added a new article

I put your banner on People of Canada but it looks to me like it could just be made a list of cultural identities. I'm not a member but I noticed that article wasn't linked to any projects or anything.Marine79 (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Parliament of Canada online statutes question

link

Can anyone tell me what the P-1 means in this statute? I thought only the letters C and S were used, depending on which house a bill was tabled in. NorthernThunder (talk) 09:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

C or S are for bills, and have nothing to do with the numbering of legislation that has actually been passed and signed into law. They're only applicable to the numbering of proposed pieces of legislation that are still before Parliament for debate — but once they've passed third reading and been given royal assent by the Governor General, they become laws, not bills, and don't necessarily have to retain the same number, or the same "which house introduced the bill" prefix, that they had as bills. Bearcat (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Can passport1.jpg

File:Can passport1.jpg has been nominated for deletion. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Another one for the watchlists

There's been an ongoing problem on Julie Fader with an anonymous IP number repeatedly and persistently removing properly sourced information about the band Fader was in before becoming one of Canada's most ubiquitous backup singers. No explanation has ever been provided, of course; there's a strong possibility of WP:COI here, as the anon's only other edits have been to Holy Fuck, a band which includes the producer of Fader's album, but I can't discern any compelling reason why either Fader or Walsh would be so determined to suppress a well-sourced and entirely uncontroversial statement. Could I convince a few people to help keep an eye on this? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 04:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll add it to my watchlist. TastyCakes (talk) 05:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. It's not even like they were a bad band that nobody would want to remain associated with, either — I actually saw them live once, and they were really good. Bearcat (talk) 05:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree file

File:Agar Rodney Adamson.jpg I got an automatic message stating that this image may violate copyright laws. I hope someone can fix this problem to prevent the image, or any other similar image, from being deleted. NorthernThunder (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Calgary/Ottawa population updates

StatsCan recently released their 2009 population report, giving estimates of all the CMAs. Discussion is ongoing at Talk:Calgary#Current edit war and Talk:Ottawa#Population 2 as to whether or not these estimates should be used (particularly controversial as the report has Calgary surpassing Ottawanews archive as fourth-largest CMA). Is there any policy regarding this, or could we perhaps develop some? Cheers, -M.Nelson (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe the policy is that when secondary sources report on primary statistics, they are worth mentioning. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
No problem with mentioning reasonably official estimates, as long as they're cited and put into the proper context (ie that the 2009 numbers are estimates). The StatsCan report is worth mentioning, IMO. PKT(alk) 18:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Population proposal

Note: I originally posted this at Talk:Ottawa#Proposal, but moved here as it is relevant Canada-wide. -M.Nelson (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is, based on PhilthyBear's criteria above, a possible proposal for all Canadian municipality articles:

  1. Infoboxes should only use the most recent Canada-wide census data (currently 2006).
  2. The introduction should always list the population according to the most recent Canada-wide census.
  3. Comparison to other municipalities should always be made using the most recent Canada-wide census, linking to List of the 100 largest municipalities in Canada by population or similar list.
  4. If available, the most recent Canada-wide StatsCan estimate should be presented as follows:
    1. The introduction should always list the population according to the most recent Canada-wide estimate, clearly labelled as an estimate, and supplementary to the most recent census data.
    2. If the estimate's ranking differs from that of the most recent census, the new ranking should always be presented, clearly labelled as an estimate, and supplementary to the most recent census ranking.
  5. If available, the most recent civic census may be presented, in the introduction or elsewhere, clearly labelled as a civic census, and supplementary to the above data.
  6. Ranking between municipalities should never be made between separate reports—rank only estimates to estimates, never compare civic censuses, etc.
  7. Data should always be taken directly from reliable reports; never from news articles, etc.

Notes:

  • Pay attention to the "only"s, "always"es, and "never"s. Other than civic censuses, basically nothing is up to editor discretion—after all, we're not allowed to think for ourselves anyway.
  • One comment PhilthyBear made above was that the accuracy of estimates may be questionned, but as they will be presented as estimates (supplementary to census), their accuracy can be evaluated by the reader.
  • Civic censuses are placed below estimates in importance; this is to ensure consistency across the board. Civic census data may be presented differently in each article, as long as it is well-labelled.
  • I didn't base this on any prior policy; if someone can turn something up then that may override my suggestions.
  • This is only a basic framework, obviously open to discussion. Feel free to tear it apart. I'm personally a stickler for consistency, but I realise that this may be getting a bit WP:CREEPy.

-M.Nelson (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


Although I agree with the above proposal I am concerned about these "estimates" being used as only CMA's receive these estimates. Smaller cities and towns would still use 2006 census data, thus creating a discrepancy. Also the accuracy of these estimates is questionable.PhilthyBear (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Hence wording it something like "The 2006 StatCan census placed Foo's population at 899,456. In 2010, it estimated the population to be 914,887." - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I would support changes such as that. Unfortunately editors were going far beyond just stating estimate populations in the articles. Infobox changes were taking place. PhilthyBear (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm fine with all of that. My only question would be about number 3 - only comparing CMAs using the census data, not the estimate. The whole argument at Calgary and Ottawa is on such a comparison - whether or not to say something like "Ottawa was the 4th largest CMA in the 2006 census, but was thought to have been surpassed by Calgary by the 2009 estimate." I don't really mind if we make such a comparison or not, but I tend to think that the comparison (and the change it illustrates) is interesting and relevant enough to the two articles to warrant mention, although perhaps not in the introduction. TastyCakes (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I went down to stats-Canada today..i live in Ottawa (use to work for Heatlh Canada so i have friends at stats-can etc..)...the new numbers are from the last elections and are estimates based on the bi-elections in each city coupled with birth and death rates of municipalities.. So not until the new enumeration will we get what stats-can calls REAL DEFINITIVE STATS. However they are being used from determining funding to municipalities..So we they are using them ,but not for world wide stats (still using 2006) ...Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
As I noted in Talk:Ottawa, I'm not all that concerned about Ottawa's article noting that the 2009 estimate puts Ottawa 5th if the local consensus opposes it. Ultimately, if Ottawa's article says it was the 4th largest CMA at the 2006 census while Calgary's says it is the 4th largest as of the 2009 update/estimate, both statements are correct and there is no issue. Resolute 20:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Infobox changes happen all the time, and various people routinely revert back. That issue is an irrelevancy to this one, imo. Resolute 20:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
But there is an issue if both articles are claiming to be 4th largest metro. As long as both info boxes stay with real census data, Calgary can write somewhere in their article about potentially surpassing Ottawa, however I am still strongly apposed to it. I believe this is far more about bragging rights for Calgary than trying to write accurate article. Which is shameful. PhilthyBear (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that both should be able to claim 4th; even though it would be stated on Calgary's page that this is based only on estimates, there still should not be a discrepancy between the two pages. We shouldn't keep the material off of Ottawa's page because it is considered to be "negative" or because it is considered to be in bad faith (bragging rights); we should present the data as NPOV as possible in all locations. Since my proposal is intended for all municipality articles, this isn't about Ottawa or Calgary at all; changes to those articles would be simply in keeping with the standards imposed on all articles.
If you detach yourself from the cities, do you think that it would be better for the encyclopedia to say "XXX's population was x,xxx,xxx at the census in 2006, making it the Mth largest. In 2009, it was estimated at x,xxx,xxx, making it the Nth largest." everywhere? If the estimates are to be included, then this extra information is obviously insightful and makes a more complete article. -M.Nelson (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it is necessary elsewhere, only when those two numbers differ. For example, in most cases (every other major Canadian city other than these two) you could put "XXX's population was x,xxx,xxx at the census in 2006, and estimated at x,xxx,xxx in 2009, making it the Mth largest."
And please, PhilthyBear, shameful? It is a notable fact in a reliable source, there is nothing shameful in its inclusion; it is a matter of deciding what is best for the articles. Your behaviour is another matter. You have been consistently rude throughout this conversation. Please stop trying to belittle other peoples' opinions, and stop making juvenile comments about Calgary. You're doing nothing but agitating the disagreement. TastyCakes (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
You're right about the necessary bit; the estimated rank needs only be listed if it differs from the census rank. -M.Nelson (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
So you're saying for the Calgary and the Ottawa articles we would say "XXX's population was x,xxx,xxx at the census in 2006, making it the Mth largest. In 2009, it was estimated at x,xxx,xxx, making it the Nth largest." but for every city where there was no rank change we put it like I wrote above? TastyCakes (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Quit crying Tastycakes. Your fragile emotions are constantly in these conversations! As I have stated before perhaps my word choices sound harsh but I assure you that is not my intention. I cannot "sugarcoat" everything in order to not offend the easily offendable. I am now putting an effort in not to sound harsh. But that is off topic.
Noone is asking you to sugarcoat anything, I'm asking you to stop being a jerk, in accordance with wp:civil. If you don't, I'll bring it up here, which would be a shame since it would be annoying for both of us. TastyCakes (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes M.nelson, I would agree with that statement. It would need to be worded well like your example as to not show biased towards either. So would the info boxes remain census data ? I feel that is important for the consistency and integrity of the articles. PhilthyBear (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes (per #1 of my proposal); as the infobox is basically for raw facts, I think that it should only show Canada-wide census data and ranking. Even if we wanted to put the estimated population in, I think it would take up too much space to show both values, years, as well as an explanation that 2009 is only estimated (which is imperative). I suppose that civic census data could be added to the infobox in addition to Canada-wide census at user discretion, but I personally think that it would get too cluttered (and, as above, I personally don't believe that civic census data can or should be ranked against data from other sources). -M.Nelson (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I could just as easily say this is about hurt feelings at being passed (and therefore viewed as a little less important?) on behalf of your Ottawa/Ontario perspective, Philthy. Your accusations very easily cut both ways. As far as accuracy goes, you have yet to really explain how your opinion is more reliable than Statistics Canada's. Truth is, I am just as interested in accuracy, and I don't think anyone can argue that four year old population data is close to accurate. Resolute 00:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You have my vote M.nelson. I too believe the info box should have census data, and only census data. And if a city would like to make mention in the article about estimates, than that is up to the editors. Now sources of estimates might become an issue down the road, but I guess that bridge can be crossed when needed. I appreciate your civil and effective efforts in trying to resolve this issue. PhilthyBear (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think if this whole 4th to 5th thing wasn't an issue we wouldn't even be talking about this, I too believe this has become more of a "bragging rights" issue than an information issue. However I vote for 2006 Stats Canada figures. Altho if an article wants to mention estimates and clearly state them as "estimates" and not fact it may be ok, like M.nelson's examples illustrates. Altho as Philthybear mentioned estimate sources may become an issue. NationalCapital (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I concur with most of the above: the infobox should be used for census data. Estimates are inherently faulty, lack precision, and are dependent on the assumptions made to obtain them. We don't know, for example, if the price drop of crude oil from early 2008 to now has had an effect on employment and population in Calgary, or if the residual effects of the Nortel collapse has caused people to move away from Ottawa. Estimates are unreliable. We can state population estimates on the topic pages, but they should not be included in the infobox, nor should they be added to any of the comparison or list articles. Census data reflects real counts (albeit somewhat dated now), whereas estimates rely on assumptions about birth and death rates (net natural growth), immigration and emigration (net immigration), employment data, and whatever else StatsCan employs in calculating such numbers. Change the base assumption marginally and you can skew the final results significantly. That is, statistically speaking, the estimates have greater variance than the census data, and are less useful for comparison. The only conclusion we can truly draw from the StatsCan report is that Ottawa and Calgary are roughly the same size right now, within the bounds of statistical estimation. (Aside: Frankly, I'm getting tired of all this population chest-thumping going on in Wikipedia. Take a look at the revision history of Mississauga to see a constant stream of population "corrections".) Mindmatrix 01:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Even before it was brought to this page, I don't think anyone was arguing to change the infobox number. The question seems to have evolved into whether to mention the change of rank or not, or to just mention the new estimate alone, without pointing out that Ottawa changes rank as a result. TastyCakes (talk) 01:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
In a roundabout way, I already answered that in my post, by stating that the estimates are not useful for comparison (because of their variance, and also the bias of an estimator in estimation theory...but that's a different discussion). I don't think estimates should be used to create rankings of any sort. Mindmatrix 01:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Before someone corrects me, I'll say we can also conclude that both Calgary and Ottawa have been growing, but Calgary is growing more rapidly. Both of these things can change, though. Mindmatrix 01:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to note that while obviously not everybody follows the proper rules around citing population figures, M. Nelson's initial proposal here actually isn't terribly far from the policy that already exists at WP:CANSTYLE: we allow properly sourced intercensal estimates to be cited in the article as supplementary data, but not to replace the data from the last official national census. We also really, truly can't allow this to become the demographic equivalent of a penis size contest, but that's another story. Bearcat (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If you guys honestly think this is a matter of Calgarians wanting to insert this for bragging rights, why don't we find someone (or someones) to arbitrate this. It seems to me almost everyone involved in this discussion is from one of the two cities, and our opinions line up according to where we're from. Why not find some people with no ties to either city (preferably people from outside of Canada altogether) to say whether or not they think the change in rank should be mentioned? I really don't want to get bogged down in petty argument and I don't think any of us are really neutral observers. TastyCakes (talk) 01:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Not to pick sides, but Tastycakes I think you're currently the only one on your side of the argument. I agree real stats should be used, and estimates could be mentioned in the article if relevant. ScottRios (talk) 01:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, reading his proposal again, I see that my only concern with Nelson's approach is dealt with in 4-2: "If the estimate's ranking differs from that of the most recent census, the new ranking should always be presented, clearly labelled as an estimate, and supplementary to the most recent census ranking." I would be completely happy using this proposal, I'm sorry I didn't realize that before. TastyCakes (talk) 03:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
There is little doubt with current growth trends Calgary will surpass Ottawa by the next census anyway. We have always used stats, why change now. Last comment I will make. PhilthyBear (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrapping up

I edited the Calgaryedit and Ottawaedit articles to feature basically the exact same text describing population on each, ensuring NPOV. I may have removed some information (for instance, I took out an unreferenced National Capital Region population at Ottawa and the civic census at Calgary) but this can be re-added in the text if editors feel inclined (though the populations must, of course, be well-labelled). Please take a look at my edits and improve if you can; my wording is particularly sterile and may not fit in too well with the rest of the intros.

I see that my proposal is basically WP:CANSTYLE#Population with added directives about estimates/rankings/etc. Should this be included in CANSTYLE so that rankings are added across the board, rather than at the POV of editors? Cheers, -M.Nelson (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Lets try and make it consistent across the board. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I have an issue to discuss. (politely) lol. The National Capital Region is quite a bit larger than the Ottawa CMA. (Over 300,000 larger) Should it not still be referenced in the infobox ? Similar to that of the Toronto infobox referencing the Golden Horseshoe ? PhilthyBear (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that, per my proposal and CANSTYLE, neither of the articles' infoboxes should include this extra information. Due to strongish consensus here in favour of census-only information, I'm going to WP:BOLDly remove the Golden Horseshoe, etc, populations from Toronto (though keeping them in the article text). Anyone can proceed with WP:BRD, but I'd like to think that all Canadian municipalities (even the centre of the universe) should comply with the same standards. -M.Nelson (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I think that's reasonable, especially for Golden Horseshoe. The line has to be drawn somewhere: New York doesn't include BosWash in its box, I think for similar reasons. Ottawa and the NCR are more coterminous (wrong word?) than either of these, but again, the line has to be drawn somewhere. TastyCakes (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Besides, Toronto links to Golden Horseshoe, which does include the extended population figures. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
NCR populations have now been removed from the infobox and only referenced in the article. PhilthyBear (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Anybody know anything?

Yesterday, I was asked to write this User:Giano/ Canada Gate and Canada Memorial, the Green Park. which I thought would be easy, but it's not. What little is on the internet is conflicting so not safe to reference etc, and there's nothing in any of my reference books - there must be some famous Canadian iron workers and foundries and designers involved, but all I can draw are blanks - if you know anything could you post it on its talk page - or ese it's going to be bthe bearest stub in mainspace - which is a pity as the memorial commerates 100,000 Canadians. thanks.  Giano  15:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This has a monarchial feel to it. Miesianical, may be the fellow to help. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
A Google News archive search comes up with a lot of information regarding the federal government's 2008 purchase of the memorial, after it controversially becoming "rundown". "The monument in Green Park was the creation of former press baron Conrad Black, who had paid the annual maintenance costs since its 1994 unveiling" until his sale of the Daily Telegraph in 2004 (and later financial issues). Some articles of particular note are this Toronto Star article during the controversy, and this CBC article after the gov purchased it. Most items that I found with regards to Canada Gate were simply noting Canada Gate as a location, not about the Gate itself. -M.Nelson (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks you found a lot more than I did. My research suggests the gates were probably made in the UK, which is a pity as it seems is the whole sorry story, I was hoping for a half decent architectural page with the added bonus of honouring 100,000 dead soldiers. Instead, we get a sorry tale of pennypinching meanness - FGS how much would it have cost the British Government and Park's authority to quietly and silently maintain what in sad reality is a small garden water feature? A very sad story. I'll do my best with a non-POV page. Thanks for your help.  Giano  19:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite of Highway 401 (Ontario)

Just thought I'd post that I am in the process of rewriting the Highway 401 article from the ground up in my sandbox. I figured it's important enough to Canada as a whole rather than just to the roads subproject, as it has often set the bar for highway design world-wide, and has practically made Ontario's economy what it is now.

I've added over 30 new high-quality sources so far to cover: the Highway of Heroes (from Warmington's columns, to Jay Forbes petition, to recognition and designation by Joanna Cansfield, to signs erected in September); the Toronto–Hamilton Road (1914), the Queen Street Extension (1931) and the Middle road (1935); and, the Toronto–Oshawa Road (1937), trans-provincial freeway (1938), and Highway 401 (1952). I could still use some help in finding provincial legislature for the designations of 401, Macdonald-Cartier Freeway, and Highway of Heroes, for a description of the route from the MTO/DoH, and for any sources regarding any of the trivia that any editors are attached to, because otherwise it is going... and of course anybody is welcome to jump in on the editing. Going for a Featured Article here. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

image permission

I would like to add this image to the Communications Security Establishment article and the (to be created) Sir Leonard Tilley Building article. Would it be legal, under Wikipedia policy and applicable laws? NorthernThunder (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope. It doesn't have an appropriate licence (see this), and since the building is still intact, we could hypothetically obtain a freely-licenced photograph, negating any fair dealing claim. Mindmatrix 19:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Canadian Week in the Russian Wikipedia

Hello colleagues. From 12 to 22 February in the Russian section of Wikipedia will be "Canadian Week", a project created with the purpose of writing articles about Canada, its people, culture, history and other related topics to the country. We welcome any participation, comments, suggestions. JukoFF (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow what a great idea..i will come by take a look ,,i know some Russian...Buzzzsherman (talk) 05:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Paul Martin template


Stephen Harper has an infobox. I think we need to proceed with making navboxes for all Canadian PMs. Here's a rough start on one for Paul Martin. Edit as you wish! NorthernThunder (talk) 10:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not fundamentally opposed to the concept — but seriously, does Environmental policy of the Martin government really strike anybody as an article that's likely to ever actually happen? Bearcat (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't see why not. If anyone who is researching Paul Martin by using his Wikipedia article, they should know as much as possible about him, including his policies. NorthernThunder (talk) 12:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I didn't ask whether an article about such a thing would be a legitimate contribution or not. I asked whether anyone thinks it's a likely contribution. Bearcat (talk) 01:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

2010 Vancouver Olympics athletes articles

There still are lots of uncreated pages for athletes. Let's get it done before the end of these Olympics! NorthernThunder (talk) 12:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to set up a list of missing athlete articles at WP:CWNB/R. According to WP:ATHLETE, all Olympic competitors are notable. Dl2000 (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
D'oh - on second thought, just saw the redlinks sitting there at Canada at the 2010 Winter Olympics. Dl2000 (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
The red links should be ENcouraging, not DIScouraging! NorthernThunder (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Government department/ministry navboxes

I propose navboxes for the departments of the Canadian government and to include links to provincial/territorial equivalents in each navbox, for example, a navbox linking Health Canada and all provincial/territorial ministries responsible for health. NorthernThunder (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

START

Do we have an article on the Stabilization and Reconstruction Task Force? Hill Times says [1] that START will take over from DART in Haiti. 76.66.195.93 (talk) 09:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hill Times says it was formed in 2005 and is part of Foreign Affairs [2] 70.29.210.242 (talk) 08:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Top 10 Canadian Olympic Winter Moments

I'm slanting heavily towards requesting this be deleted, but I think many may object. Discuss. NorthernThunder (talk) 05:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"Look ma, the TV did something so we need a Wikipedia article on it!" I don't see a one-off special as being particularly notable. Hell, I'd vote to delete it on the argument that it is embarrassing that Canadians chose eight of ten moments from the last two games. You'd think actually hosting the 1988 games would have made the list (or at least, Elizabeth Manley's silver medal) - one of the early Canadian hockey teams, etc. Resolute 06:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Wait until the Paralympics are over, or you'll have a boatload of temporary contributors commenting. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 07:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd call that deletable. Wikipedia has a longstanding practice against including articles that serve only as a repost of another organization's (usually copyrighted) subjective rankings of things. The only way this would even approach being okay would be if the article was principally about the television special itself, including examples of properly attributed commentary about the ranking by other notable figures. But the article isn't doing that — it's just a list of Canadian Olympic moments. Bearcat (talk) 01:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree, not a good article. Even if someone did successfully argue it was notable enough to include, the article name is clearly inappropriate since it suggests this is a definitive list rather than the outcome of some unscientific poll. TastyCakes (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I've listed it for AFD. Bearcat (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

2010 Olympics: Whistler-Creekside

We seem to be missing an Olympics location article... Whistler-Creekside / Whistler Creekside doesn't exist. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Also Blackcomb Village and Creekside Village. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I notice that Whistler Village redirects to Whistler, British Columbia... so it doesn't have an article either. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think so. Venues of the 2010 Winter Olympics has no redlinks, nor does the template for 2010 Winter Olympic venues. I'm guessing that Creekside Village and Blackcomb Village are parts of Whistler Blackcomb, and if so they could be created to redirect accordingly. It is not necessary to have separate articles for everything - redirects are useful tools. PKT(alk) 13:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Whistler-Creekside is continuously mentioned by NBC broadcasters, so whether or not there are redlinks doesn't matter, it is a location that is connected to the Olympics. Canadian broadcasters mention Whistler-Creekside and Creekside. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
WP:BEBOLD. So create a redirect for it/them. Don't leave the work for somebody else. PKT(alk) 15:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
IP editors cannot create articles. Has been that way for about two years. If I could I would've, so I have to leave it to others. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

"I Believe" / "J'Imagine"

Does this song/instrumental/etc deserve an article? It's very prominent on CTV/V coverage of the Olympics, and there's the #1 downloaded song thing.

70.29.210.242 (talk) 11:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Proper answer: Does it meet the criteria of WP:NSONG?
My opinion: I think it does by virtue of having been recorded by two notable singers and the #1 download statistic. PKT(alk) 13:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
You need coverage of the song from independent sources. I don't think CTV is independent of the song. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk)

looking for some help

Singer-songwriter Gordon Lightfoot dead...I am looking to get a few editors assembled and get Gordon Lightfoot looking better..not asking for Help to GA level. But clearly time to fix up this article to at lest B level..tell me what you think..Buzzzsherman (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

death appears to be a hoax. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. PKT(alk) 20:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Concordia University

Someone stealthily moved Concordia University again, without listing it at WP:RM, even though it has had a few WP:RM discussions in the past.

It was previously noted that the one in Montreal is the most prominent, in past discussions.

70.29.210.242 (talk) 03:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

RCMP

The RCMP article is rather longer than the 50kB recommended size, anyone think that it would be a good idea to split/resplit the NWMP back into a separate article? (note, the other police that merged with the NWMP still has a separate article... the DP - Dominion Police) 70.29.210.242 (talk) 08:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


I have formally placed the split templates on the article, and opened a discussion section at Talk:Royal Canadian Mounted Police. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 11:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

CanParlbio template

Does anyone object to this being added to the articles infobox for Canadian politicians? NorthernThunder (talk) 04:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It should really be in the external links section rather than in the infobox itself — while it's the primary reference for a lot of the biographical information we add to their articles, it's not the person's own primary website. Bearcat (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Do we have an agreement on which infobox to use for Canadian politicians? NorthernThunder (talk) 04:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

There aren't multiple infoboxes to choose from — there are just a bunch of differently-named redirects to the generic {{Infobox officeholder}}. Bearcat (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Paralympics

We seem to be missing the main Canada Paralympics article...

Canada at the Paralympics

70.29.210.242 (talk) 14:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Given the very limited amount of coverage that the event typically receives, I'd be very surprised if we could actually cobble together enough legitimate reliable sources to actually do this. Bearcat (talk) 05:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
That would be unfortunate, considering that we're hosting it in a couple of weeks. There was all that press about Chantal Peticlerk a few years back, and Rick Hansen, and there's that Canadian Olympian in Vancouver who's also staying for the Paralympics. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 12:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Very true. I mean, there's almost certainly going to be enough reliable coverage to write up this Paralympics. What I'm less confident about is whether we have the sources to write up a really good history of Canada at the Paralympics in general. And I don't mean to suggest that it shouldn't exist, because it absolutely should. But in a society that grossly undervalues the achievements of our Paralympic athletes, it's really only been in the 2000s that the Paras have even received much media coverage at all — so it's going to be harder than doing that for the regular Olympics is. That's all I'm saying. Bearcat (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Monarchism in Canada

Hey everyone. I just saw that there is a huge battle going on over at Talk:Monarchism in Canada. It seems to be about various issues in the article, and since there's only two editors there, I'm sure another set of eyes would be most welcome. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I, one of the two editors involved in the "huge battle", just came here to make the same request; looks like you beat me to it. The issue is starting to spread more into whether or not Monarchism in Canada and Republicanism in Canada should again be merged into Debate on the monarchy in Canada, or some such article. But, yes, some more input would be very welcome. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Oy. First bilingualism and now this! Is nobody watching the Olympics? I think there's some sort of game on right now... freshacconci talktalk 01:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Everything's anticlimactic after Joannie Rochette! (*silly grin*) Bearcat (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Own the Podium – 2010

Own the Podium – 2010 has been put up for renaming, see talk:Own the Podium – 2010

70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:Canadian liberals

FYI, Category:Canadian liberals has been nominated for deletion at WP:CFD, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 26.

70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:Canadian conservatives

FYI, Category:Canadian conservatives has been nominated for deletion at WP:CFD, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 26.

70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Xenobot Mk V (talk · contribs) can look for a {{stub}} template on the article and tag the banner as "stub". It can also inherit classes from other project banners on the page. Are there any objections to me running this bot on the unassessed Canada-related articles? I will commence the task in about 72 hours if not. –xenotalk 14:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No objection here. How often would the bot be re-run.......monthly, perhaps? PKT(alk) 15:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Sure, maybe monthly or every 2 months. –xenotalk 16:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Any idea when the bot can be run? I'm curious to see how many articles it assesses. PKT(alk) 15:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
The bot is running now and should assess around 1072 of 1474 unassessed articles. –xenotalk 18:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

k-os

User:Tutmosis has nominated k-os for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Assistance required at Monarchy of Canada

There is presently a dipute going on at Talk:Monarchy of Canada regarding a particular sentence in the article. There are only two or three editors involved and progress seems, well... unlikely, at the moment. Some additional input would be appreciated; especially from people with a knowledge of Canadian history back to New France. Cheers, --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Elections

If anybody's looking for a project to work on for half an hour or so, it's been brought to my attention that British Columbia general election, 2009 never actually had the final vote totals added to the results table (except for one riding). Bearcat (talk) 05:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

This does actually need to get done at some point. Anyone? Bueller? Bearcat (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm having a go at it, but the only source I can find showing that level of detail of vote counts is this one. It shows signs of being accurate, but of course it's not official. I will keep working on the article, but can somebody find a better list of the results? PKT(alk) 15:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC) (call me Ferris)
(added) In particular, I have found conflicting results for Delta South because there was a recount and I can't tell what's correct. PKT(alk) 18:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry 'bout that; guess that's why it didn't get done. Anyway, I found the final results posted on Elections BC's webpage (though it took some hunting, as they didn't do a very good job of linking to it from anywhere you'd expect them to have done); they're at this link. The more annoying thing is that there's an individual PDF posted for each district, rather than a unified table. Oy vey. Bearcat (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hockey positions and terms within scope WikiProject Canada?

I started a discussion at the article for defenceman as to whether that article (and by extension, most hockey-related terms) ought to be considered within the scope of WikiProject Canada. Earlier this month, someone added the banner for WikiProject Canada because ice hockey is Canada's national winter sport. I removed it because that is a tenuous connection—the ice hockey article is certainly within the project's scope, but the various positions aren't inherently relevant to Canada. Soon after, the banner was added back. If you are interested, join the discussion at the "defenceman" talk page. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe this would be in the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Canadian_sport. As that project has been largely ignored for a while I am going to try to bring it up to snuff. HalifaxRage (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry after rereading this and looking at the discussion there I agree now that terms themselves would not be in the scope of the project. HalifaxRage (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

template merger?

I think the following templates should be merged into one template:

template:Foreign relations of Canada

template:Diplomatic missions of Canada


They contain very similar links that, I think, would be better accessed through one template. NorthernThunder (talk) 09:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The FR template is already large, and the DM article isn't that small, so it would become bloated if combined. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Jason Kenney

The article for Jason Kenney seems to have been vantalized numerous times recently. Perhaps it should be locked until things cool down. NorthernThunder (talk) 10:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Done, for a day at least. Not sure what was going on there, interesting mix of anon addresses. Franamax (talk) 11:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
And just to note, that's an unimpressive article, could use some review and possible trimming. Franamax (talk) 11:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk page archiving

Can somebody who knows about talk page archiving take a look at Talk:Toronto and figure out why the archiving box (not the talk header, but the right-aligned box that's next to the actual start of discussion) is listing archive pages numbered as 1, 2, 001, 3, 4 and 2? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

 Doing... → ROUX ₪ 01:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm guessing (???) that ClueBot burped? The weird thing is that it's a redir to the right place. I wonder what would happen if you deleted the /001 redir? → ROUX ₪ 01:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I'll give that a try and see what happens. Bearcat (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Didn't work, so I've asked the maintainer of the archive bot for advice. Thanks anyway. Bearcat (talk) 01:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
As noted above, 001 redirects to 1 as a result of archive page renumbering in 2006 (hence a move and redirect). The bot is likely doing a pagename prefix search in the talk namespace of Toronto, and picking up anything of the form "Talk:Toronto/Archive" as an archive of discussions. In order to fix some of this mess, we'll have to move the archive pages and delete the remaining redirects, being careful not to break incoming links. I'll look into it. Mindmatrix 02:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I got rid of '001', now we need to fix the 'Archive2' and 'Archive 2' pages. Mindmatrix 02:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Numbering is now correct, and the sequence is chronologically consistent too. Mindmatrix 15:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Mercy buckets. Bearcat (talk) 04:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I broke it... my bad - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 13:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Ten lashes with a wet noodle for you! (Just kidding.) Bearcat (talk) 04:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

image upload problem

I created the page Canadian Consulate General in Chicago and added my own created image to the infobox image:CanadaConsulChicago.png. It is not showing up properly in the article. I used Adobe Photoshop CS4 to create it, although I am very new to the programme and not very good at it yet. Assistance needed. NorthernThunder (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

  • FIXED*

If anybody cares

I have been recently notified that the image for Agar Rodney Adamson has been deleted. As I am not an expert in copyright law, I don't know how to resolve this issue to prevent the image from being deleted. I hope that some people here care enough that we can prevent further deletions of Canadian MPs images, or other Canadian images, to preserve our work on Wikipedia to avoid this conflict in the future. NorthernThunder (talk) 06:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Just re-upload and add a FUR (fair-use rationale) - the person is dead, so the copyright-in-the-US FUR can be justified by saying it is irreplaceable with another image, because the subject is dead, and no new free-of-US-copyright image can be obtained. Further, you can add that the image is already PD in Canada, but not in the US. (or you can find an older image, pre-1945) 70.29.210.242 (talk) 07:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I had just reuploaded the image and added what I believe is the proper criteria. Please check to verify and correct as necessary to prevent a second deletion. NorthernThunder (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure you're going to need a non-free use rationale for the article also, added to the File: page. See for example, Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline, there is a bit in there for historical images. Franamax (talk) 21:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand exactly what you mean. Perhaps you could make the necessary changes yourself. NorthernThunder (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
You need to add {{Non-free use rationale}} to the file page; one template per article the image is used in, and fill in the template, especially filling in the article link. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 07:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Combining political party and province into one stub

I don't see how this is necessary and it just creates some confusion about the Canadian political system as it implies a direct relation between province and political party, while the relation is simply incidental. NorthernThunder (talk) 01:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Examples? I don't know what you mean. PKT(alk) 03:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Here is one example: {{ProgressiveConservative-Ontario-MP-stub}}
Note how it references both the PC Party and Ontario NorthernThunder (talk) 03:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Former municipalities in Canada

While a fellow user and I have been discussing the organization of former municipalities in Alberta, we have discovered there has not been consistency in this phrase. I am aware there is a policy for naming past and future elections at any level in Canada, is there one for the naming of former/defunct municipalities in/of Canada? The list at Category:Defunct municipalities in Canada shows both "former" and "defunct" as a name, and both "of [provence]" and "in [provence]" as a name. Does anyone have a preference? The list at Category:Former subdivisions of countries uses "former" and "of" for every country except for Canada. 117Avenue (talk) 06:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this 117Avenue. My preference is using former instead of defunct. I am indifferent over whether of or in is chosen, as long as it is consistent throughout all. Cheers, --Hwy43 (talk) 06:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Determining year of enactment of a Canadian statute

I have only been guessing, up to this point, but I need to know how the year when a statute first becomes law is determined. I have seen numerous references to Revised Statutes of Canada for 1985, but some of these statutes would have existed well before 1985. How do I find these and the year they were enacted? Also, do statutes effectively change at the years they are Revised? NorthernThunder (talk) 06:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, a bill immediately becomes law in Canada when the Governor General signs it, giving it Royal Assent. I suspect that the Statutes of Canada and Revised Statutes of Canada documents include the dates at which the revisions went into effect. You could mark imprecise timeframe information with {{date needed}} or {{when}} tags to draw attention to it. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
The R.S.C. is simply a consolidation - in the days before the internet (and, actually, computers), the consolidations were typically done once a decade in order to incorporate all the amendments to statutes. The feds last issued a consolidation in 1985. Therefore, the reference to the R.S.C. 1985 (for a statute which was enacted pre-1985) is the correct cite, but sadly does not tell you when the statute was enacted. It's the same for many of the provinces -- in Ontario, for example, cites are to the R.S.O. 1990 (unless the statute was enacted after 1990). The feds and Ontario (and I suspect most of the other provinces) are no longer compiling these large consolidations, given that the internet has made it much easier to keep track of current versions of the various in-force statutes. They now just keep up-to-date consolidations of each individual statute.

When you have a reference to the R.S.C., you need to look at the actual source statutes to determine when the act first became law, but the Dept of Justice website only goes back a few years, so it won't help you for pre-85 laws. However, you will note that the sections of the statute itself contain notations as to when the provision was enacted. For example, section 1 of the Access to Information Act was enacted in 1980, and a review of the other notations throughout that statute suggests that it was first enacted in that form in 1980 (and apparently amended several times since then).

There may be other ways to find this information online (I only ever typically need the in-force version of a statute), but that's all I know. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Need some quick admin action

A user today moved half a dozen pages related to Scarborough, Ontario (Including the article itself on Scarborough) to Scarborough, Toronto. Can an admin please delete the redirects so they can be moved back? I won't bother to explain, I think this one is pretty straightforward. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Canadian Deaflympics

We don't seem to have articles for the 1991 Winter Deaflympics (Calgary Deaflympics/1991 Deaflympics) or the 2015 Winter Deaflympics (Vancouver Deaflympics/2015 Deaflympics) Canada at the Deaflympics ...

There does exist an article for a specific Deaflympics, 2009 Deaflympics, so perhaps with the Canadian Olympics of Whistler going on now, we should also articlize these events? (The Deaflympics are sanctioned by the IOC) 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Given the very limited amount of coverage that the event typically receives, I'd be very surprised if we could actually cobble together enough legitimate reliable sources to actually do this. Bearcat (talk) 05:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I would be happy to help with articles on these topics in the scope of WP:CSPORT. HalifaxRage (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
nice, I see you already created the Paralympics article... 70.29.210.242 (talk) 07:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Guichon Creek - advice on dab

Please see Talk:Guichon Creek#Another Guichon Creek (or two).Skookum1 (talk) 15:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Rural community

This article suggests that the term rural community is a specific (and common?) term that describes certain Canadian communities. Is this distinct from rural municipality? Should this article be kept or simply redirected to either rural municipality or perhaps rural area? Thanks, PDCook (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting question. I don't see much similarity with rural area but if there is enough equivalence with the use of rural municipality in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, then perhaps a merge is in order. PKT(alk) 21:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
It looks like they are "Provincial specific" designations, also a rural community could refer to an unincorporated community within a larger municipality though, such as Maynooth, Ontario being a community (which is rural) within Hastings Highlands, this is just an Ontario example though, as that is all I am familiar with. I don't think a merge of RM and RC is really appropriate as they are specific topics, and a merge into rural area wouldn't be appropriate (as noted above), as rural area is a pretty general topic, but something like Subdivisions of New Brunswick would be more appropriate, as then you are grouping the various subdivision categories of a specific province together, rather than subdivisions categories of different provinces that may be similar (or may not).--kelapstick (talk) 04:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Agreed with Kelapstick here. While the term isn't entirely unknown elsewhere in Canada, it mostly just means "community which is rural" — no other province in Canada, as far as I can tell, actually gives places "rural community" as a formal designation. If redirecting this is the goal, we'd be better off redirecting it to a New Brunswick-specific title rather than trying to shoehorn it into an article about another type of settlement. Bearcat (talk) 03:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Just noting that in BC "official" (BCGNIS) designations for rural communities can include "locality", "hamlet", "settlement" (also, I think "rural settlement"), "community" (and "urban community" which tends to be new development, though sometimes in rural locations). There's a few others, too, but for now they escape me. NB while "Village" in BCGNIS is an incorporated village, "Abandoned village" can be found, also "village site", almost invariably in reference to historical/vanished First Nations settlements, which are particularly many along the Coast in certain areas. Note also "site" occurs now, mostly in Nisga'a Lands, as the designation for what had been Indian Reserves until the Nisga'a Treaty.....(and these "sites" have specific land-title boundaries...not that any are settlements...now).Skookum1 (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of rural places, just a quick reminder to everyone because I see this error cropping up from time to time on Wikipedia (and in some media coverage of the latest Province of Toronto eruption, as well): the divide between "urban" and "rural" is all about population density, and is not necessarily about "big metropolitan city vs. everything else". For example, while cities like Greater Sudbury and Sault Ste. Marie and London certainly have rural parts, the cities themselves aren't rural entities just because they're not the size of Toronto, Ottawa or Vancouver — they're still cities, and hence their primary populated cores are still urban areas. Even in a small town, in fact, you may still in an urban area if you're standing at the corner of Main St. and First Ave. right in the centre of the main business district — the distinction between urban and rural is the population density of the specific census block you're standing in, not some arbitrary cutoff applied to population size (and particularly not one that's located anywhere in the 100,000+ range.) Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Nortel article

Since Nortel is of interest to many Canadians and since the article has been receiving very little scrutiny from Wikipedians, I thought I would mention this here. I see from the project page that "WikiProject Canada was formed to foster better articles on the country of Canada with a spirit of cooperation."

I am wondering if anyone can help smooth some of the recent conflicts? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

"Governing body" in NHSCanada pages/infoboxes - always Parks Canada or??

Please see Talk:List_of_National_Historic_Sites_of_Canada#Parks_Canada_jurisdiction_re_infoboxes; if replying, please reply there.Skookum1 (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thetis Island residential school and spam? on current successor article

I came across Capernwray Harbour Bible School tonight and added WPs and this comment on its talkpage. I was gonna post this at the Education sub-project but it appears inactive; like other bible-camp articles it seems to be a promotional article, as also in a lesser way Pioneer Pacific Camp, where I stripped a linkfarm for other Pioneer Camps. Would someone else have a look and clean these up to encyclopedic content, i.e. make them sound less like a brochure (which is also a problem with all university pages, in fact). My comments had to do with soft-soaping of the site's residential school past.....Skookum1 (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Canadian federal election, 1957/archive1

This article has two supports and no opposes, and desperately needs additional feedback as it nears the bottom of the list at FAC. Please consider reviewing it. With the demotion of the 1993 election article, there are presently no featured articles about Canadian federal elections. Nice to claw one back.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Census check please - Norwegian Canadian article

I just spent two-three hours purging this article of the additions re Icelandic Canadians made by User:Oro2, but I'm not sure about the census data, which he may also have fussed with - could someone please check it; note also I removed teh flag-waving per WP:MOSFLAG and WP:FLAGCRUFT. Surprisingly, he's Norwegian and lives in Bergen and shouldn't have made such an egregious error; it strikes me more as mischief despite the fact he's an experienced editor. I have to go out or would look up the census data myself, but my eyes are tired and I have things to do....Skookum1 (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I've changed all pop. figures to be consistent with Canada 2006 Census data. All numbers in the article were inflated. Mindmatrix 19:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

2010 British Columbia avalanche

2010 British Columbia avalanche has been nominated for deletion. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

hmm... there are now three recent deadly avalanches in BC this season... the first caused politicians to start thinking, the second, also caused by highmarking, made people continue talking... the third resulted from heliskiing... 65.94.252.177 (talk) 14:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
It seems to make sense to pluralize the article, no? PKT(alk) 15:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
More like there shoudl be a category Category:Avalanches in British Columbia (or "fatal avalanches in British Columbia", since there are many, many others; such a cat would include the Hope Slide and others of historical note, and the individual avalanches should be specified by location/circumstance, e.g. in the case of the recent one Boulder Mountain avalanche, British Columbia or the like.Skookum1 (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I am glad to see this article is no longer a candidate for deletion Ottawahitech (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I still think it should be, myself. It is a news story, nothing more. Resolute 21:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Since this event has spurred debate over potential BC provincial regulation, it makes sense to keep the article so that interested parties can find more information about the background. Isn't this one the purposes of an encyclopedia? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated OpenBSD for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Found that here. something lame from CBW 06:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Skeleton at the 2010 Winter Olympics – Women's

User:Marylanderz nominated this article for GA about a month ago. I reviewed the article, and placed it on hold. Marylanderz has not edited Wikipedia in three weeks, so I don't know if he or she will be around to make revisions. I'm fully willing to go beyond the seven day mark with the hold, but as it stands right this moment, the article needs further work to satisfy GA. Notifying all WikiProjects which have banners placed on the article's talk page. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 23:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

move protection?

Should Concordia University (the one in Montreal) and Mount Royal (also in Montreal) be requested to be move-protected? They've both been disruptively moved, Concordia recently, and Mount Royal last year. ( curiously, both by users in Australia, (a) one who seems to live near Concordia College in Australia, (b) other that seem to work with Mount Royal in Australia )

70.29.210.242 (talk) 12:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know much about this topic, but I was surprised to see the Concordia University is located in Montreal. I know there is at least one other Canadian Concordia U located in Edmonton. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
There was that crazy Concordia prof that went on a shooting rampage in the one in Montreal. The one in Alberta is Concordia University College. 76.66.192.73 (talk) 06:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Typically move-protection is only added in case of move wars or high profile targets of move-page vandalism. –xenotalk 20:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

{{Infobox nhsc}}

After seeing the comments above I went to look at the template for the NHS. I have made some suggestions as to possible changes and would like some feedback. I also noticed a problem with the centring of the images so I fixed that but I had to remove the map portion. Could someone who knows how take a look at Template talk:Infobox nhsc#Image centring problem and see if they can fix it. Thanks. something lame from CBW 09:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Why so little interest in the Nortel article?

There are only two active editors currently involved in adding information to the Nortel article. Nortel is currently under CCAA proceedings in Canada, tens of thousands have lost their jobs and almost 20,000 former employees may be losing part of their pensions - it is not clear how many and how much since the issues before the court are very complex. There has been a lot of media coverage, but the Nortel article does not reflect any of this. Instead the article concentrates only on the business aspects completely ignoring the public interests involved in the story, such as taxpayer funded bailouts and extremely high levels of executive compensation.

This is a wonderful opportunity in my opinion to get more Canadians invloved either directly or indirectly with Wikipedia if only Wikipedians pay more attention to this very sensitive article and prevent this article from becoming a one-person agenda.

Please have a look at what is happening at Nortel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottawahitech (talk • contribs) 16:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

What about WP:WikiProject Nortel ? Nortel has an entire WikiProject devoted to itself. 76.66.192.73 (talk) 06:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes the business community has a lot of material in WP:WikiProject Nortel. However, the article on Nortel is in danger of representing a business-only agenda - one that wants to keep the Nortel name whitewashed. Any newbie who tries to introduce other points of view is driven out, very politely, but with a mis-interpretation of Wikipedia principles. For details check Talk:Nortel#Government_bailout Ottawahitech (talk) 09:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

In recent weeks this article has had some serious augmentation, particularly of images which are of the community bulletin-board nature and do not illustrate the island as such, though it's true this is also a community article. Some are of the news item, or celebrity-visitor variety; many are posted by a contributor from Spanish wikipedia augmenting material to do with the island's namesake. In any case, there are now far too many; can someone who knows the image content guidelines a bit better take a weed-whacker to the gallery, and also politely address the Spanish contributor about "image overburden", please? I'm too heavy handed and tart-tongued to want to do it ;-).Skookum1 (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems like many are being deleted for various license or copyright problems. Otherwise, I think it should just be excised to a Commons Gallery Page. 76.66.192.73 (talk) 06:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I was working on them and am just about to restart after I had to go to work. It seems there are two people. One is uploading files and the other putting them in articles. So of the files are tagged for speedy as they lack licence information. A few of the others were copies of files that already exist on Commons but under a different name. I have deleted the local copies of the Commons files and replaced the Galiano Island gallery with a link to the Commons category. There were/are some files that are not on Commons and I'm in the process of transferring them. something lame from CBW 06:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Some don't strike me as having value, even in Commons; the picture of Jane Rule getting an award from Iona Campagnolo, for example, visually has nothing to do with the island; the cheesy shot of the local Mountie or the group of Thai exchange students - those have nothing to do with wikipedic content; the view from the top of Mount Galiano would better appear on the Trincomali Channel or perhaps Gulf of Georgia if that were ever made a separate article from Georgia Strait; it's not a view of Galiano. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a postcard.....or a community photo gallery (pics of kids, local musicians etc.).Skookum1 (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
It's Commons problem now! I just moved them. something lame from CBW 14:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

BC Rail lede revised

Please see Talk:BC_Rail#Lede_revised_-_time_for_the_truth. The BC Hydro article needs similar correction/expansion; as with other crown corp articles where there's a lot of self-referential refs provided by the crowncorp's site or "massaged" by p.r. people. BC Rail in particular needed changes because of distortions as to its status that needed correcting; I did the best I could to remain NPOV and only "tell it like it is"....individual info-bit cites coming in next few days as I dig them out, but I expect some p.r.-type manipulations to try and offset what I've updated; this article needs watching, but also note the description of the publication ban on materials related to the current court case.....Skookum1 (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

What publication ban/court case? I see nothing in this article about it Ottawahitech (talk) 10:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on including cities on the Canada banner

Moved to Template talk:WikiProject Canada § Cities

Why were the city projects added to the {{WPCANADA}} banner without including the city importance ratings? This would appear to make a hash of city importance ratings, since each article would then have TWO importance ratings, one from the city banner and one from the Canada banner. 76.66.192.73 (talk) 10:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this WikiProject imperialism? Where only WPCANADA ratings matter, not local ratings? None of the city wikiprojects were even consulted before this "feature" was added to screw up importance categorization. 76.66.192.73 (talk) 10:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Monarchy of Canada

I am making here an appeal for help at Monarchy of Canada, where both more opinion and enforcement is needed before Hell breaks any more loose than it already has. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

List of Saskatchewan CCF/NDP members

Hi, on List of Saskatchewan CCF/NDP members it says the word swtich twice. I assume this to be written on purpose but it is very like a misspelling of the word switch. If it is supposed to say swtich, could you please use a template like this :- {{typo|swtich}} so that automatic spellcheckers will not detect it. Thanks ~ R.T.G 22:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You could use this :- {{typo|swtich}}<!--This word is spelled correctly. The "typo" template will prevent spellcheckers detecting it as a misspelling of the word "switch".--> ~ R.T.G 22:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
No, it's just a typo. It's also a badly-formatted article that could use a ton of cleanup, but that's another story. Bearcat (talk) 23:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Notification regarding Wikipedia-Books

Hadronic Matter
An overview
An example of a book cover, taken from Book:Hadronic Matter

As detailed in last week's Signpost, WikiProject Wikipedia books is undertaking a cleanup all Wikipedia books. Particularly, the {{saved book}} template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of the books. Title, subtitle, cover-image, and cover-color can all be specified, and an HTML preview of the cover will be generated and shown on the book's page (an example of such a cover is found on the right). Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class Canada-related articles should have covers.

If you need help with the {{saved book}} template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Wikipedia:Books, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.

This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 01:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. EarwigBot (owner • talk) 01:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

City wikiproject straw polls

I think that this place is watched much more than the city wikiprojects, so I'll mention this here. For anyone who edits articles related to Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, or Ottawa,, I've set up four straw polls to find out which cities should have the option to use the WikiProject Canada tag. It has already been decided that if they are used, the cities with use their own importance scale, so the issues now are whether to allow this tagging option in the first place and whether to default to the Canada-importance if no city-importance is named. The polls are at WT:Montreal, WT:Toronto, WT:Vancouver, and WT:Ottawa. Thanks for your input. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

File:CTV logo.svg

FYI File:CTV logo.svg has been nominated for deletion.

65.94.253.16 (talk) 04:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

File:CBC Logo 1992-Present.svg

FYI File:CBC Logo 1992-Present.svg has been nominated for deletion.

65.94.253.16 (talk) 04:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

French in Infoboxes

An issue has arose involving the usage of French on Canadian articles.

I have run into an unruly editor and before this turns into an edit war I thought I would consult the experts.

Someone has added French to the infoboxes of the Canadian Provinces. I tried to remove it and ran into this not so pleasant editor. I was told to “bring it up the the talk page”, but when I did on the Talk:British Columbia page this editor (User: Freshacconci deleted my comments. I am somewhat new to Wikipedia, but is that allowed ? Deleting my civil point of view on a public talk page ? I tried to explain it is stated in WP:CANSTYLE/WP:PLACE that English is to be used unless there is no English translation.

My view is that the French spelling and pronunciation is already in the first paragraph of all Provincial articles. If french is needed in the infobox than it should be in every Canadian geographic article infobox on wikipedia to be consistent.

That would open up the flood gates to adding French to everything in the article. For example “The city of Toronto (Ville de Toronto) is approximately 4000km from The City of Edmonton (Ville de Edmonton), and City of Calgary (Ville de Calgary).” I know that is kind of an exaggeration but technically who is to control how much or little French would be allowed in an article.

And why stop at French ? (example: Nova Scotia) Chinese is the second most spoken language in many Canadian cities.

In conclusion I am all for mentioning French spelling/pronunciation in the “body” of the article (which it is) because it is an official language, but considering this is English Wikipedia it should remain there in the body. If someone is that French that they would need it mentioned everywhere they would be using French Wikipedia. There are over 500,000 french articles on “french Wikipedia”.

Whatever you guys think is correct would be greatly appreciated.

Also if someone could direct me on how to report someone deleting comments, and if that is in fact frowned upon that would be great. Thanks guys. Po' buster (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The editor in question should be reported at WP:ANI, and French should generally not be used (unless the official name includes French, such as Toronto). That's why we have a French Wikipedia. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree, my understanding is that French should only be included in the infobox if that's a "native name" of the place. By that reasoning, many locations in Quebec would have their English names with their French names below, but places like British Columbia would have only English. TastyCakes (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment Whoa, slow down please. No disrespect to Po' buster, but the events need to be reviewed accurately. First off, the official French names for provinces have been there for a long time, if I recall correctly, and have been discussed on several occasions in the past in context of Canada being officially bilingual. This is not a case of someone just adding them today, but a case of Po'buster removing them repeatedly. (The editor who reverted Po'buster's edits is Freshacconci, an experienced contributor.) --Ckatzchatspy 20:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I only noticed the french names recently. I removed them yesterday, User: Freshacconci re added them. I removed them again with an explanation. He re added them again and became quite rude. I decided to stop and ask the experts here, I would hardly call that "removing them repeatedly". If Freshacconci is such an experienced contributor he should know better than to remove civil comments of another user on a talk page. (and then re add them once I ask about reporting him). I am only trying to get a consensus on the issue. not to start a fight. Like I said earlier if they are added to the Provinces what's to stop people from adding them to every city, town, village article on here ? No offence to anyone but French wikipedia is there for french users. Po' buster (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Again, no disrespect, but you shouldn't have removed them the second time. It would have been better to go to the talk page (or come here, as it is more centralized) at that point. Keep in mind that the French names are official names for the provinces, a somewhat different situation than if it was a mere translation. --Ckatzchatspy 21:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Ckatz; per WP:BRD once the bold changes (Po' removing French) are reverted (by Freshacconci), you should move to discussion. Since the French has been in the articles for quite a while (since 2008-12-15 for NFLD), there is implicit consensus for including it, and its removal requires new consensus if challenged. -M.Nelson (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
PS Ckatz, can you come up with any archived discussions on this issue off the top of your head? -M.Nelson (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I wish to add, as I've already mentioned on Po' buster's talk page, that the problem here is that he was appealing to policy guidelines such as WP:CANSTYLE and WP:PLACE to support his position, even though neither of those documents says anything about what can or can't be in the article — they only speak to what should or shouldn't be in an article's title. Po is certainly within his right to raise discussion on the question of whether French names should be listed in the infobox or not, but Wikipedia doesn't currently have any policy which says that they can't be listed as things currently stand. So taking it to a talk page is the correct solution here — getting into a revert war over it isn't.

That said, my own view is that it's useful in some cases and not in others. Places which have an official or commonly recognized French name that differs in a significant way from the English name should probably have it listed (e.g. Nouvelle-Écosse, Grand-Sudbury, Colombie Britannique). However, it's not useful or necessary in cases where the only difference between the French and English names is the class noun — we don't particularly need to add Ville de Toronto alongside City of Toronto. (Of course, this doesn't solve the city-vs.-town problem for villes in Quebec. But that's a different discussion anyway.) Bearcat (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


Comment: I have a few thoughts on this issue.

First, the important distinction here is between official names and translations.

As far as translations are concerned, I agree with Po'Buster that they really only need mentioning if they have some particular and unusual relevance. The Calgary article, for example, need not refer to "Ville de Calgary" (as I suspect that the Alberta statute that created the municipality provided only an official name in English).

However, where there is an official name in French, that is a completely different matter. The English and French versions of the Constitution both have equal status, and (for example) Canada's western-most province is as much Colombie-Britannique as it is British Columbia. The fact that this is the English or French Wikipedia is a red herring - as an encyclopedia, we should be mentioning both official names.

This applies to more than just provinces. Some other places and institutions will also have official names in French and English. For example, the Art Gallery of Ontario is also the Musée des beaux-arts de l'Ontario. In contrast, the Art Gallery of Alberta does not have an official French name (I believe), so it is unnecessary (and likely inappropriate) to provide a French translation in that article for the sake of it.

For these reasons, I also believe that Po'Buster's "slippery slope" concern ("where does it end?") is not something we need to worry about. We need not provide the names of cities, villages, institutions, etc. in languages other than English (except in those occasions where there is an official name in another language, and usually then it is only French we need to deal with).

Finally, I don't see any meaningful distinction between the lead and the infobox. If an official name is worth mentioning in the lead, then it is worth including in the infobox.

I hope that helps. (Bearcat's comments and my comment were edit conflicts, so I wrote this before seeing his thoughts, but I agree with his comments). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

By saying Canada is bilingual implies that every Province and city should be listed bilingually. The only "officially bilingual" Province is New Brunswick. Beside NB and Quebec no other Province or City, Towns within it should be listed bilingually or the door opens for fully bilingualism. To say Saskatchewan is more or less french than Nova Scotia would be bold, and incorrect. Po' buster (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
That's not what they're saying. They're saying that if a place has an official name in English and French that both should be in the infobox. Most places outside of French Canada do not have official names in French, the exceptions being Federal entities (provinces, museums etc). Not sure it'd be the way I'd do things if I were starting from scratch, but there's certainly some logic to it. TastyCakes (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
And what I said was that IMO, French names, regardless of the officialness or non-officialness thereof, should be listed only for those provinces, cities, whatever, where the French name is different in form (i.e. "Greater Sudbury" vs. "Grand-Sudbury"), and not for places where the only difference is the word for what type of thing it is (i.e. "city" vs. "ville", "province of" vs. "province de", etc.) And as far as cities go, the state of having a French name that actually differs from the English name in a significant enough way to merit having both in the infobox actually affects maybe seven or eight cities in the entire country, all of which are officially or functionally bilingual places anyway.
You're arguing against an abstraction here, however, as nobody has actually asserted "every province and city should be listed bilingually" — although we haven't all drawn the line at exactly the same place, everybody in this discussion has asserted some form of "it should be present in some cases and not in others".
Oh, and by the way, the words "province" and "city" are not capitalized if they're not appearing in the proper name of a specific province or a specific city. That is, we write "City of Toronto", but "no other province or city". Bearcat (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you on the "type" of thing (although there are exceptions, like City of Ottawa (the rare example where we have an article on the corporate entity) or articles on upper-tier municipalities such as Prescott and Russell United Counties, Ontario). But officialness or non-officialness is relevant, as this debate will inevitably drag in non-place article subjects. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Canada may be officially bilingual, but that is of no import on Wikipedia. (And before any Francophones get up in arms, I love and cherish our nation's French heritage and champion bilingualism, despite my atrocious French, whenever I can. My Canada includes Quebec!) This is the English Wikipedia, and as such, English must take dominance. Unless the placename is explicitly in French (Trois-Rivieres, etc), it should be in English. On the French Wikipedia, the opposite obtains, naturellement. → ROUX ₪ 07:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
This being en: certainly means that English should be given precedence over other languages; it doesn't mean that names in other languages can't or shouldn't even be mentioned. Bearcat (talk) 08:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

If english is not added to the Infoboxes at French Wikipedia? then french shouldn't be added to the Infoboxes at English Wikipedia. Same goes for all languages. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Remember folks, this is not the Canadian Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

English is added here and here, not here or here. Seems they give both names except where the difference is minor (ie an accent). TastyCakes (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Check out the inconsitancies at both Wikipedia's concerning the Montreal Canadiens & Quebec Nordiques infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
True, French Wikipedia only gives those names in French, but they do that at all hockey teams, for example here and here. TastyCakes (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, I was shocked to have discovered that, earlier today. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I think GoodDay summed it best with "Remember folks, this is not the Canadian Wikipedia" .... The whole world isn't french/english. Po' buster (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but it's a bit of a moot point as nobody is advocating full bilingualism. What I consider important is the official name(s), period; if there are two official names, regardless of language, we should list them. If an official name is only in non-English languages, then it should be translated (since this is ENWP), and it is not appropriate to translate to a non-English language (again, ENWP not multilingual WP). I think that the French Wikipedia should be doing the same thing, but even though they aren't, there's no reason why we should stoop to their lower (in my opinion) standards. -M.Nelson (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Well said, M.Nelson. I'm extremely puzzled as to why the practice over on the French Wikipedia is relevant here. If the French wikipedia article on British Columbia doesn't have a section on demographics, do we delete the demographics section here in our B.C. article? We should be making content decisions based on our policies, guidelines and consensus, not on the basis of some quid-pro-quo with other projects. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
As to the comment "the whole world isn't French/English", nobody has suggested that it is. Nobody is suggesting that we provide translations of names for the benefit of readers across Canada. We are talking about basic, elementary facts about the article subject -- for example, the fact that B.C. has two equally valid official names - British Columbia and Colombie-Britannique - remains the same whether the reader is in Chicoutimi, Victoria, Warsaw, Mexico City or Mumbai. It's a key legal fact. Nobody is suggesting that we provide a translation service. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Who's to say what is "official" and what is not. Perhaps at the municipal level it may be City of Regina, and at the Federal level it may be City of Regina / Ville de Regina. Po' buster (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
"Ville de Regina"? Uh, no. Official provincial or city names are well-documented in law. They are not something open to interpretation by imaginative Wikipedia editors. PKT(alk) 18:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. The official name is the name under which it is established -- in the case of a city like Regina, it would be the provincial statute or charter that established the municipality. It has nothing to do with the various names in various languages that public authorities may use to refer to the municipality. Regina wouldn't have an official name at the federal level, because as a municipality it is the creature of the provincial government. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Fench should only be included where it is relevant, which outside of Quebec, is quite rare. Resolute 19:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
How would an official name not be relevant? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I could do without the condescending comments PKT, I'm trying to make a valid points and have a good conversation/debate. And Cities are not "owned" or "run" by the Province, they are corporations overseen by the Province.I agree with Resolute, french is really not relevant outside of a french named regions. Sure it is an official name, IN FRENCH. We use the official names in english on ENWP. Po' buster (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Nobody said that cities are, quote, "owned" or "run" by the province; PKT and Skeezix said that the official names are documented legally in, among other things, "the provincial statute or charter that established the municipality", which sounds pretty legit to me. -M.Nelson (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
That's not what I'm getting at. I'm saying they are corporations, they follow no guidelines with naming. A town in Ontario with 60% french residents could have an english only title, and a town in Alberta with 0% french residents could have a bilingual name. To remain consistent across the board english should be used only.Po' buster (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Of course they follow guidelines for naming. They have a piece of paper that says what their name is. You can go ask to look at it. If the piece of paper says they have two official names, that's what we should report. Franamax (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Agreed! The piece of paper can say "City of Calgary", "Ville de Calgary", or "Poopsville" for all I care; they should be included nonetheless, and editor discretion/common sense (or perhaps some unknown guideline, or perhaps some new guideline) will decide that "City of Calgary" goes at the top. NOTE THAT I'm not sure if there is currently consensus for "Ville de Calgary" to be included even if it is an official name -- I'm pretty sure that the Grand-Sudbury consensus says no -- but I think it should. -M.Nelson (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Calgary isn't the best example, because it is Calgary is both English and French (as Bearcat mentions above, the "City of" part isn't something we would typically include in the lead or infobox). As for Greater Sudbury, the article should be titled Greater Sudbury, the city should be referred to throughout the article as Greater Sudbury, but the lead and/or infobox should mention that the municipality has two official, equally valid names:Greater Sudbury and Grand-Sudbury. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
That brings up the question, is the official name "City of Calgary" or simply "Calgary"? If it is "City of Calgary", then that (in my opinion) should go in the infobox (as it does now). If there is an official French version of the name ("Ville de Calgary"), I think that this should go in the infobox too. The actual names don't matter to me at all; unless they are identical, both should be included. -M.Nelson (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
It is not relevant because this is is not the French Wikipedia, and the French name is completely unused in English. Resolute 19:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Po'buster, I don't agree with your point. Official is official, regardless of language, and should be reported/reflected as such. PKT(alk) 20:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
It so happens I am a municipal lawyer. Municipalities are corporate entities, but they are established by provincial statute. The statute sets out the legal name(s). Even if they were a business corporation (just for the sake of discussion), set up no differently than any company, the articles or incorporation would still establish the official name. This isn't something that is subject to various interpretations. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Would you also agree that municipalities and their various corporations are "creatures of the province"? Franamax (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, they are routinely described that way. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
It is not relevant because this is is not the French Wikipedia, and the French name is completely unused in English. Resolute 19:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
An official name is always relevant, whatever language it is in. If two official names exist, both should be shown. The English part of en:wiki just means that we give prominence to the English form of the name. Franamax (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Franamax; I agree wholeheartedly. PKT(alk) 20:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I also agree that it is important to include the French names when they are official. - SimonP (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree as well. How can the full extent of the legal name not be relevant? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Becuase the French translation is just that, the accepted translation. To use the British Columbia example that was mentioned to start this debate, the only parts on the BC Government website that even include the option of viewing in French are pages dealing specifically with official bilingualism and French education. Otherwise, even the government itself views French as an irrelevancy. Resolute 00:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
It's not an "accepted translation" - it's the official name. Please read the comments above. The Constitution creates the province as "Colombie-Britannique" as much as it does "British Columbia". Neither name has greater legal validity than the other. The fact that I have a nickname which I use exclusively does not change the name on my birth certificate. Similarly, the fact that the BC government offers limited services in French does not alter the fact that the province has two official names, one in English and the other in French. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

What about in Quebec where english has no rights what so ever ? Such as on the Quebec City, Sherbrooke, Gaspe, etc, etc articles ? Po' buster (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Please indent your comments to make clear what you are replying to, or put new aspects to the thread at the bottom. For what goes where, shoot 'em all and let {{Infobox settlement}} sort it out. Compare the use of parameters at Shanghai for instance. A good example to look at though is Brussels, an officially bilingual country, where the official names are shown in all languages. The difference here is that one of the two languages already is English. For QC, I would think maybe name=Quebec City and native_name=Ville de Quebec. Using name= instead of official_name= is a finesse to recognize the fact that in Canada, the official name is indeed whatever the provincial government says it is, we don't want to refight the language wars, so let's just use name=. For entities which do have two official names, such as British Columbia, regardless of what the template docs say, we should always use both official names with a line break in between and the English one shown first (IMO). Franamax (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Both of your examples of are of countries where english is not an official language. I can see adding them in that case, but when english IS an official language they don't need to be included. Po' buster (talk) 13:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Dublin may be a better example, although I don't think its infobox has been formatted as nicely. TastyCakes (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Putting aside the debatable and irrelevant "where english has no rights what so ever" point, the examples that Po'Buster has identified are pretty clear cut. As per WP:CANSTYLE, we'd use the name most common in English, and we'd also specifically mention their official name where it differs from the English usage.

This whole issue is so straightforward (frankly it strikes me as a tempest in a teapot). Defer to English usage for the article title and references throughout the body of the article (in conformity with WP:CANSTYLE and WP:PLACES), but where there is/are official name(s) that differ(s) from the English usage, mention it/them in the lead and/or infobox. Simple. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

My comments weren't "debatable and irrelevant" about Quebec articles. If you didn't understand them I will rephrase them. In Quebec French is the only language. They did not sign the constitution act (82). The cities and towns (to my knowledge) do not have official english titles. What happens then ? I am not arguing, just wondering.
Also you use very vague language in your arguments which avoid the topic completely. You said "where there is/are official name(s) that differ(s) from the English usage, mention it/them in the lead and/or infobox" Well that is the argument right there. I don't think anyone is arguing about mentioning them in the lead/article, it is whether they should be mentioned in the info box . "And/or" voids your argument. Po' buster (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Sure the point is debatable (I didn't say I didn't understand it) - restrictions on some uses of English does not equal "no rights". And I'm certainly entiled to speak to the issue of whether or not Quebec's language laws have any bearing on this issue. The one thing I honestly don't understand is how Quebec's refusal to sign the Constitution Act has anything to do with this.

As for the infobox and the lead, way up above in my first comment I said that I see absolutely no meaningful distinction between the lead and the infobox. If a name is appropriate content for the article lead, I can't fathom why it doesn't merit inclusion in an infobox. And nobody has subsequently responded to that point. I have no idea how this "voids" my argument. Frankly, my reference to "and/or" had more to do with the fact that there isn't always an infobox, not to mention that some editors prefer official/non-English names to be the infobox rather than overburdening the opening sentence. (BTW, GoodDay and Resolute have taken stronger positions that you have, both suggesting above that the French names aren't appropriate content even in the lead/article.)

As for your question "what happens then?", I'm just repeating what I've said above and other people have said, but here goes: Use the common English name for the article title and throughout the body of the article, and where there are any official names that differ from the English usage, mention those at the top as well. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem with places in Quebec isn't French vs. English officialism. While there hasn't yet been a clear consensus on how to deal with the problem, with the result that there are a variety of approaches used in different articles, the problem is that the word ville doesn't have a clean, consistent English translation. It means both "city" and "town", and there are no objective criteria for establishing a distinction between the two. So in many cases we would have to apply some sort of arbitrary and self-invented rule (which would constitute original research, a no-no on Wikipedia), to decide whether any given ville is a "city" or a "town" in English. But it has nothing to do with privileging the French name because of language rights — it has to do with the fact that there's no clear and unambiguous way to determine whether it's the "City of Gaspé" or the "Town of Gaspé", "City of Sherbrooke" or "Town of Sherbrooke", etc. So while there are a few obvious cases (I don't think anybody would ever seriously propose that we describe Montreal or Quebec City as "towns" instead of "cities", for instance), we admittedly haven't yet figured out a consensus on how to deal with it — with the result that the infoboxes for villes in Quebec aren't as consistent as they should be. But it's not an issue of official language — it's a lack of clarity about how to translate ville into English. Bearcat (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
um well we should obvi translate "VILLe" to "VILLage" since they r so similar -M.Nelson (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is insisting that we use "City of..", "Ville de..." in the infoboxes or the article. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 01:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, actually some of the Quebec infoboxes that Po' mentioned do have Ville de.... But I should also point out that M.Nelson's edit summary made it pretty clear that he was joking and didn't mean that suggestion to be taken seriously. Bearcat (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

French should be removed from all infoboxes on English language Wikipedia (let alone Canadian related infoboxes). Why must English Wikipedia always bend over backwards, to accomodate other languages? Jeepers, months (or was that years) ago, we had to struggle to get the article Quebec named 'without the accent'. I betcha there's no British Columbia at the BC infobox on French Wikipedia -- GoodDay (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This has absolutely nothing to do with bending over backwards or accommodating other languages. If the article subject has official names in more than just English, we should mention it. That's all. I'm not sure why it matters a whit what they are doing on the French Wikipedia. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 01:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
It should matter, as all are under Wikipedia. We shouldn't be mentioning other languages (sourced or not). Can ya imagine what the top of the infoboxes would've looked like if we had to have 10 or more names? Even the 2 names are crowding each other. GoodDay (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Can you name any Canadian topic that has 10 or more different official names in 10 or more different languages? If you're really that determined to use "slippery slope" arguments as a scare tactic, at least choose a slope that could actually occur, not some wild imaginary scenario we're never actually going to face. Bearcat (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Thankfully, there's not 10. If there had been 10? these infoboxes would've been over-crowded (less we hurt anyone's feelings). GoodDay (talk) 01:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I can't speak for anybody else's ideas about what should or shouldn't happen here — but the suggestion that I made would require maybe 15 to 20 Canadian geographic articles to contain two names, while the vast majority would still contain just one. And while practice on fr: shouldn't dictate what we do on en:, as you've already noticed fr: does include the English names for places whose English and French names aren't the same. I'd note, as well, that en: does already include official names in Inuktitut for places such as Iqaluit and Nunavut. Is there a really compelling reason why we should do that, but not include official names in French for places which actually have them? Bearcat (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I was pleased to see english used at provincial infoboxes at French Wikipedia, though they weren't used at NHL team infoboxes. Inuit names are used? ahhhhhh. GoodDay (talk) 02:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Let's be clear here, fr:wiki does what ever it decides and en:wiki does whatever it decides. There is no quid pro quo. They make their own decisions based on the needs and consensus of their own language wiki, and we do the same for ours. I'm quite sure their discussions are just as passionate, but they're different. Franamax (talk) 07:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
It would be nice, if EN:WP would decide to delete non-english from itself. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
GoodDay, I DISagree with that completely. I can live with anglicization of non-english names for the convenience of EN:WP users, but other languages deserve recognition in appropriate circumstances. PKT(alk) 18:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
The other languages can have their places on their respective Wikipedias. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Can the infoboxes be changed to reflect english in large print and french smaller underneath similar to that of the provinces' ? Po' buster (talk) 04:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible Solution

This debate seems to be going no where fast. I propose a solution ...


- Take "City of" out of the infoboxes. Not many other cities use it, even when the "official name" includes it. It's obviously "the city of" there's really no reason to include it. It crowds the infobox and is redundant. Check out Houston, Philadelphia, San Jose, Boston, Johannesburg, to name a few. They're all "City of's" but it isn't mentioned in the infobox.
- This would end the dispute of French in the infoboxes because there would be no need for "Ville de" and only a few cities (all in Quebec) would need the two languages listed.
Tell me what you think. Po' buster (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The french should be removed (if there's an english translation) from the Quebec cities articles, too. GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Po' buster, your idea is OK. GoodDay, your suggestion makes no sense. Are you saying that if a city in Quebec has an English translation we should use that, even if it's not official and rarely used, rather than the correct French version? What about places outside Quebec who's name is French? something lame from CBW 22:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
If they got an english name? use it, let the French Wikipedia have the french names. Atleast make the english names prominant (in the infobox). GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
So Montreal would be Mount Royal? freshacconci talktalk 00:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
No Montreal would be Montreal, instead of "Ville de Montréal". Po' buster (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Montreal would be as follows -- the title and the body of the article would refer to Montreal, as that is the most common English usage, but the lead and infobox would also refer to the official name in French. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I checked up on Moscow, Tokyo, Helsinki etc etc. Non-english is being used in alot of 'city infoboxes' (too many for me to imagine). Atleast let the english version be the most prominant. GoodDay (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually Po' buster according to GoodDay's comment Freshacconci is correct. Montreal would be Mount Royal, possibly with Montreal in smaller wording, but what GoodDay still needs to explain is what happens to non-Quebec cities who's names are in French, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario for example. Also what about cities with names that are neither English or French? Such as the well known city with a Latin name? something lame from CBW 12:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
:) --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Where there's an english version, make that version prominant in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Guys, there would appear to be consensus that we don't need "City of...", etc. (although I note to Po'Buster that the places at issue extend outside of Quebec). But there isn't consensus to eliminate all references to non-English names. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
So can we begin to remove "City of" from Canadian City articles ? Po' buster (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
No probs here & don't forget to make the english prominant. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
So in other words make sure that "Saint Marie's Waterfall", "Queen, Saskatchewan", "it looks like a caribou" and "Our Lady of Perrot Island" are prominent in their infoboxes. Never mind that those names are never used, make sure that English prevails over common sense and accuracy. Or we could go with common sense and accuracy and do something similar as with places like Kugaaruk, Nunavut and have Notre-Dame-de-l'Île-Perrot (Our Lady of Perrot Island). something lame from CBW 23:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
No one is Proposing changing city and town names. Just using the english spelling. Montreal instead of Ville de Montréal, Sault Ste. Marie would remain Sault Ste. Marie because that is it's name. It wouldn't magically become Saint Marie's Waterfall. I truly don't understand why this subject is so hard to comprehend. Removing "city of" and "ville de" and using non accented spelling. Not that difficult of an idea. Po' buster (talk) 00:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say anybody was suggesting that we change the names. Just that the unused English names are made prominent in the infoboxes possibly to the exclusion of the original and official non-English name. As you can see from french shouldn't be added to the Infoboxes at English Wikipedia. Same goes for all languages., French should be removed from all infoboxes on English language Wikipedia (let alone Canadian related infoboxes).,We shouldn't be mentioning other languages (sourced or not)., It would be nice, if EN:WP would decide to delete non-english from itself., The french should be removed (if there's an english translation) from the Quebec cities articles, too. and If they got an english name? use it, let the French Wikipedia have the french names., it would appear that the total removal of all non-English is exactly what GoodDay is suggesting. While they are not saying we should change the names they are saying use only the English translation. something lame from CBW 13:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I've modified my stance (earlier). I'm saying, if non-english is necessary? fine. If there's an english version, make the english version more prominant. GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
There is no consensus yet for making English more "prominent" - whatever that means in practice. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
There does appear to be, as Po'Buster, has suggested, for removing the type of thing from city and town articles - looking through the discussion above, nobody appears to object to that (You can't do it for every place article, as upper-tier municipalities typically require the modifier). That change alone would probably eliminate most of the dispute. However, I just want to point out that in the case of Montreal, for example, that means eliminating the first two words of "Ville de Montréal", but there is no consensus on removing "Montréal" from the lead or infobox. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
As long Montreal (minus the accents) is prominant (i.e. larger lettering) in the Infobox, then that's cool. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I have no qualms with that. Whatever the title of the article, which is almost inevitably in English or an English version of the name, it should be be in larger lettering. I'm so happy that we've been able to find grounds upon which to agree! Thanks for your efforts on this one, GoodDay. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
No probs, it was the Infoboxes at Moscow, Mexico City and Tokyo that modified my stance. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad you've changed from the exclusion of other languages in the infobox but do you still want the translations like "Saint Marie's Waterfall", "Queen, Saskatchewan", "it looks like a caribou" and "Our Lady of Perrot Island" there as well? And do you want those prominent or if the translation is required should it be in the body of the article, which is my preference? something lame from CBW 16:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
On those? either way will do. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Recap

  • Different Wikipedias have their own rules, guidelines, inconsistencies and problems. They're separate. If someone else jumps off the bridge, are you really going to follow suit? Besides, this is suppose to be a discussion about the use of language names within the infobox, not a war of the Wikipedias. Have a problem with the French settlement infobox? Tell them.
  • The etymological origin of the name has nothing to do with translating a place name. "Montréal" will not be translated as "Mount Royal". "Xhaaidlagha Gwaayaai" will not be translated as "Islands on the boundary between the worlds".
  • The respective pages should follow the same guidelines as mentioned on WP:CANSTYLE and WP:PLACES, for which I've been oft quoted. That is, if a particular usage is more common in English, then we'll stick to that usage throughout the article and in the article's title. "Montreal" and "Queen Charlotte Islands" are attested and are currently the most common in English, so these articles will use those names. In the same way, we'll use "Iqaluit" over "Frobisher Bay".
  • The infobox should reflect this by displaying the most commonly used place name in English in the name field. The name field should then be displayed more prominently than the alternative (other_name), native (native_name}}) and official names (official_name). fr:Colombie-Britannique is a nice example.
  • There's no reason that we can't mention alternative names (other_name), as in the case of "Haida Gwaii" for the Queen Charlotte Islands, or the native/local names in their respective languages, like "Montréal" for Montreal. Additionally, the common English name should not change the official name of the region. If the official usage with an accent exists, it should stay under its respective parameter official_name. If an official name exists in both English and the other language(s) of that region, which is usually the case for internationally reknown locations such as Beijing, then they should both be listed.
  • "City of X" should be avoided, especially under the parameters name and other_name. Instead, you can mention the type under the field settlement_type, and if official, in the official_name as well.

Is that about it? The primary complaint seems to be simply to make the param name larger than the rest. — Io Katai ᵀᵃˡᵏ 17:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


I would agree with those guidelines, although they don't really change anything very much. So is "City of Toronto" to be changed to just "Toronto" in the infobox ? "City of Vancouver" to Vancouver ? I am also a little worried about communities outside of Quebec having french in the infobox. Such as Sudbury. I am still for moving it out of the infobox completely, but maybe I can live with smaller text.
Also I requested a french article to be moved to it's english spelling already. Communauté métropolitaine de Québec to the english version Quebec Metropolitan Community, it was moved no problems. User:Skeezix1000 moved it back and said it needs to be discussed and a consensus reached. This move is not debatable, there is a common english title. If every move and spelling change like this needs to be discussed, what was the point of this long winded discussion/debate we just had ?Po' buster (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
There's no reason to make a Quebec and everywhere-else split. If the region has a sizeable francophone population with a respective French appellation, it should be mentioned, not removed. In the case of Sudbury, as per my above-mentioned guidelines, both "City of Greater Sudbury" and "Ville de Grand-Sudbury" should be listed in the official_name field, and subsequently name should be "Sudbury" only, with settlement_type set to "City".
As for Communauté métropolitaine de Québec, can you actually prove that the translation is more common in English? I ran a comparative search, and obtained 148 GHits for "the Quebec Metropolitan Community"[3], and 1180 GHits for "the Communauté métropolitaine de Québec[4]. Remember, usage comes first. — Io Katai ᵀᵃˡᵏ 21:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Remembering my earlier comments regarding "english has no rights in Quebec". There would be very few provincial or any municipal documents referring to the area in english. English has been almost "outlawed" by the Province. So that would explain the hit differences, even though it is the english usage. And yes the french spelling is definitely the more common due too the area's francophone community, but that isn't relevant. It is the common "english" reference, not the"most" common. Po' buster (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Po' buster, you seem to have now confirmed [5] what I had a nagging suspicion of all along. You think there is a "french agenda" at play and presumably you think this must be countered by erasing French wherever you can or else it's going to take over. You do indeed seem to want to re-fight the language wars, or perhaps you never stopped fighting them. Please try to separate your ideology from your comments on encyclopedic content. Franamax (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm having really strong User:DW flashbacks here, actually. Bearcat (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
You're constructing yourself a false reality. Laws of a region have nothing to do with usage. In French, the same type of rules apply. If a predominant French usage exists, then the French name will be used, otherwise the name of the region, entity, word or whatnot remains in English. Does this stem from the fact that French has no rights elsewhere than Quebec? No. It comes from common sense, so leave your biased politics aside. Not everyone will readily associate with the English translation, so you need to stick with the usage that is the most common. Not your personal preference. — Io Katai ᵀᵃˡᵏ 22:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Io Katai, your guidelines are good except point three and four contradict each other. Point four should be changed to something like: "The infobox should reflect this (i.e. the usage) by displaying the most commonly used name (preferably but not necessarily an English version, if one exists and is commonly used) more prominently (name), especially over alternative (other_name), native (native_name) and official names (official_name)." That stops things like name=many fish {{{1}}}Iqaluit —Preceding unsigned comment added by CambridgeBayWeather (talk • contribs) 23:26, 1 March 2010
Heh, yeah. I shouldn't have used the word guideline in my earlier post, it was more of just a recap of all the previous comments plus my own thoughts, but thanks for pointing the ambiguity out. — Io Katai ᵀᵃˡᵏ 00:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Regarding Greater Sudbury, I don't actually have any issue with doing that — in fact, I've tried to do it on several occasions, but for some reason infoboxes never seem to work properly when I add or fill in a settlement_type field. I'd actually appreciate it if somebody who knows what I'm doing wrong could help me fix that, because I do want that infobox to be consistent with others. Bearcat (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Io, that's a good recap, and I'll take a closer look at it shortly. Thank you for taking the time to condense the discussion.

Today, Po'Buster accused me "trying to push the french agenda on english wikipedia", "trying to turn wikipedia french" (he made that one twice) and "constantly trying to convert english articles/names to french" (this is after his charming comments yesterday about "french residents (usually former Quebecers) trying to push the french agenda"). I'm not sure what ax Po'Buster is looking to grind here. It's all childish accusations and ridiculous, of course, but it's also extremely disheartening (especially since it injects an unnecessary hostility into these discussions). If that's honestly what he thinks I am trying to do, then I'm exhausted trying to have an adult and civil discussion with someone who doesn't appear to read anyone else's view points. Sigh. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

First off I don't think french needs to erased or it will take over. lol, childish accusations. I do think that "some editors" are trying to push the "french agenda" and do not have good intentions. I also think it shouldn't be in the infobox, especially if the word isn't french to begin with. (Ex:Ville de "City" or Grand Sudbury) I find it hard to believe that some think that Communauté métropolitaine de Québec is the common usage in english. Clearly no english person would ever use this term ! It may be the most common reference, but that's only because the majority of the people using the term are french. Anyone not french would use Quebec Metropolitan Community, therefor it would be the common english usage. Not brain surgery here. Just like it's Quebec City, not Ville de Québec in english. I also find it odd the editors pushing for french usage (User:Skeezix1000, User:Io Katai, User:Bearcat) all seem to have french advertised on their user pages. But I guess that's just a coincidence and not personal ideology. Po' buster (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You can make whatever remark you want, but I just recapped the entire discussion that had previously occurred, and touched-up on a few details that I noted on other non-Canadian international articles such as Beijing, Phnom Penh, Bangkok, Kabul, Tokyo, Moscow and New Orleans. The discussion is always open to new proposals, but so far you seem to care to only want to translate everything into the English language irregardless of what any other editor on Wikipedia has to say. Remember, it's a collaborative encyclopedia. If you would like third opinions from people who aren't trying to "push the 'french agenda'", then feel free to invite them over to this page. Cheers. — Io Katai ᵀᵃˡᵏ 02:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Do you have an actual source to demonstrate that people actually call it the "Quebec Metropolitan Community" in English, or are you just assuming that anglophones will always prefer an English translation? It's not enough to say that "because this is the English Wikipedia, we have to give everything an English name" — you have to provide actual sources to prove that "Quebec Metropolitan Community" actually predominates over "Communauté métropolitaine de Québec" in actual English usage. It's not our role here to invent alternative names for things; our role is to reflect the names that are actually in use. So the onus is on you to prove that "Quebec Metropolitan Community" is actually in use in reliable English sources. Or are you going to propose that we invent a new English name for the Bloc Québécois too? Bearcat (talk) 02:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm done arguing with a couple of obvious french people with biased opinions. Do whatever you want. Let's make all Wikipedia bilingual to please a small minority of french speakers. You people are being ridiculous and it's impossible to convince you otherwise because of your obvious agendas. I'm done. I'm going to retire to la Ville de Toronto and parlé francais, because that's what every Canadian does, not just a tiny minority outside Quebec. Merci, au revoir. Po' buster (talk) 13:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you completely insane, or just partially? Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Je suis partiellement :) Po' buster (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
For some reason I have an urge to dig out my old Cheech & Chong recording of the interview with the lumberjack, "ehh dere, by golly Jock". :) I wonder if I can find it, I think it might be on Big Bambu. No reflection intended on any editors here, it's just that I used to know the whole thing by heart. :) Franamax (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Try actually reading what's actually being said to you. Because you're committing the classic fallacy of building your own strawman and arguing against that. Seriously, nobody has suggested that the infobox on Toronto needs to contain Ville de Toronto. Bearcat (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Lol, relax Bearcat, I’m just having a little fun with you. I haven’t suggested that the infobox on Toronto needs to contain Ville de Toronto either. But if Toronto adopted a bilingual name I’m sure it would go up there according to some.
I will explain myself one last time. (Even though I said I was done with this ridiculous argument)
The French spelling is of no relevance to an English speaking person. Official name or not it shouldn’t be in the infobox unless the original and common used spelling is in fact french. If not it should be mentioned in the article only. Why would anyone english care that the French spelling of Sudbury is “Ville de Grand-Sudbury”? If in fact that is an official name, then it could be mentioned in the article that “in French” the town is called ….. Especially if it isn’t even an official name like “Nouvel Ontario”. That should not be in the info box
Every example of an international article with bilingual infoboxes is because the original spelling is foreign. (Ex:Brussels, Beijing, etc.) If the original spelling is English or has been anglicized for generations it does not need to be shown in French. It is completely useless, clouds the infobox, and makes for inconsistencies with other Canadian geographic articles. Keep it in the article. Po'Buster out ! Po' buster (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, not trying to be confrontational, but please don't generalize your personal opinion as if it were an absolute for everyone. The French name may not be relevant to you, but it certainly is for others. In sorting this out, we have to avoid rejecting material for personal reasons. --Ckatzchatspy 22:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Pre-Final

Canadian city articles should be consistent to each other and follow these guidelines in naming.

  • The respective pages should follow the same guidelines as mentioned on WP:CANSTYLE and WP:PLACES. That is, if a particular usage is more common in English, then we'll that usage will be used throughout the article and in the article's title. "Montreal" and "Queen Charlotte Islands" are attested and are currently the most common in English, so these articles will use those names. In the same way, we'll use "Iqaluit" over "Frobisher Bay".
  • The infobox should reflect the most commonly used place name in English in the name field. The name field should then be displayed more prominently than the alternative (other_name), native (native_name) and official names (official_name).
  • Other names should be mentioned only if they are well known and documented.
  • "City of X" should be avoided, especially under the parameters name and other_name. Instead, you can mention the type under the field settlement_type, and if official, in the official_name as well if consesus is reached. “City of X” should be removed from the main “name” category in current articles to be consistent across the board.
  • The infobox should reflect the most commonly used English name especially over alternative (other_name), native (native_name) and official names (official_name)
  • The etymological origin of the name has nothing to do with translating a place name. "Montréal" will not be translated as "Mount Royal". "Xhaaidlagha Gwaayaai" will not be translated as "Islands on the boundary between the worlds". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Po' buster (talk • contribs) 14:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

That should cover everything. Po' buster (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


I would prefer something like this:

  • Infobox should show all official names in their entirety
    • If the city name legally includes "City of", this should be included, as it is legally part of the city's name. We shouldn't drop part of the city's name at a whim.
  • If there is no official English name, then a translation should be provided
  • English name (official or translation) should always appear largest and at top; other names below, smaller, and if non-English, italicised
  • WP:CANSTYLE and WP:PLACES will continue to regulate article body

I have no strong opposition to Po' buster's proposal further above, other than that it doesn't go far enough. However, I do believe that the "Other names should be mentioned only if they are well known and documented" point can catch all official and native names, meaning that other than preciseness, there is no major difference between our two proposals. I personally think that "City of" should be included as it is a part of the city's legal name, but that isn't a major bone of contention. -M.Nelson (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Po' buster, you have the same problem with item 2 that I noted before, and item 5 says the same thing as 2. They should be something like "The infobox should reflect the most commonly used name, in English if possible, more prominently than any other names. If the official name is not in English and a commonly used English name is available then that should prevail, with the other language name given below. If there is no commonly used English name then the other language name should prevail, with an English translation below."
M.nelson, I agree with points 1, 2, 3 and 5 but 4 will just make a mockery of Canadian articles. Point 4 would mean that "it looks like a caribou" prevails over Tuktoyaktuk and "Saint Marie's Waterfall" over Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. something lame from CBW 23:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, that's actually not what I meant by translation. I absolutely don't agree with translating the actual name into "Mount Royal" or "Saint Marie's Waterfall". Looking back, I suppose the only "translating" required will be "Ville de", etc. -M.Nelson (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
To be honest, I think "most commonly used" covers that concern — neither of the translations you point out here is actually in common use to refer to the topic in question. I was going to say that WP:CANSTYLE already specifies that we shouldn't translate a name just for the sake of translating it, if the resulting name isn't something that's actually in use to refer to that topic, but then I realized that as written, it only talks about not creating redirects from unattested translations. If there's no objection, I'm willing to beef that up to talk about article content as well. Bearcat (talk) 00:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
M.nelson, thanks for clearing it up. Bearcat, "most commonly used" should cover that, but given the anti-French attitude from some editors I got the impression that English and only English was the goal. something lame from CBW 02:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely not should any foreign languages other than english be included in the infobox unless it is a referenced official name. This is english wikipedia, we should not be including anything but official names in the infobox. Anything not official should be in the article only, if that. This opens the door for "Ville de Toronto". Who is to say what is "other name" or "commonly used french name" etc. This cannot be included in the final guidelines. Po' buster (talk) 02:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. -M.Nelson (talk) 05:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Allentown, Pennsylvania is a great example of how we should model the infobox title guidlines. Name, Settlement type, Official name. Po' buster (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Nobody, but nobody, in this discussion has ever suggested that anything other than a referenced official name would be mentioned. Some people have thought, however, that you were suggesting that we should translate names into English regardless of whether the resulting name was actually in use or not for any given topic (e.g. "Saint Mary's Falls" instead of Sault Ste. Marie or "Wolf River" instead of Rivière-du-Loup). Bearcat (talk) 07:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) Interesting. I think that using that format could fix all our problems-- all official (expanded) names could be listed below, and at the top the common English-language name would be used (for example, "Montreal"). If the only official name is in French, the common English-language name is still used above, and we avoid having to translate "Ville de" and whatnot. -M.Nelson (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, {{Infobox settlement}} doesn't allow for more than one official name. Unless the template can be modified, I'm not sure if this formatting could work for cities with two official names and a differing common name. -M.Nelson (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
You can use <br> to list more than one official name in the one field if necessary. Bearcat (talk) 07:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there an easy way to find out each cities "official name" ? Whether it includes "City of" or not. Po' buster (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Final

Ottawa
City
City of Ottawa - Ville d'Ottawa
Downtown Ottawa
Downtown Ottawa
Montreal
City
Ville de Montréal
A view of downtown Montreal
A view of downtown Montreal

The following guidelines should be used for infobox naming for Canadian cities:

  • The respective pages should follow the same guidelines as mentioned on WP:CANSTYLE and WP:PLACES. That is, if a particular usage is more common in English, then we'll that usage will be used throughout the article and in the article's title. "Montreal" and "Queen Charlotte Islands" are attested and are currently the most common in English, so these articles will use those names. In the same way, we'll use "Iqaluit" over "Frobisher Bay".
  • The infobox should reflect the most commonly used place name in English in the name field. The name field should then be displayed more prominently than the alternative (other_name), native (native_name) and official names (official_name).
  • Other names should be mentioned only if they are official names and documented. English names (official or translation) should always appear largest and at top; other names below, smaller, and if non-English preferably italicized.
  • "City of X" should be only be used if documented as official and in the official_name field. “City of X” should be removed from the main (name) and (other name) category in current articles to be consistent across the board. Also "ville", "communité", and other french settlement types should not be used, instead "city", or "town" should be used.
  • The etymological origin of the name has nothing to do with translating a place name. "Montréal" will not be translated as "Mount Royal". "Xhaaidlagha Gwaayaai" will not be translated as "Islands on the boundary between the worlds"
  • The following template should be used for all Canadian cities to be consistent
|name =
|official_name =
|settlement_type =

Po' buster (talk) 23:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

  • That looks great to me. Here are some easy examples, where Ottawa has two official names and Montreal has only one (French). Does this look alright? -M.Nelson (talk) 00:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
    • PS, I think that we can eliminate the whole "translation" bit, since the only names being used are common names and official names; whether a common name is a translation or not is irrelevant. -M.Nelson (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I think it would look better if in the official name field included both english and french on the same line for cities with two official names. Montreal's settlement type cannot read "Ville" because ville does not exist in english. It is a city. Just because it is in Quebec does not make it not a city. Po' buster (talk) 02:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Do you mean something like City of Ottawa  · Ville d'Ottawa? I like the way separate lines looks, but I have no real opposition to having them next to eachother. -M.Nelson (talk) 02:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
As for the "Ville" thing, using Ville (perhaps linked to Ville#Usage in Canada) avoids the issue Bearcat brought up above, where the word "ville" doesn't translate exactly to either "city" or "town". Legally, the municipality is not a "city" or "town"; it is a "ville". -M.Nelson (talk) 02:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I Prefer one line, but either way is fine by me. As for the "ville" usage I am strongly apposed to that idea, it goes against the guidelines we just wrote, if there is an common english translation we use it. Ville can be "city" or "town" so the common distinguishing factor can be used (over 10,000=city, under 10,000=town) or use a concensus on whether it is a city or town. Using "ville" is a terrible idea, we would be using even more French than we were previously which sparked this whole debate.Po' buster (talk) 03:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
PS. For articles such as Montreal, Quebec City, Gatineau, etc. they would never be considered "towns" due to their size. This would only affect smaller settlements with populations between 5,000-10,000 which could be considered either. Po' buster (talk) 14:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree that Montreal would never be considered a town, but it's still just as incorrect for us to call it a "city" as it is to call it a "town". The fact is that Quebec has different "settlement types" than the rest of Canada; other provinces do too.
This Statscan table outlines the list of Canadian settlement types— the fact that the name happens to be French doesn't mean that we shouldn't list it. I wouldn't be against listing it as "Ville (City)" or something of the sort (so that English-speakers can understand), but the "ville" settlement type must be uniquely identified, since it is a unique settlement type. -M.Nelson (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I disagree, we need to have consistent usage across the board. Just because a city is in Quebec doesn't mean it is not a "city"... "Ville de X" covers the usage of "ville" in the official name area and/or article body. Let's not pretend it is not a city when it clearly is. No one outside of Quebec would refer to it as a ville. Remember we are to "reflect actual English usage" in articles. It would be a "Municipality" not a "Municipalité" , and a "Settlement" not a "Établissement". As for the 1 line vs. 2 for two official names either way gets the point across.Po' buster (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
{outdent) I guess the major issue here is that I want to use official status, and you want to name it for what it physically is. Naming as "city" implies that Montreal has a different municipal status than what would be the "town" of Barkmere, Quebec (pop 87), when they are in fact legally the exact same. If there is an English-language way to describe this, then I'm all for it, but the only way I see is to tell it like it is, using "ville". -M.Nelson (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
PS a solution could be using "City" or "Town" as settlement_type, and then using "Ville" as government_type. My only beef with that is that we arbitrarily set the standard for what is a city or town, which I don't think is legit at all. -M.Nelson (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
The distinction in between Ville de Montreal and Ville de Barkmere, Quebec in english would be city, and town. Unfortunately there is no words in french to distinguish the two. The province tried to distinguish the two and experimented with "Cité" but gave up. Montreal has a "City Hall" and a "City Council", it is 100% a city in english usage. We should be using "City" for places which would indisputably be cities in english, such as Montreal, Quebec City, Gatineau, Laval, etc. Anything disputable would remain as is until consensus was reached on the respective talk pages. Or adopt a standard from another province such as Ontario's +10,000=city, -10,000=town, or British Columbia's +5,000=city, -5,000=town. That wouldn't be preferable however. But aside from the "disputable" sized city/towns, indisputable city's should be labeled as City.Po' buster (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
No, we absolutely can't use any standard that doesn't exist in Quebec law to decide whether any given ville in Quebec is a "city" or a "town". For one thing, even in Ontario and BC those figures are not hard and fast rules by which a place automatically gets called a city or a town as soon it reaches that population figure; they're eligibility cutoffs, and a municipality still has to apply for a status change that may or may not be given. For example, Markham is still a town, even though it has a larger population than many Canadian cities. And the problem you're missing is that the number of villes in Quebec that would clearly be called either a city or a town in English is very, very small; for the vast majority of them either term can be used perfectly interchangeably. Bearcat (talk) 05:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Well we're going to have to come up with a standard because "ville" cannot be used. It clearly states in the guidelines not to use french when there is an English alternative. As for Markham they are a city but have chosen to keep the "town" name for marketing purposes. Po' buster (talk) 12:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
As Bearcat explained, there is no English alternative to "ville". -M.Nelson (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
There are two. "City" and "town". Let's not make this more complicated then it has to be. Po' buster (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Forgive me for being blunt, but did you read Bearcat's post? A "ville" is a "ville". We can't arbitrarily translate it to "city" in some instances and to "town" in others. A single term must be used to accurately label these municipalities (and no, I don't mean "municipality"), and since one doesn't exist in English, we must use the French label. -M.Nelson (talk) 16:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Markham has chosen not to file legal documents to incorporate itself as a city, hence it it still a town. You don't get to decide the issue - it's very clear. Markham is a town. Moreover, there are incorporated places in Ontario that have a population less than 10,000 still designated a city (eg - Dryden). Mindmatrix 15:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I am very familiar with the practices of cities and towns in Canada and have studied them and worked with them for years. Your childish remarks such as "you don't get to decide the issue" will not be tolerated. If you want to have conversation and stop whining we can. If you did your research, which you obviously haven't, you would know Dryden is the only city in Ontario with a pop. less than 10,000. It went over 10,000 applied to become a city and then it's population fell below 10,000. This is irrelevant, when you jump in the conversation half way through you make your self seem foolish. The real conversation was about "ville". Please read the previous conversation before jumping in half way through. Po' buster (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
What Mindmatrix meant by "you don't get to decide the issue" is that Markham is a town—period. Whether you personally consider it to be "marketing purposes" or not is irrelevant; it is still a town. PS try to keep WP:CIVIL. -M.Nelson (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes Markham is a "Town", but by definition it is a "City". It only kept the "Town" name to market itself as a small, friendly, green, place to live to suburban home buyers. Any Canadian City could be a town if they never applied to be a city. It could be the Town of Vancouver, or the Town of Toronto. But this is way off topic. Po' buster (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Yep, and if the municipality is legally classified as a "Town", we will label it that way. I have no opposition to the "town" of Toronto if that is its legal status. -M.Nelson (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
No, Markham is not "by definition a city"; the only definition of a city that exists is "place which has been accorded the status of a city in law". So if a place hasn't been given that designation by the appropriate legal authority, then it simply isn't anything but what its name says it is — no matter what you think it should or shouldn't be, it is what it is and nothing else. There is no magic number at which a place suddenly becomes "really a city" if it hasn't been given that status in law, because being given that status in law is the only thing that makes a place a city. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Incorrect again Bearcat, Markham is a city "by definition". There is a "magic number". In Ontario that "magic number" is 10,000. A settlement which reaches 10,000 can apply to become a "city". 99.9% of towns apply to become cities due to funding, status, and classification reasons. Markham being the exception. Yes it is a town, but a city by Provincial definition. Po' buster (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
That is not a definition. It is the criteria used by the province to determine if the council representing a specific place (urban area et al) may apply for the status of city via incorporation as such. The "definition" of city is the legal incorporation document itself. (Aside: do you think places such as East Gwillimbury, Georgina, King, and Whitchurch-Stouffville in York Region are cities? They all meet the population requirement. What about currently unincorporated places such as Maple and Woodbridge?) Mindmatrix 19:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
"Can apply to become a city" doesn't mean that it is a city. It just means it's eligible to become one — but it doesn't actually become a city until the provincial Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing actually grants the designation. The definition of a city is not that any place over 10,000 people automagically becomes a city; it's that the place has been legally incorporated as a city under the laws of the appropriate jurisdiction. A population of 10,000 is one of several criteria that are used to make the decision, but cityhood is defined by the actual granting of city status, not by the population figure alone. Bearcat (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Once again I am not here to argue on which towns have applied to be cities and why, when, etc. Most apply, some don't, mostly for marketing purposes. This is all irrelevant. Po' buster (talk) 02:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Er, no. You don't really get to propose that we apply an arbitrary population cutoff to create an artificial city/town distinction in a province where one doesn't exist, and then turn around and claim that it's suddenly irrelevant that arbitrary population cutoffs don't singlehandedly define cityhood anywhere else either. Bearcat (talk) 06:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
(outdent; reply to Po'Buster 15:53) Yes, I know Dryden is the only such city in Ontario - it doesn't invalidate the claim, does it? You brought up the issue of Markham, and I responded to what I felt was a misleading claim - if it's irrelevant, you shouldn't have raised it in the first place; if you do, you should expect responses. And as M.nelson noted, when I stated "you don't get to decide the issue", I was clearly referring to the nature of Markham's status - this is determined entirely by the filing of legal documents. Referring me to childish and foolish doesn't strengthen your argument at all. Mindmatrix 16:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
1) I didn't bring up Markham, read the conversation, 2) You clearly said "there are incorporated places in Ontario that have a population less than 10,000 still designated a city" implying there was more than one. I am not have any further conversation about Markham and Dryden. Po' buster (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the whole point of the Markham and Dryden talk is that no provinces use only an arbitrary population number to define cities and towns. If no other provinces do, then why should we apply this standard to Quebec? PS, even if some provinces do use only an arbitrary population number, this is not a Canada-wide definition; there is no justification to apply a separate province's unique standard to Quebec. -M.Nelson (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I tend to write as someone with a math background. When I say things like "there are incorporated places...", I mean it in its strict mathematical/logical sense, that is "at least one". Pedantic perhaps, but thats the way I write. Mindmatrix 19:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Behchoko
Rae-Edzo
Tlicho Community Government
Behchokö

The issue with "Ville" was one of the founding issues of this long winded debate. That is why I recommended taking "City of" and "Ville" out of the titlebox completely even if it is included in the official name. Such as Philadelphia, Houston, Los Angeles, etc, etc, etc. they are all "City of" but don't have it in the titlebox. It is implied. Also many Canadian cities official names are somehting along the lines of "The corporation of the City of Toronto". So even "City of" is inaccurate.

Dorval
Villea
City of Dorval - Cité de Dorvalb
Train station and Trudeau Airport in Dorval.
Train station and Trudeau Airport in Dorval.
^a Ministère des Affaires Municipales et Régions: Dorval
^b Ville de Dorval - Bienvenue à la Cité de Dorval

Also a ville can be translated into english (City and Town). WP:CANSTYLE guidelines state if an english version exists it should be used. It would be up to the editors to omit settlement type for questionable communities. Po' buster (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should omit |settlement_type= altogether and just stick with |name= and |official_name= as previously discussed? I'm still strongly opposed to translating to "city" or "town" in every situation, because the definition of these are entirely arbitrary. -M.Nelson (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree, because of the confusion with "ville" it might be best just to omit settlement type altogether. Should it be omitted from places in Quebec or all Canadian articles ?Po' buster (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Montreal
Villec
City of Montreal - Ville de Montréald
^c Ministère des Affaires Municipales et Régions: Montréal
^d Official city portal Ville de Montréal
Barkmere
Villee
Town of Barkmere - Ville de Barkmeref
^e Ministère des Affaires Municipales et Régions: Barkmere
^f Town of Barkmere - English, Ville de Barkmere - French
Sherbrooke
Villeg
City of Sherbrooke - Ville de Sherbrookeh
^g Ministère des Affaires Municipales et Régions: Sherbrooke
^h City of Sherbrooke
Gatineau
Villei
City of Gatineau - Ville de Gatineauj
^i Ministère des Affaires Municipales et Régions: Gatineau
^j City of Gatineau
Westmount
Villek
City of Westmount - Ville de Westmountl
^k Ministère des Affaires Municipales et Régions: Westmount
^l City of Westmount
Fredericton
Citym
City of Frederictonn
^m Community Profiles - Government of New Bruswick
^n City of Fredericton
Bouctouche
Towno
Town of Bouctouchep - Ville de Bouctoucheq
^o Community Profiles - Government of New Bruswick
^p Town of Bouctouche
^q Community Profiles - Government of New Bruswick
I disagree. The settlement type should be included and should be whatever the official provincial/territorial designation is. If there is an proper English translation then use that but if as in the "Ville" there is no translation then just use that. Po' buster, this sentence, "Montreal's settlement type cannot read "Ville" because ville does not exist in english.", makes me wonder if you are misunderstanding the WP:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Canada-related articles). Nothing in the either prohibits the use of languages other than English. Thus the Dorval article's infobox would look like this. However, there is a problem with the way the infobox treats other_name and native_name. They both appear right under the name and the same size, see Behchoko to the right. other_name and native_name should be smaller than the name line. something lame from CBW 07:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't know why you keep saying there is no english translation. The problem is there are two as seen here. The guidelines which you say I am misunderstanding say if there is a common english translation use it. No one would ever say "I'm traveling to the Ville de Montreal tomorrow". They would say "I'm traveling to the City of Montreal tomorrow". Therefor "City" is used. Smaller communities which some may refer to as towns is where the issue may arise. Po' buster (talk) 13:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Considering it has all the criteria to be a city, a "city hall" and proclaims itself "the city of dorval" in english as illustrated here [6]. It is 100% a city. Po' buster (talk) 03:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Who ever said otherwise? Bearcat (talk) 06:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Franamax did there Bearcat, his comments were reverted. Check the history. Po' buster (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Montreal is not really a problem as in English they do use the term city. So as I said before use official provincial/territorial designation in settlement type, ville, and in official name use whatever the community calls itself. It works just as well for the smallest ville in Quebec, Barkmere with 87 people. Barkmere calls itself a town in English but the provincial designation is ville. All the information can be provided and nobody has to try and guess what it is. If other communities that are called ville by the provincial government don't have a easy way to figure out if they are a city or town then just leave it out. There is no good reason to omit information just because it can't be obtained for some. something lame from CBW 06:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not, "ville" goes against the guidelines, if there is an english term use it. Po' buster (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Again I think you have misread what the guidelines say. First of all at the top of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Canada-related articles) it says "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.", at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Canada-related articles)#French names it says "Note that Wikipedia's Use English guideline does not mean that the words in an article title must invariably be in English;...". and at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Canada-related articles)#Infoboxes it says "Non-English terms such as "ville" and "communité" should be avoided.". However the last one was added by you and as far as I can see without consensus. In the case of ville there are 2 possible translations and it's not up to editors to decide which should be used, so we are are permitted by the guidelines to use it. After rereading the whole section I am firmly of the belief that you are pursuing an anti-French agenda. something lame from CBW 14:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
That's laughable. Please refrain from making childish accusations. Many 'Government funded websites' refer to these "villes" (which apparently have absolutely no translation to english according to you) as cities, and towns. (Examples: [7] [8] [9], [10], etc, etc, etc. The sites which only refer to the respective city or town only as "ville" are usually not offered in English. That is the only reason. almost all others translate it. Your argument is ridiculous. Po' buster (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm beginning to agree with CBW; you seem to pull out every possible excuse to figure out how to avoid "ville", but you haven't proposed any viable solutions. "Ville" is one settlement type, not two. We cannot use two words to describe one settlement type. There is no way in the English language to describe that Montreal and Barkmere are the same settlement type, so we must use French. -M.Nelson (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
WHAT are you talking about !! They describe themselves as a CITY on government endorsed websites !!! I think this more of a WP:IDONTLIKEIT issue with you two. There are government endorsed English spellings using city and town. Just because "in french" there is no distinction between the two doesn't mean there isn't in english ! The evidence of "City of Dorval" and "Town of Baie-D’Urfé" is right in front of your eyes yet you still want to use "ville" ?? I mean come on !! I think is turning into a personal issue of trying to prove me wrong than anything else. Po' buster (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
You are right I said "but if as in the "Ville" there is no translation" when I should have been more precise and said that there are two equal translations making it ambiguous. Did you look at the examples I provided for Dorval, Montreal and Barkmere? They show exactly what the provincial government and the community use. Officially, according to the provincial government they are called ville but officially for each community the first two are cities and the third a town. All the information, along with sources, is provided, as is a link to what ville means. As you can see to the right I have added some more examples from the links you gave. I wondered how this would work for other places in other provinces, especially in New Brunswick given that it's the only official English/French province. First Fredericton, according to the provincial government it is a city in both English and French. However, the French version of the official city site uses ville. So why not include that in the infobox? Because in this case the word ville is being translated as city and only city. For Bouctouche it's different as both the town and the provincial government use ville as shown above right. An even smaller place like the village of Alma, New Brunswick is in English only as provincial government calls it that in both languages, and the village does not appear to even have a French version of their site. For other places outside of Quebec and New Brunswick they should be in English even if they, Winnipeg for example, use ville, as the official language is English. something lame from CBW 00:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
By the way, how do you know that the four links you provided are both funded and endorsed by the government of Quebec? something lame from CBW 00:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I think there may be a bit of ambiguity over what settlement_type represents. While Po' buster wants it to "describe" the municipality, CBW and myself (and others?) consider it to identify the municipality's status. The municipality status is a designation, and as such cannot be translated willy-nilly (or at least, not ambiguously). I'm not familiar with the legal aspect, but what CBW describes above (using the province's designation) sounds totally legit to me. -M.Nelson (talk) 03:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Clearly you two are blinded by your personal feelings towards this issue. This argument is ridiculous. If the government calls it a "city", its website calls itself a city, and common English uses city, why on earth do you want to use "Ville"? Let’s use Laval for example… 1) It refers to itself in documents as “City” in English. 2) It refers to itself as “City” on its website. 3) Common English refers to it as “City” … Yet you want to call it “Ville”. And where do you see that Winnipeg is a “ville” in both English and French ? As seen here [11] it is clearly not a “ville” in English. You say that you don’t want the “settlement type” to be a description, but instead a “status”. Well in english that status is “City”, “Town”, etc. I’m sorry but your argument is nothing short of “I want it this way”. They are cities and towns in english, unless there is no way to decipher them, cities and towns they will remain. You also bring up "province's designation", well as stated before local government is the final decision. The Province of Ontario would classify "Marham" as a city, but as stated earlier it is a town. So your provincial designation excuse is invalid. The cities are responsible enough to describe themselves. The only time "ville" should be used is when no english term has been designated. Once again only smaller towns and villages may pose problems, but even they sometimes describe themselves as “towns” or “villages”. Look at foreign examples. They have all been translated from Korean, Japanese, Chinese, etc. Shanghai, Pyongyang, Taipei. They do not use the foreign spellings in the settlement type. Po' buster (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
To quote Skeezix1000 above, "I'm exhausted trying to have an adult and civil discussion with someone who doesn't appear to read anyone else's view points. Sigh." -M.Nelson (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I have read, and answered all your concerns, the only views you have are that you want to use french and will make any flimsy excuse to try and weasel the words into your favour. When proven incorrect you just resort to name calling. It's sad. To quote the great Mark Twain, "Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference". Po' buster (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Laval
Villeq
City of Laval - Ville de Lavalr
^q Ministère des Affaires Municipales et Régions: Laval
^r City of Laval
Dawson Cityt
City of Dawson
Towns
Town of the City of Dawsons
^s Town of the City of Dawson
^t Dawson City

I'll try and answer your comments, one at a time;

  • "Clearly you two are blinded by your personal feelings towards this issue." - I suggest that you take a look at yourself. I speak no French whatsoever and have no vested interest in promoting it. I do see that the provincial government calls it one thing, ville, and the community calls it something else, city or town. Therefore both should be used, as per my examples above right, and it's not up to Wikipedia to state which is correct.
  • "If the government calls it a "city", its website calls itself a city, and common English uses city, why on earth do you want to use "Ville"?" - Which government? I suppose you mean the government of Quebec? But they don't call any of them cities they call them ville. On the other hand if you mean some other provincial government then I don't think that anyone has suggested that ville be used as the "settlement_type=". The only place I suggested it be used outside of Quebec is for towns in New Brunswick where they do translate ville as town, and never as city, and then only for use in the "official_name =" as we have the correct version given in English.
  • "Let’s use Laval for example… 1) It refers to itself in documents as “City” in English. 2) It refers to itself as “City” on its website. 3) Common English refers to it as “City” … Yet you want to call it “Ville”." - Well the provincial government says that is is a ville and the Laval website uses both ville and city (both in one sentence), in its English web site.
  • "And where do you see that Winnipeg is a “ville” in both English and French ? As seen here [12] it is clearly not a “ville” in English." - No that's not what I said. What I said was "For other places outside of Quebec and New Brunswick they should be in English even if they, Winnipeg for example, use ville, as the official language is English." My point there was that even if a particular community defines itself as a ville using French we should not include it.
  • "You say that you don’t want the “settlement type” to be a description, but instead a “status”. Well in english that status is “City”, “Town”, etc." - No the status is the legal type as defined by the provincial government and not whatever the community calls itself.
  • "I’m sorry but your argument is nothing short of “I want it this way”." - Isn't that what your argument is?
  • "They are cities and towns in english, unless there is no way to decipher them, cities and towns they will remain." - Given that the Quebec government does not differentiate between them then how can we? All we can do is include what the provincial government calls them, in French, and what the community calls itself, in English. See examples above right.
  • "You also bring up "province's designation", well as stated before local government is the final decision. The Province of Ontario would classify "Marham" as a city, but as stated earlier it is a town. So your provincial designation excuse is invalid." - I'm not sure why "local government is the final decision." and who made that ruling? Wikipedia provides information that can be referenced and lets the reader decide. If the provincial government says one thing and the community government says another then both should be provided, as in the examples above right. While I can't speak to Markham, Ontario, as I have no idea what the provincial government calls it, I can provide a different example. Dawson City, Yukon calls itself either Dawson City or City of Dawson but the government calls it a town as can be seen in the legal name at the top of this by-law. So even outside of Quebec the provincial designation should apply.
  • "The only time "ville" should be used is when no english term has been designated. Once again only smaller towns and villages may pose problems, but even they sometimes describe themselves as “towns” or “villages”." - In the case of Quebec no English term has been officially designated by the province and just because the community calls itself a town or city does not mean that it has been given that designation. Villages in Quebec should not pose the same problems as the government uses the word village. As per the Barkmere example above town is not a problem either as we would just give both designations.
  • "Look at foreign examples. They have all been translated from Korean, Japanese, Chinese, etc. Shanghai, Pyongyang, Taipei. They do not use the foreign spellings in the settlement type." - What is the point of that? Their circumstance may not apply to Canada, in that the languages they use may be subject to a single translation unlike ville in Quebec, which is why there is no need to include them in the box. However, I did look at them. Shanghai, 上海, is described as a municipality and Municipality of Shanghai, 上海市, in the infobox which includes Chinese as well. Of course Shanghai is the worlds largest municipality (city). Taipei, 臺北, as a municipality and Taipei City, 臺北市, in the infobox, which again includes Chinese. Pyongyang has P'yŏngyang, 평양, Directly Governed City, P'yŏngyang Directly Governed City and two transcriptions in the infobox. As far as I know chikhalsi may translate directly to Directly Governed City without any other possible translation.

I think that answers everything you brought up but please let me know if I missed something. something lame from CBW 05:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Valid point's but all answerable with common sense,
Laval
City
City of Laval - Ville de Lavalr
^q Ministère des Affaires Municipales et Régions: Laval
^r City of Laval
  • The Laval website uses both ville and city - Therefore if there is a English version we use it.
  • Which government? - Local government. There are absolutely no English rights in Quebec. The English language has been near outlawed. The Provincial government will never/ver rarely provide English translations like “city” or “town” so using the Provincial designation isn’t viable.
  • All we can do is include what the provincial government calls them, in French – Wrong, we can provide what the city or town itself refers to itself as. If there is no documented version other than “ville” than that is the only time it should be used. If we only used Provincial designation it would be The City of the Town of Markham.
  • The Town of the City of Dawson mess only exists because the word "City" is in the actually town name. If it was just Dawson, Yukon (instead of Dawson City/City of Dawson) it would be the Town of Dawson. Simple.
  • I'm not sure why "local government is the final decision." and who made that ruling? - I’m not sure why the Provincial government is the final decision either. And who made that ruling ?
  • This is what the infobox of a city in Quebec should look like when there is a documented translation of “ville” :

Po' buster (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The point you seem to be missing is that the legal designation is "ville". The community can call themselves whatevere they want, city, town or some other designation and we can provide that but the legal designation should be in the settlement type. If in the province of Ontario the government legally designates Markham as a city but the community self-describes as a town then the settlement type should be city with the "Town of Markham" in the next line. If you look at the examples I provided you will see that I did include the line showing that they called themselves a city. By the way the comments above "Which government?" are exactly why I get the impression that this is more anti-French than accuracy. something lame from CBW 11:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
The point you seem to be missing is that if there is an common english translation we use it ... period. Po' buster (talk) 21:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
The point you still seem to be missing is that "two common English translations with no way to objectively and non-arbitrarily decide which one to use in most individual cases" is not the same thing as "a common English translation". In most cases there is no viable way to determine which term we should use. Bearcat (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
To put it another way there are multiple common English translations. So rather than pick one we use the version given by the provincial government, be it Quebec, Ontario or some other, and also show what the community calls itself. something lame from CBW 23:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
If a specific municipality officially calls itself a city, it is a city. If a specific municipality calls itself a town, thats what it is. Po' buster (talk) 03:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
In Alberta, official municipal statuses and official municipal names are different things, and an official municipal name does not override its official municipal status. I expect the same applies for municipalities in other provinces. For example, the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo is not a true regional municipality, it is a specialized municipality that chose to brand itself as a regional municipality within its official municipal name. Same applies to Strathcona County and Mackenzie County (they are also specialized municipalities) and 48 municipal districts in Alberta that use the term county in their official names (they are municipal districts, not counties). --Hwy43 (talk) 04:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Alberta is an unorganized mess when it comes to counties. Plus comparing couties, regions, and districts to cities and towns is like comparing apples and oranges. It all comes down to if a ville calls itself a "city" in englsih it is a city. If a ville calls itself a "town" in english it is a town in english. If it makes no reference to being a city, town, village, etc. than only then it would remain a ville in english. Po' buster (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Assessing redirects

I just noticed how many redirect pages are tagged with the wikiproject banner. I've been deleting these as WP:CSD#G8, but I see that some of them are listed as "class=redir", which means they were put there on purpose. Do we want to keep tagging redirects? I, personally, don't like it because it throws off the numbers in the assessment tables and buries NA-class articles with useful content (like portals) among hundred of redirects. If most people like them, I'll undo my deletions and get a bot to tag them all with class=redir. If people don't like them I'll keep deleting them. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I have been one of the people setting "class=redirect", and I would prefer not to do so. I agree with your point.....I would rather zap the WP banners on redirect talk pages and just leave an edit summary that says that the banners aren't necessary. PKT(alk) 20:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I surely hope {{WikiProject Canada}} is the only thing on that page when you delete it! Some projects intentionally track redirects. –xenotalk 21:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I haven't done it yet, but that's a fair comment. If we say WPCANADA doesn't want to track redirects, then we need to clearly direct editors on what can and cannot be done. PKT(alk) 21:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind having the redirects tagged, so long as they had their own categories. I had originally set these up and tagged a bunch of articles before the template was standardised (after which the cats were deleted). My preference is to tag them, but I don't really care what's done. Mindmatrix 22:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I tag redirects as part of WP:CRWP, solely because it helps track everything. However, I am about to propose giving CRWP a banner separate from the WP:CANADA banner. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I see the value in keeping track of such a large group of redirect, but I think it would be better done with categories than with the banner so that they don't show up on the WP:1.0 table. And about the CRWP banner, if the problem is that you need a separate importance scale for roads (which makes sense since they're mostly being bumped down to low-importance) the WPCANADA banner now allow sub-projects to have their own importance scales using road-importance=, so let me know if you would want that set up. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
WikiProject Montreal tags redirects. If this banner is forced down our throats, it should still tag redirects. 65.94.253.16 (talk) 04:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
If projects are getting good use out of tagging redirects, then there is no reason to get rid of them. I had wrongly assumed that they were leftover from merges and moves. I would prefer using categories to tag redirects, but this works too as long as the person running the 1.0 bot doesn't mind the extra work. If a few projects are using them, I'll just have to remember to discount the NA-class articles when doing maintenance. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, so we are agreeing to continue using the class=redirect (and importance=NA) switches in the banner, correct? PKT(alk) 14:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I just allowed the WikiProject Canada template to recognize portals, disambiguation pages, and the project namespace. Once the bot goes through, I think redirects should be the only thing left in the NA category, so that fixes my initial concern with them. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Canadian flag image

Some time ago, a user came up to me (not sure here or the Commons) talking about the maple leaf that is used on the Canadian flag. The problem he had was at the base of the leaf where there is no curve for it. I tried to fix it, but I was not happy with it. Tonight, I managed to find a PDF poster from Canadian Heritage that uses the leaf, so I took that image and put it in Inkscape. I posted my results at File:Canadian flag.svg and you can compare the two images at User:Zscout370/Sandbox. I would appreciate any comments here or at my talk page. Thanks. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:Metro Toronto

Category:Metro Toronto has been nominated for renaming, and the nomination was recently relisted for the second time due to low participation. Comments and suggestions would be highly welcome at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:Demographics of Canada

FYI, {{Demographics of Canada}} has been nominated for deletion. 65.94.253.16 (talk) 06:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Province of Toronto

The Province of Toronto article is amongst the most poorly written WP:POV, nonsense, articles I have ever seen on wikipedia. It should be deleted immediately. Po' buster (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

If you truly believe it doesn't merit inclusion on WP, file an AfD. Mindmatrix 18:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The article certainly needs major improvement, but movements to create new provinces, whether taken seriously or not, are legitimate article topics as long as the article is sourced and properly written. Bearcat (talk) 05:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Someone should make an article for the Province of Montreal... since that was a serious option in the most recent Quebec referendum debate... 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
The article may not need to be deleted anymore as it has been cleaned up (a little). It does need much of the biased information removed. Just because some buster MPP goes off on crazy rant can almost an entire article be based off of it ? Po' buster (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
70, the article you're suggesting already exists at Partition of Quebec. "Province of Montreal" wouldn't be an appropriate title for it, as the partition idea encompassed part, not all of Montreal, and wasn't limited to the Montreal area alone. Bearcat (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to rename all highway articles

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to "Ontario Highway XXX" –xenotalk 15:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canada Roads/Ontario 03:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

According to the Ontario Municipal Act of 2001 (Which supercedes the earlier Highway Traffic Act whenever the two contradict one another), all highways maintained by the province are known officially as Provincial Highway Number X. While WP:Use common names implies that we should use the most common term (in this case, that would be Highway X), it makes no reservations against using a slightly less common name to avoid disambiguation. WP:CANSTYLE also reads in the section most applicable to highways: "Do not disambiguate geographical features unnecessarily"

Therefore, I am proposing, based on the lack of articles currently named as such (except Provincial Highway 1, which Ontario doesn't have), that we rename all of the King's Highways to Provincial Highway X. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, in order to maximize consistency with the word order that most other provinces — and many American states — use, and to make sure that there's no ambiguity and no potential for future naming conflicts with other jurisdictions, I'd actually prefer Ontario Highway X rather than "Provincial Highway X". But yes, I think there should be a rename of some sort; I don't like the current naming situation for Ontario highways at all. Bearcat (talk) 04:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Just to provide some insight, there was a huge and rancorous "discussion" about four years ago. (Floydian, if you think the current discussion at WT:ELG was ugly, this was supposedly about ten times worse.) The result was WP:SRNC, the State Route Naming Convention, which happened when I was first getting active about editing. We rarely discuss SRNC anymore, and even the idea of revisiting anything to do with it is contentious. The result was to endorse <State> <Type> <Number> as the naming convention. (Michigan and Kansas were given an exception with a different scheme in the final proposal.) That's why the naming scheme in the US is the way it is. I know that Canada isn't the US, but I'd say my preference would be to follow the same scheme, so I endorse Bearcat's idea. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Bearcat's suggestion makes a lot of sense. After doing that, and in the interim until other provinces get boogeying on their organization, the usused Provincial Highway X's should be set up as redirects. Are they Provincial Highways in other provinces, or Provincial Trunk Routes? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

An admin will have to do this task, as all the Ontario Highway X articles are currently redirects. Also consider Ontario Provincial Highway X as a possible alternative, which follows the same naming scheme as New York State Route 70. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The basis of this decision was the humongous arbcom decision that followed WP:SRNC. While yes, that is the United States, worldwide guidelines are preferred to regional guidelines when possible, and I see no reason to use the current, and rather unnecessary naming convention. All current articles would serve as redirects, however.
Ontario highways are officially Provincial Highway X. However, this may be used by other provinces (I am not sure), so it makes sense to disambiguate with the province. However, there is no need to needlessly disambiguate every Canadian article with the province within paranthesis.
With this discussion moving here, I recommend that this convention be applied to all provinces and territories. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Current naming conventions (for reference)

Naming conventions
See also: List of Canadian highways by province
Province Official name Article title
Alberta Highway x Alberta Highway x
British Columbia Highway x British Columbia Highway x
Manitoba Highway x
Provincial Road x 		Manitoba Highway x
Manitoba Provincial Road x
(Winnipeg) Route x Winnipeg Route x
New Brunswick Route x New Brunswick Route x
Newfoundland and Labrador Route x Newfoundland and Labrador Route x
Northwest Territories Highway x Northwest Territories Highway x
Nova Scotia Trunk x (1-2 digit)
Highway x (100-series)
Route x (200 and up) 		Nova Scotia Trunk x
Nova Scotia Highway x
Nova Scotia Route x
Ontario Provincial Highway x Highway x (Ontario)
(County roads) <County Name> County Road x <County Name> County Road x
Quebec Route x
Autoroute x 		Quebec Route x
Quebec Autoroute x
Prince Edward Island Route x Route x (Prince Edward Island)
Saskatchewan Highway x Saskatchewan Highway x
Yukon Highway x Yukon Highway x
Expanding this nationwide would mean we would have such constructions as "Prince Edward Island Provincial Route x". What a mouthful! (Not to mention the territories.) –xenotalk 03:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
As opposed to Route X (Prince Edward Island)? I don't see the difference besides the addition of the the word Provincial, which isn't required necessarily. Prince Edward Island Route 1 would work fine, and technically it's shorter. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
This is why I think it should be discussed with a wider audience before we start moving pages around without making sure everyone is on the same page. I still think the current way is best, but let's see what others think. –xenotalk 03:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Given the guideline above, only Ontario and PEI need be changed. All roads in Ontario are known as Highways, and the Provincial Highways are named to set them apart. Since no other province designates their roads as Provincial Highway X, the Ontario articles should use that name. Prince Edward Island should road articles should be titled Prince Edward Island Route X. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Huh? All roads in Ontario are not known as highways. The Provincial is unnecessary. As I indicated below, I could warm up to consistency with the other provinces "Ontario Highway 427" as a compromise, but I still don't see the need to change from the current system. –xenotalk 04:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Because the current system is wrong.[13] - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
We should not use legalese to dictate our article naming conventions. We should use what comes naturally to the reader and editor wherever possible. –xenotalk 04:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - I don't think we should follow the U.S. example whatsoever, it's overkill. We don't have 50+ provinces, we have a handful. We should use the common names, and those that people will be typing into the search box to allow the javascript autocomplete to quickly work its magic. –xenotalk 03:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong support – if I'm looking for a highway in Ontario, I will start typing Ontario first, not Highway... An article called "Highway 401", I would expect to be a disambiguation page to all the highways in the world with that number. This was already discussed at the Ontario Roads project and supported already. This is forum shopping and the original proposal should be allowed to go forward. The old titles will be retained as redirects, so even if someone starts typing "Highway..." into the search box, the redirect will come up as one of the choices, and then redirect to "Ontario Provincial Highway...". Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
    The 'discussion' you speak of was between all of 3 people - you, Floydian, and Bearcat who didn't want the word "Provincial" in there. If I was looking for an article on an Ontario highway, I would type Highway 401, Highway 407, Highway 427, because that is what they are called. Consistency with the U.S. system will just make the Canadian articles awkward and confusing for our readers. –xenotalk 03:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
    You also forget, the search box java completion tool of which you speak works on redirects. I know this for a fact because the redirect Michigan State Highway 28 will work in that box, even though the article is located at M-28 (Michigan highway). Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
    I don't see how that's relevant to choosing the best title for the articles. –xenotalk 04:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
    I don't either. You're the one that mentioned that we should use what "people will be typing into the search box to allow the javascript autocomplete to quickly work its magic." I've just mentioned that Floydian's page moves should have created redirects, and that redirects will work in the search box. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
    Article titles should be named as intuitively as possible. –xenotalk 04:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Some of the below copied from User talk:Floydian
Alright, but also consider that British Columbia roads are titled in this new fashion. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
They don't have the word "Provincial" in them. I see you've been doing tonnes of work on these articles. Thanks, and keep up the good work.
I don't mean to step on your toes - I just don't think that emulating the US example is a good idea. Expanding it to all provinces would be a nightmare.
However, if consensus develops at WT:CANADA for this, I will perform the moves myself. –xenotalk 03:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
You forget a few things. US states are roughly equivalent to Canadian provinces. At least in the sense that both are the highest subdivision of their respective nations. The name was picked as <Province> <Type> <Number>, where the type for Ontario is "Provincial Highway". The fact remains that a huge mess started in USRD-land over naming conventions, something that ArbCom had to settle, resulting in SRNC. The result of that was the naming convention (P1) used today, with the P2 alternative as redirects. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
And what is the U.S. equivalent of a territory? Canada is a different country, not subject to the arbcom ruling (I doubt many Canadians even participated), and strict consistency is not required nor ideal. I could probably warm up to the idea of "Ontario Highway 427" if only because all the other provinces (except PEI) do it that way. The word "Provincial" is not needed. "Highway 401" (or when disambiguation is required, "Highway 427 (Ontario)") still makes the most sense to me from the way almost all other types of article are disambiguated. –xenotalk 04:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Except road articles...
Do people in Vancouver call the highways British Columbia Highway 1, or Highway 1? What would they use to refer to routes in other provinces? It's needless disambiguation when the title can be reversed to avoid it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I doubt anyone in any province ever prefixes the names of their highways with the province. –xenotalk 04:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
(ec) "And what is the U.S. equivalent of a territory?" Also a territory. There are highways, and articles for them, on Guam and Puerto Rico. The naming convention in place for the US also encompasses American Samoa, the District of Columbia, the Northern Marianas and the US Virgin Islands. I'm just pointing out that rather than let this discussion get overheated and also go to ArbCom, learn from the country to your south. We've been there, done that back in 2006. Four years later, all the redirects are in place. For Ontario, between the article title and redirects, Ontario Highway 401, Ontario Provincial Highway 401, King's Highway 401, Highway 401 (Ontario), Provincial Highway 401 (Ontario) should all exist. Redirects are cheap. There's no harm in changing article titles. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
There is harm if you change it to the wrong title. See below - I think an acceptable compromise would be to drop the word "Provincial" which is unnecessary & peculiar, and strive for consistency with the rest of Canada. –xenotalk 04:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I think the only reason Floydian went with "Provincial" in the scheme was that the current law calls them that. I don't care if the word is there or not. The point still remains the same that redirects are cheap, so all variations of the name are possible. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • In Highway 35#Canada, Ontario sticks out like a sore thumb, so I now support Ontario Highway x (unless all other provinces can be muscled into using brackets aftewards ;> - but path of least resistance seems to be to change Ontario and PEI). –xenotalk 04:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong support of Ontario Provincial Highway X as promoter of the idea and per the terminology of the Ontario Municipal Act. PEI articles would become Prince Edward Island Route X. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
    Governmental policy-wonking should does not dictate our naming conventions;- if it did, we would be moving articles around so often we would never find the time to update the conventions page. Your suggestion is needlessly complex and inconsistent with the other provinces. I'm going to yield the floor now - when a decision is made, I will perform the moves with my bot (excepting of course, we opt for the status quo). –xenotalk 04:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
    Generally not, no. I agree with you on that, but in this case it is not an uncommon specific term. King's Highway X is also used commonly (though its deprecated). It comes down to a balancing act between too specific and needlessly ambiguative, appealing to common readers, roadgeeks, and technicians at the same time. If my specific proposal is rejected, however, I will settle with Ontario Highway X to at least get rid of the parenthesis. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
    One final remark, and then I really must be off to bed - there are only 13 hits in a Google News Archive search between 1960 and 2010 for "Provincial Highway 401" and zero for your proposed name, "Ontario Provincial Highway 401". –xenotalk
  • Oppose Quebec has "Routes" and "Autoroutes" (and old provincial routes and provincial highways, that no longer exist). A national naming method just doesn't work, since each province manages its own roads, and it is not under federal jurisdiction. (There is no Interstate system, nor US highway system) 76.66.194.32 (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
This would only apply to Ontario (Ontario Provincial Highway X or Ontario Highway X) and PEI (Prince Edward Island Route X). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
(ec) All Interstate and US Highways are still state highways in the US. The only difference between a US Highway and a state highway is the route marker. Interstates Highways are the same except the Federal Government paid 90% of the initial construction costs and they have to to meet minimum construction standards. There is no "federal jurisdiction" of highways in the US, just some coordination and minimum standards. The "national naming method" for the US is <state> <type> <number> with the except of Michigan and Kansas. The latter don't use a "type" per se, the highways are just M-<number> or K-<number>, respectively. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
And that, too. I'll change that to full support to Ont Hwy X. -- Flyguy649 talk 05:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


  • Late comment then: the expanded choices in the search box popup argues more toward using "Highway 17 (Ontario)". If I was looking for any Highway or Route in a Canadian province (which is what we're talking about) I would start by typing h-i-g-h... and put the province afterwards. That makes more sense to me as a search strategy than starting with "Ontario". As mentioned above, the "most common term" in any given province is to say just "Highway 17", but if referring to a different province (or state or country) is to use "Highway 17 in Alberta" or "Route 17 in New Brunswick". Of course, switching over to the Ontario convention might not be popular... Franamax (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
  • This is my preference as well, and also inline with how disambiguation is done in the Canadian project, and on Wikipedia generally. But as you said, the other provinces already do it with the province name first. Extremely peculiar and non-intuitive, not sure why it is that way. –xenotalk 19:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

History of Canada

Hello all...I have take on the huge task of Re-doing the History of Canada article as it was missing most references and big parts were missing like the Pacific colonies. I have removed info that i could not fine sources for. If you guys could take a look at the page make sure all is ok with layout etc...I will be doing more as i plan to take it to GA review in a few weeks or so... after more editing and third eyes look at it. The article is at 81kb BIG but...much smaller then articles like - Canada at 129kb, Aboriginal peoples in Canada at 110kb and History of the United States at 125kb ...So pls look over old copy see if i deleted any realy relevant info-->Old version before I started here....and version now -->History of Canada!! ...thank you all!!...Moxy (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow amazing job on the article, keep up the good work. I'll be very happy seeing it a GA. Oh, and at under 6000 words, I wouldn't consider the article long. I think generally, 10,000 words or more is "long". Gary King (talk) 17:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks ...I am getting close to done...what can i cuddle out guys...Can you guys look it over now ..how close am i to GA level, just dont want to send it until it is ready! It still needs grammar and tenses fixup.... History of Canada ..............Moxy (talk) 22:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
The rest of the discussion has been moved to Talk:History_of_Canada#Comments Gary King (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Toronto Sun

The main image of the Toronto Sun article seems to have been changed to a former front page cover depicting Steven Harper with a "pinocchio nose". This is distasteful, and could be insulting to some. I have tried to change it twice but was reverted by another editor both times. It should be changed to a less controversial image. Po' buster (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This discussion should probably be happening on the Toronto Sun's talk page (or a link to this discussion should be put there). In any case, think that the image is representative of the Sun's style of journalism, although one could argue that it shouldn't be the lead image. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
True, but the article is seldom edited, it would take weeks to get the issue noticed. If someone could remove or move the image it would be appreciated. Po' buster (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
It should lead with a Sunshine Girl, pretty sure that's the only thing any of its readers look at ;> –xenotalk 17:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
They also have an excellent crossword. I used to spend a lot of money at a pub smart enough to have five copies of the Sunday paper for people like me too cheap to spend a dollar. :) The Harper cover image looks fine to me, it embodies the typical style of the Sun and it's even got Andy Donato's bird right there where you can spot it easily. (Do they still have that "spot-the-bird" contest?) Franamax (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Articles about newspapers generally use an image of the front page as the lead image, hopefully one that is representative of the paper. The Sun very often has silly, alarmist, or opinionated front pages, so I think the image is appropriate for now. If you have an image that you think better represents the paper, propose it and we'll discuss which one we think is better. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
The image is POV and shouldn't be in an "encyclopedia" infobox. It wouldn't be an issue if it didn't involve the "current" government. The image of the Toronto Sun building was being used and was far more appropriate for an infobox. Po' buster (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
It's a cover from their own newspaper! If it's POV, then it reflects the POV of the Sun, but do you actually read the paper? Franamax (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
It's a caricature of Harper by a newspaper that has traditionally supported conservative policies; I don't think that's POV. I don't particularly care what's done with the infobox image, though as others have stated, I'd prefer seeing a copy of the front page of one edition of the paper. (This is the only one on WP right now.) Mindmatrix 21:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Aside: this image could be used to spice up a few articles, so long as we add fair dealing provisions for each use of course. Candidates include: Stephen Harper (2006 federal election section); Canadian federal election, 2006; Results of the Canadian federal election, 2006 (in Ontario section); Results of the Canadian federal election, 2006: Ontario; Timeline of the Canadian federal election, 2006; and finally Andy Donato. I've refrained from adding it to any of those articles until this discussion here resolves. (BTW: this isn't intended maliciously - if we can find similar images of Liberals, NDPers, BQs or Greenies to add to such articles, it'd certainly make reading about these topics more palatable. Just a thought...) Mindmatrix 22:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Note the image is copyrighted so you would need to write a FUR for each of those articles. –xenotalk 22:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Also note that it doesn't have a non-free use rational for the one use. 117Avenue (talk) 23:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't matter who's POV it is it is still a POV and an impersonation of a living person, currently in office. And whether I read the paper or not is completely irrelevant. All I am saying is it is in poor taste, and using it as a main image of an article looks poorly on wikipedia. Po' buster (talk) 22:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure a cartoon of Barack Obama with a "pinocchio nose" on the The New York Times article would be removed instantly. Po' buster (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I think that a more recent cover could be used, this one is four years old. 117Avenue (talk) 00:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
It's not a POV, it's a caricature. Political caricatures often have big noses. I doubt that they are aiming to show him with a "Pinocchio nose", because the paper has a very right-wing editorial and supported Harper when he was a member of the opposition. Even if a newspaper were to make a cartoon that was POV, it wouldn't violate WP:NPOV because we are allowed to quote others. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think its representative of the paper, I just looked through the last two weeks of covers, and none were cartoons (caricature or editorial). 117Avenue (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
It might be a good idea to choose something other than a cartoon, but I still think that we should have an example that shows the silliness and of their front pages. For example any of these from the last week would work: [14] [15] [16] [17] —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I think April 10 (calling someone a dog) and April 1 (calling someone gluttonous) are distasteful, one of the others could be used. 117Avenue (talk) 02:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I think that distasteful covers are pretty representative of the newspaper, but the dog one is a bit too rude and the insult of a non-politician may violate BLP, so I agree we should avoid those. A suicide attempt is also a bit unpleasant to use, so maybe we should just wait and see what covers they have next week. --—Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. 117Avenue (talk) 05:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that the April 17 cover may be the best from this week, but if a Saturday edition isn't representative, then I would say April 13. 117Avenue (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Rahim Jaffer

Just a quick heads-up that Rahim Jaffer's article needs some careful watchlist attention; in addition to the obvious WP:BLP sensitivities right now, an apparent WP:SPA has also started trying to use the article to make grand, sweeping pronouncements about whether Ismailis — not just Jaffer, but all of them in general — are real Muslims or not. I've put a one week semi on the article, but of course that really only blocks anonymous IPs, so I wanted to ask that those who have it watchlisted already, and/or anyone who's willing to add it to your watchlists to help out, keep a careful eye on it over the next while. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

update needed on Demographics of BC

I updated the ethnic numbers, which in the 2006 StatsCan source available, end now at Swedish, but the 2001 numbers went on quite a bit; see Talk:Demographics of British Columbia, last section.Skookum1 (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

4th Canadian Infantry Brigade

FYI, 4th Canadian Infantry Brigade / 4th Infantry Brigade (Canada) is up for discussion at WT:MILHIST

70.29.208.247 (talk) 06:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

General Motors

There seems to be an issue with the General Motors article. An editor (with vested interests in the monarchy) has implied that the Canadian and Ontario governments partial ownership of the company is in fact the monarchy's. I have tried to explain that the monarchy has little to nothing to do with the ownership but the editors seems to have reverted my and others edits. Although the "Government of Canada" may not be 100% accurate , the "Monarchy of Canada" is 0% accurate. Any help on this issue would be appreciated. Po' buster (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

What a disingenuous presentation of the situation, and a total misunderstanding of Canada's constitutional arrangements as well as the more detailed legality around the subject. And no link to the actual discussion at that article's talk page, either. This matter is being studied here. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
No attempt has been made to discuss this on the appropriate talk page of the article. See WP:BRD. Canterbury Tail talk 16:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it has been and is being discussed, at the section of the Talk:General Motors page I linked to above. To his credit, it was Po'buster who began the discussion two weeks ago, though he stopped participating and didn't contribute at all during his latest round of reverts today. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes I notice that now, the discussion seems to have gone stale until you just restarted it, thanks for that. I didn't actually check the talk page, just looked over yours and Po'buster's contributions for the last few days since this argument started up again and no discussion attempt was made during that period.
I have no opinion on who is right or who is wrong (though if I where to think about it I may come down on not linking to the monarchy), I just stepped in to stop the disruptive edit warring. Canterbury Tail talk 17:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Infobox for Nunatsiavut

Does anyone have a good suggestion to replace the table at the head of this article with an infobox? Perhaps {{Infobox province or territory of Canada}} might do it, but it doesn't seem to be entirely suitable. (I would have asked on the article's talk page, but it appears to be infrequently read.) Mindmatrix 16:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I would go with {{Infobox province or territory of Canada}}. After all, it has a capital, a legislature, an area, a population, and whatnot. Same with other quasi-territories like Nunavik and maybe Haida Gwaii. If it doesn't work, well see if we can modify the template a bit, and if it would require too much modification we'll make a new template. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, that doesn't work. I say we make a new one for semi-atomomous aboriginal regions. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
What about something that would fit List of regions of Canada as well as the above. The highly esteemed CBW presents the Talk Page! 07:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I wrote {{Infobox regional government in Canada}} and added it to Nunatsiavut. How does that look? --—Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
It looks good. Would it be useful to have a header above the name along the lines of "Aboriginal land claims areas of Canada" to distinguish it from the provincial boxes? The highly esteemed CBW presents the Talk Page! 19:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
That makes sence. The other things I need to add are the name of the nation (as opposed to the name of the place) and whether the electoral franchise is public or race-based. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Terminology at Crown corporations of Canada

A dispute over wording at Crown corporations of Canada has come to loggerheads. I wonder if some people could give their input at the discussion on the article's talk page. Cheers. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Fancy meeting you here! -- 205.250.66.41 (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Canadian politicians and BLPunreferenced issue

Hey, there are 10s of thousands of unreferenced BLP articles in wikipedia, which is making a big problem for a lot of Wikipedia editors who are trying to deal with it. It's disheartening to be trying to work at reducing the number, only for many more unreferenced bio articles to be turning up each day (both new ones, and discovery/tagging of old ones). I am coming across a number of Canadian politician articles that are tagged only by WikiProject Biography. I wonder if all the entries in lists such as List of Members of the Canadian House of Commons (A), etc. should be tagged by WikiProject Canada, and if this wikiproject should thereby take on a bit more of the BLP problem. I don't know how many unsourced articles there are, but the lists themselves appear to be unsourced, and at least one article Ken Atkinson which i came across in the BLPunreferenced category is an individual article that was totally unsourced. I do also see that many of the articles indexed in the list do seem to be well-referenced, good articles.

But, towards helping out on the bigger problem, would this wikiproject tag them all as belonging to WikiProject Canada? And take on any that turn out to also be in the BLPunreferenced mess? And be a bit more prepared then for what follows, BLP under-referenced, or what else I don't know. Comments? --doncram (talk) 03:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I have been trying to follow the discussion on Biography of Living Persons for a while, without success. It seems to be a source of endless controversy at Wikipedia, and I have not seen this issue resolved yet, one way or another (have I missed something?). I personally wish Wikipedia would relax the requirements for BLP inclusion. I have come across too many instances where an article that should be there is not, because references to the person do not exist on the web. In the meantime people who are themselves notable, and others who know of such people, are aging and dying. In my opinion we are losing a golden opportunity to document important people (and also companies and events) that will disappear shortly.
One example I can think of the top of my head is an American who is one the inventors of color TV, Dalton Pritchard, now in his nineties.Ottawahitech (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, the whole discussion is just too big to follow. I think the upshot is that the proposed mass-deletion of articles lacking references is NOT happening, but rather a bunch of editors are working to add references (or in some cases decide to delete articles, but responsibly, with individual consideration of the subject's notability). More than 14,000 out of 54,000 unreferenced articles have been addressed. And a new tag / PROD process is being designed to flag new articles that are created without references.
But anyhow, specifically, is it okay for me or someone else to go through the List of Members of the Canadian House of Commons, and add WikiProject Canada tags to them? And then I think a bot can periodically give notice here, about which ones have serious issues. I ask because i am not a regular participant/member here, and I'd prefer not to expand the scope of this WikiProject without getting some approval here about how it should be done. I would use the wp:AWB tool and add {{WikiProject Canada|class=stub|importance=low}} to each one, I guess. Or should i leave the class and importance settings blank, to be determined by active project members? --doncram (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
If a name is on one of the lists of Members of the Canadian House of Commons, and the name doesn't already have a WPCANADA banner, then one should be added, and I would agree with assuming they're stub class and low importance. I would also suggest that the bot add a note beneath the banner that the evaluations were added by the bot and should be reviewed by a human editor. PKT(alk) 21:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
To Doncram - please don't forget the ppap=yes switch and the province=yes switch (bc=yes, ab=yes etc) as applicable. If they're retired sports people, also add sports=yes....(as so many, in fact, are...)Skookum1 (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Should I be participating at all in this discussion? - I do not understand the terminology being used. For example I don't understand what the effect is of adding a WikiProject Canada tag to articles.
I guess the point I am trying to make is that if this project is looking for new blood, someone has to take the time to educate the newbies (and possibly use words instead of acronyms :-) Ottawahitech (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
It would help if WikiProject Canada members could do the WikiProject tagging. I myself would not be able to add the province-specific and other switches you're talking about.
If the WikiProject Canada tag is added to Talk pages of all the articles, then the articles which have "BLP unsourced" issue tags can all be identified by a bot, meaning someone's automated program. Several/many wikiprojects are getting regular bot-generated reports of BLP (Biography of a Living Person) articles. About using AWB, that is acronym for AutoWikiBrowser, which is an editor tool that lets you browse quickly through a big set of articles (like all those articles linked from a list-page of politicians) and do something simple, like adding a WikiProject Canada tag to the corresponding Talk page). You can do 5 or 6 edits per minute that way, a lot faster than otherwise. To use AWB, you need to be using MicroSoft Internet Explorer as your browser, plus you need to download an add-on program for it from the wp:AWB page, and you need to get approval set up for you, by request at the wp:AWB page. Does this help? I'll try to watch here more regularly. Thanks! --doncram (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I got around to starting up AWB again, and went through the list of Canadian House of Commons politicians starting with A. I describe that some more and ask for feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada#adding to Wikiproject / ppap, but i am not sure that is an active Task force. Out of links on the one page, I added 111 pages to the wikiproject, and found 170 already properly included. So roughly 40% were missing from WikiProject Canada! I'll continue. --doncram (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Question for the hockey contingent

There's a bit of an issue with a player who was on the Calgary Cowboys roster in the 1970s regarding the correct spelling of his name. We've had an article at the spelling Wayne Morin since 2007, but last week a user created a new article about the same player at the spelling Wayne Morrin. I redirected that one to the existing article, but the user then reverted the redirect, and then deleted the older article as a "redirect from an implausible typo" despite the fact that doing so created redlinks in several existing articles.

The problem here is that there are sources for both spellings; the current version of the article links to one which uses the two-r version, but some other hockey reference sites do use the one-r.

Does anybody know how we can properly clarify which spelling is correct? Bearcat (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The Society for International Hockey Research lists him as Wayne Morin (aka Morrin). They check census info. I would go with the single 'r'. Also, the Globe and Mail for June 4, 1975 (the day after the draft) lists the spelling as one 'r'. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 01:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Categories up for renaming

A bunch of Canadian categories came up at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy for renaming

Especially:

70.29.208.247 (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's some more:

Trying to bring the Canadian music awards into line with other awards. Examples:

Argolin (talk) 03:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

These proposed moves are acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Argolin (talk) 23:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Pdf templates

Ok i have all most finished the templates made to work with PDF version of our pages. I have copied the look of our main Portals and footer templates .. Pls as i am no expert in all this topics so check to see if what is listed is proper and complete... Y? is this being done you might ask since there are already footer templates? Because when people download PDF version of pages footer temples are omitted. For example see History of Canada in PDF You will note that the hard coding will allow our readers to link back to Wikipedia to see those pages just like normal text will allow people to do. Plus Just for "aesthetic reasons" i think they look nice and completes an articles looks...I have made this temples for main articles that are offered in Book:Canada, I believe a few more need to be done like "monarchy in Canada" "Provinces and territories" etc...Plus....Is there any that i should fix that we have already?...Moxy (talk) 18:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Template:History of Canada sidebar
Template:Culture of Canada sidebar
Template:Canadian citizenship
Template:Constitutional history of Canada
Template:Canadianpetroleumhistory
Template:CanWars20thC
Template:Economy of Canada <-- this needs more work mabe format like this one to collapse --> Template:Indigenous Peoples of Canada

Don't know if it's relevant to this discussion, but the Canadian Citizenship template shouldn't be called that as it isn't just about citizenship. And Permanent Residency isn't a type of citizenship. Canterbury Tail talk 19:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes if you think something is odd..Move page , change titles etc...some of this were already there and i built on them and/or change code!!..Moxy (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

CBC Media Centre image use

Are the images provided by the CBC Media Centre acceptable for use on Wikipedia? NorthernThunder (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No they aren't: [18]. You would require a valid fair use rationale for any image as CBC claims copyright. Resolute 22:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Watch list

Please.. add new portals to your watch lists!! and add content..set up for easy uses ... Portal:New Brunswick and Portal:Prince Edward Island....Moxy (talk) 01:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Update--> this too!! Portal:Yukon ...Portal:Newfoundland and Labrador..thanks guys!!!...Moxy (talk) 05:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I think i will be making a Canada History portal...think this is a godd idea or should we just have 1 main portal???...

Fair use rationale for image Agar Rodney Adamson.jpg

File:Agar Rodney Adamson.jpg Again, the fair use rationale of this particular image has been questioned. I hope someone here can add a proper fair use rationale to avoid this image being deleted. Having to fight against it being deleted is getting tiresome. NorthernThunder (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Is in not in the Public Domain in Canada because it is more than 50 years old. The link says it was taken in 1953 so in 2003 it became Public Domain no?..Moxy (talk) 21:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
This was discussed before, see Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board/Archive_12#If_anybody_cares
70.29.208.247 (talk) 11:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
File:Agar Rodney Adamson.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Well... seems like you never added the FUR template to the image, which is why it was questioned. You *need* an FUR template to indicate EVERY page that the image appears on, and the rationale for its used on that page. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Depictions of Canada

FYI, Category:Depictions of Canada has been nominated for deletion.

70.29.208.247 (talk) 11:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Quebecker

Someone went around last year and changed many of the "Quebecer" articles to "Quebecker", violating WP:ENGVAR and not using Quebec English in the wording.

70.29.208.247 (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Both variants are in wide use. Also, if the articles are in Canadian English and the preferred spelling is to include the k, then it would actually be more proper to retain the Quebecker spelling. Resolute 00:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
If it is about Quebecers it should use Quebec English. "Quebecker" is wrong in Quebec English. This is how it's handled with UK articles using the local UK variant, instead of "British English". 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I've always spelled it as Quebecer. Have I been wrong all these years? I prefer the Quebecer spelling. Argolin (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
A quick search on the Toronto Star's website only shows the Quebecer spelling. On the Globe and Mail's website, the Quebecer:Quebecker ratio is 21[19]:99[20]. Clearly there is a stylistic difference, but if both are correct, we should settle on one. I'm happy with Quebecer.... as an Ontarian. -- Flyguy649 talk 05:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I have no previous knowlegde on such matters as the spelling of this particular demonym, but I do know that the the main language used in Quebec is French. It would seem odd to include a "k" in a French word, therefore --Jubilee♫clipman 05:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
The English Wikipedia is not in French, so that is irrelevant. Ultimately, however, I don't think it matters much which variant is used, so long as it is consistent within any given article. Resolute 13:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Fair point and I have just noticed that the IP is asking about Quebec English not French. Is there an neutral term we can use per WP:COMMONALITY? That would be better, perhaps --Jubilee♫clipman 19:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Off hand, probably not. "Person from Quebec"? Too bulky. Resolute 23:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Considering that "Quebecker" is wrong inside Quebec, it cannot be the one used. A search of the Montreal Gazette results in zero hits: "Quebecker", but "Quebecer" results in many hits. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 07:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Certainly both spellings do exist in written Canadian English, but "Quebecer" without the k is, strictly speaking, the spelling that's formally and officially correct in standard Canadian English — the spelling with the k should probably be mentioned somewhere once as a non-standard variant spelling, but in general usage we should be using the one without. Bearcat (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
If English newspapers in Quebec don't use the K, that about settles that. I think that wiktionary is the place to mention the spelling difference, except maybe in an article about such words, like Quebecois (word). —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we ask the Canadian English work group for an opinion and go with that? Here's the link: Talk:Canadian English. Argolin (talk) 06:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:Location map Canada Toronto

Hi! I've made a map of Toronto to feature buildings and landmarks on for pushpin. See Park Hyatt Toronto for it in use. Please help add this pin map to article, I'm currently requesting that the skyscraper infobox has the pushpin option so soon the CN tower etc will have one. Hope this helps. Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow very nice added to--> Portal:Toronto..............Moxy (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Why does it refer to Tenerife? I changed it earlier today to remove that, cleared my cache, etc., but it still seems to include references to Tenerife when rendered. Mindmatrix 19:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Canadair CL-41 Tutor

Someone just gave me a vandal warning for adding the WPCANADA banner to this article. Does anyone think it should be tagged? It's the jet that is used by the Snowbirds for their aerial performances. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Yes it should...perhaps if you were to give and edit summary explaining what you have done this could be avoid. Have you mettions this to the person that reverted your additions. ...Moxy (talk) 05:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated SkyTrain (Vancouver) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 11:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi to all the Wikiproject Canada members

There's a dying wikiproject called Wikipedia:WikiProject Governments of Canada and I have a proposal to turn that Wikiproject into Wikiproject:Canadian Politics (Just like Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom). I know that you guys would be interested in starting one. I would love to here your thoughts. The proposal disccusion is here Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Canadian Politics. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 04:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject has 373 unreferenced BLPs

Hey, currently WikiProject Canada has 373 articles tagged as being totally unsourced (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/Unreferenced BLPs, which a bot regenerates each day). That's a lot! Some of them may be miscategorized and actually have sources, in which case the {{BLP unsourced}} tag should be dropped or replaced by {{BLP refimprove}}. But for many it is really a problem. These are biographies of living persons, and it is potentially damaging to the living persons involved to have misinformation out in wikipedia, besides making wikipedia look bad to have these articles out there. Is anyone willing to address a few of these? --doncram (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Canada now has the very oldest known unreferenced BLP article in Wikipedia: Michael Chisholm. An editor added living person category and converted Unreferenced, which had been in place since November 2006, to {{BLP unsourced}} on the article today. It currently shows as the oldest within Category:All unreferenced BLPs. Does anyone know about this Saskatchewan politician, or have any general source that provides documentation that he is/was a politician at all? Any source about any information about this person would help.
I had noticed the number of WikiProject Canada BLPs had dropped by about 15. But now it is back up to 376. (See Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/Unreferenced BLPs. ) --doncram (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I've gone to the Saskatchewan Legislative Assembly website and am adding some info to the Michael Chisholm article. -- Flyguy649 talk 18:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! To User:Flyguy649 and to User:M.nelson for adding sources and removing from the category. --doncram (talk) 20:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) It's up, to 383, today. First 10 are:

  1. Adriane Carr -- a BC Green Party leader. 2 external links might qualify as references already? Changed by Bearcat to refimprove Done
  2. Al Bowers -- a mayor. Article prodded for deletion; i myself am ambivalent, but that would resolve it, yes.
  3. Alan Ford (Canadian football) -- a Roughriders player and executive, no sources. Can any sources be found? Done. -M.Nelson (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)  Done
  4. Alan de Jardin --ran in one election. No info found in U.S.-based Google and Google News searching, just now.
  5. Allan Fotheringham -- MacClean's columnist and journalist aka Dr. Foth, article has only personal website as external link. Is this person notable?
  6. Allan Fraser (musician) -- references at Fraser & DeBolt could be used, or article redirected to there?
  7. Allan Gotlieb -- there are some footnotes, so i changed {{BLP unreferenced}} to {{BLP refimprove}} + {{more footnotes}}  Done
  8. Allison MacLean --figure skater, Austrian pairs champion after "defecting". Can sources be found?
  9. Andi Muise --a model. IMDB and another source present, so i changed to {{BLP refimprove}} and {{more footnotes}}.  Done
  10. Andrew Hutchison --former Anglican Bishop of Montreal, must have appeared in news sources.

--doncram (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Fotheringham is definitely notable (magazine and newspaper columnist, bestselling author, yadda yadda), but I'm not really seeing that Bowers is. And de Jardin is dancing on the edge; while I understand that we've traditionally operated on the principle that a person who stood for the leadership of a political party is probably notable enough, I do question the utility of an unreferenced stub that doesn't tell us anything about de Jardin beyond what would already be in a properly written article about the leadership convention anyway. Carr's external links are Green Party sites, not independent sources, so they can't count as references for BLP purposes; though she's obviously notable, independent media sources are still needed. Bearcat (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with your comments, except that Green Party sites are sources, so they could be used to say the article has sources, is not completely unsourced/unreferenced. So it could arguably be changed from BLPunreferenced to BLPrefimprove, still leaving a tag calling for improvement of referencing. I have been tending to say no sources are present when really there are none at all, or only a personal website or myspace-level. The Green Party is at least separate from her as an individual, so it counts as a source in my book, i guess. It seems kinda funny to keep the article about the model who so bravely "packed up and moved to New York City" after being "discovered", but to delete those about politicians, tho i don't disagree about the deletion prod on the mayor one. Thanks! --doncram (talk) 22:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'd actually agree that in Carr's case, it's more of a "refimprove" than a true "unref". Just to clarify, though, her bio on her own party's website isn't an entirely independent source, as she would still have had some form of direct involvement in writing or redacting it; organizations with which a person is directly involved are primary rather than secondary sources for that reason. But, of course, we can use such sources for some things; we just can't call the article fully and adequately referenced if we're relying only on primary sources. So it does still need referencing improvements, but you're correct that it's not unreferenced. Bearcat (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for editing that change. I further added {{nofootnotes}}. Commented further on some of the other 10, marking some more  Done above. Thanks also to M.Nelson! --doncram (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

MLAs, etc

The following templates are good places from which we can cull a lot of unreferenced BLPs. All of the pages are notable (right?), so there's no question of deletion, and each should have an official legislature biography which can be used as a reference.

I'll personally put some work into these once real life gives me some time, but we can obviously make a lot of headway if anyone else will chip away when they can. -M.Nelson (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds great. Do we first need to go through each one to ensure that all the articles are tagged by WikiProject Canada? I expect that could be done easily using AWB or another automated editing tool. I could do some of that, but does anyone else use AWB or Friendly or Twinkle? --doncram (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Just used AWB to go through the BC ones. Found that 13 of the 85 BC MLAs' articles lacked WPCANADA tagging, so i added {{WikiProject Canada|ppap=yes|bc=yes|class=Stub|importance=Low}} to their Talk pages. I'd be glad to help anyone else get up to speed in using AWB to do this kind of stuff, and other editing, easily. It still remains to improve the referencing in these. --doncram (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Applying the "Crosscat" tool then reveals the 21 current BC MLA articles that are tagged as unsourced BLPs. I'm adding info about CANADA-tagging and counts of unsourced BLPs above. --doncram (talk) 23:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
That Crosscat tool is extremely useful; I'm working my way through the BC MLAs now.
Does anyone have a problem with having the MLA's legislature biography as the sole source? If there is significant material not referenced by the bio, I'll leave a {{BLP sources}}, but if the article contains only information referenced by the bio, then in my opinion the appropriate {{stub}} tag should suffice. Typically, legislative bios are fairly noncontroversial, so I don't believe a {{oneref}} is required (especially not for a stub). -M.Nelson (talk) 01:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Good, glad u like the crosscat tool. If i recall correctly it works great one time on a given search, but it does not necessarily update. If u fix a bunch of the BC ones, it may not show until you log out and close your browser, then retry, or maybe it won't update till tomorrow, i'm not sure.
M.Nelson, I personally agree with what you say about stub tag being enough, and oneref not being needed. Very glad you're cleaning these up, and thereby helping in the big BLP unreffed issue area for Wikipedia. Thanks! --doncram (talk) 01:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Just finished the BC MLAs. The only problem sticking out is Dave Hayer; would someone take a look and see if they can salvage anything? Note that Crosscat still identifies unreferenced BLPs in BC MLAs—these are former MLAs (whose articles still need to be referenced). 02:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Can't help on that one myself. Here's a variation on the CrossCat: this search yields 1 unsourced and 2 under-sourced ones among the Alberta MLAs. (The CrossCat link above found only the completely unsourced ones within BC MLAs.) --doncram (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

IMDB-supported ones

I used AWB to go through the current list of 372 unreferenced BLPs, and found that 15 included an IMDB-based profile as a source. So I dropped them out of the category by replacing "BLP unreferenced" tag by newly available {{BLP IMDB refimprove}} or {{BLP IMDB-only refimprove}} instead. Tomorrow's list should show 15 fewer for that reason. --doncram (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

"The Crown in the Right of Canada"

Hello all.

There seems to be a widespread problem with the treatment of "The Crown in the Right of Canada", and like terms, across many articles. This crops up twice in sections of this page not far above -- those about the article on GM and now one about Canadian Crown corporations. The issue is much broader than that, though, affecting many other articles. So I think that it needs settling generally, not piece-meal. Here seems to me as good a place as any for that, but perhaps some more seasoned wikipedians can suggest a better venue.

"The Crown in the Right of Canada" is legalese for the federal government. Likewise, "The Crown in the Right of Ontario" is legalese for the provincial government of Ontario, and so on. In an arcane legal sense, these terms mean the monarch, but this is essentially a legal fiction and how it is is generally beyond the scope of a particular article. It is misleading and confusing to a reader to translate "The Crown in the Right of..." out of legalese as "the monarch", without extended explanation of the legal arcana involved. Such explanation is generally tangential to a given article, and so it is best avoided, and so need for it is best avoided. The terms should (in general) be translated out of legalese as they usually are: as "the government of....", which is clearly and accurately understandable to a reader. -- 205.250.66.41 (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Not always. "Government of [Place]" means more than one thing in Canada. "Crown/Queen in Right of [Place]" means only one thing; and that isn't even "the government". "The Queen in Right of [Place]-in-Council" means the government, whereas just the "Queen in Right of [Place]" means the sovereign as ruler of that place but not attached specifically to any of her spots in council, in parliament, or on the bench of that place, and sometimes that's exactly what we want to refer to. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I have read over a few of this related articles and dont realy see a problem...What is said basically what i read --like this --> Management for privatization: lessons from industry and public service - By Joseph Prokopenko, International Labour Office and Thinking government: public sector management in Canada- By David Johnson..........19:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I'm not clear what your view is. Which problem is it that you "don't really see"? Is that the general one I have raised, or the narrow one Miesianiacal has raised in reply?
However, I note this definition, from the first reference you give: "A Crown corporation is a joint-stock company with limited liablility, a majority (or all) of the shares being held by a federal or provincial government." [my italics] That's how it is normally put -- "a federal or provincial government", not "the monarch". -- 205.250.66.41 (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
(Answering Miesianiacal)
Speaking of legalese and legal arcana. The Miesianiacal's above comments illustrate exactly the kind of hair-splitting legal intricacies that are (as I said before) generally better left aside.
However, can we please get some other opinion on this -- informed and impartial opinion? -- 205.250.66.41 (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
And you wish to write an encyclopaedia geared towards pre-schoolers, it seems. Clarity and accuracy be damned; lazy generalisations all around! --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
No need to bring this conversation into the gutter Miesianiacal. I agree "Crown Right in Canada" is represented by the Canadian Government and not the monarchy.As well "Crown Corporations" are corps. managed and owned by the Canadian Government. The Monarchy really has nothing to do with them, at all. No offense, I don't mean to single you out, but I have looked at your contributions and it seems that you may try and link the monarchy to a lot of questionable topics. 74.198.8.70 (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
No, of course there's no need to bring anything into the gutter. Hence, I didn't. Your other opinions are noted; they've certainly been repeated enough, Po' buster. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, everyone who disagrees with your ludicrous ideology is "po buster"....? I have noticed that all your edits questionably, if not falsely link the monarchy to many topics. Such as on the Victoria Day, Crown corporations of Canada, Queen-in-Council, General Motors, Air India Flight 182, Cabinet of Canada, CFB Valcartier, articles. I also noticed you had a similar "agenda" with your alternate account User:G2bambino. It seems your entire purpose on wikipedia is to link the monarchy to anything you can. When questioned about your disruptive edits you become aggressive towards other editor, and often border on the line of incivility. I would stop short of calling you a "Problem Editor" but your edits often distort facts, and are often simply untrue. The Canadian Government is not owned and operated by the monarchy. Your edits should reflect this and not be influenced by your obvious interests in the monarchy. 74.198.8.70 (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Everyone who shares a near identical edit history to Po' buster and uses the same phrasing as Po' buster is likely Po' buster. But, to repeat myself: your assertions have been noted. They have, however, been proven to be incorrect. Attempting to slander me won't undo that fact. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
The only one slandering here is you by attempting to connect everyone who challenges your distorted views to this "pobuster" character, to somehow discredit them. I have looked over his contributions as well and noticed absolutely no similarities in edit history as them, besides at some point I had 2 or 3 edits on pages they have edited, one of which (General Motors) pointed me here. Your "identical edit history" is as baseless as your attempts to connect the monarchy to anything and everything. I would stop short of saying your idiocy astounds me, as that could be seen as uncivil. You have proven nothing besides twisting words in your favour and attacking people on talk pages until they give up, or fringe on the 3 revert rule.74.198.8.70 (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
If you've some issue, do something about it through the proper channels. Barking out all sorts of ridiculous claims and violating WP:NPA here is clearly getting you nowhere. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

A heads-up

There's been a recent issue with an IP range and a number of sockpuppets that needs to be monitored. Unfortunately, there isn't a single page or two that can be watchlisted, however; it's kind of an amorphous situation, with moving targets, which we can mostly only monitor through general attention.

Last week, there was an issue with a combination of IPs and usernames creating encyclopedically unsupportable nonsense categories such as Category:Anglo-Nunavummiut, Category:Inukophone Nunavut people of Inuktitut descent (er, who in the what now?), Category:Inuko-Manitoban people, and on and so forth. I won't get into all the details about just how problematic this editor was, but you can view Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Éric Gagnier/Archive if you really need the background. The usernames have been blocked and catalogued as a sockfarm.

However, after the blocks were applied several days ago, a new batch of usernames popped up and set to work on creating the equally dubious Category:English Ontarian; people categorized there included Sandra Oh, Joey Votto, Emily VanCamp and Coco Rocha, to name just a few people who immediately jumped out at me as having no properly sourced evidence of English-as-in-England ancestry. In a number of cases, such as Dalton mcguinty, Tom green and Wayne Douglas Gretzky, they also slapped the category on a redirect instead of the article, presumably in the hope of avoiding detection since there's no obvious WP:RCAT reason for doing so and it's a pretty difficult thing to do by accident.

There was also a similar discussion on fr: back in January regarding a virtually identical situation that maps to the same IP range involved here. In addition to the situation already noted in the sock investigation, the range's additional contributions over there include a fr:Liste de Canadiens anglais which includes Jack Anawak, Jon Mirasty and Agnes Martin; he also created several usernames over there, which correspond rather closely to names he's created here ("Marc-Antoine Gagnier", "Gagnier Marc-Antoine", "Marc-Antoine Monsieur 1992"), have some of the same exasperated "please stop it" comments on their talk pages that I've made over here, and have largely been editblocked too.

On both en: and fr:, the user has also made edits which appear to be pushing an alternate history in which the Ontario county of Prescott and Russell either is now, or once was, a separate province or even a fully independent country in its own right; he even invented the unsourced demonym "Pres-rustins" (and the inevitable "anglo-pres-rustins" subcat) as categories for its citizens. In addition, it's been noted both here and in the fr: discussion that the user does not respond to talk page discussion about his edits; if you delete them without editblocking him at the same time, he'll just come right back and recreate the same junk all over again — and obviously, even if you do editblock him he'll just pop up again under a new username.

The pattern that's been established here is as follows:

  1. unsourced cross-categorizations of ethnicity/language and province/territory, or unsourced BS about Prescott and Russell,
  2. made by either a username which would appear to be the real full name of a francophone, or an IP number in the 209.226.* range.

If anybody comes across something that fits this pattern, could you please notify either me or User:CBW as soon as possible, and/or shitcan it and editblock? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

They also may create a category based on various capitalisations of Dalton McGuinty. Also one created a list and a category actor-criminals. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 21:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The user's newest avatar, User:John Carrey, has since made edits which asserted that "Marc-Antoine Gagnier" is a sitting member of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario representing the "Blocprescottins". This is getting extremely tiresome, needless to say. Bearcat (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I saw this too...If an Ip range block is applied are you guys saying he can just register with endless user names?? Any Ip range block does not actually block the IPs if they are registers?
The problem is that we can't permanently block an IP range; we can only do so for a limited time period of no more than 24 hours. If he had a dedicated IP number, we could block that longer-term, but we can't block a range as other legitimate editors might be on the same ISP. But unfortunately, that also means that once the block expires, the vandal is free to register a new username again. Bearcat (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Air India bombing

FYI, Air India Flight 182 has been nominated for renaming, to the name found in India. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 23:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

{{CGNDB}} vs. {{Cite cgn}}

I'm more than a bit choked about this, even after {{CGNDB}} got reinstated over night because of my complaint to User:Plastikspork, who deleted it eleven days after User:Droll created, without any real, worthwhile rationale to do so, {{cite cgndb}}, which has since been renamed to {{cite cgn}}, and placed a deprecation notice in its documentation about not using {{CGNDB}}; he did so on Feb 2, and someone else listed {{CGNDB}} for deletion the very next day; only, so far as I know, User:MkToews, the CGNDB's creator, was notified, but they haven't been around in ages; I'm the person who asked for {{tl|CGNDB}] to be created, given the utility and efficiency of {{BCGNIS}} and {{gnis}}, which the BCGNIS one was modelled on; both are still in use. I got pretty angry about this, especially the wheedling excuses got about how it all went down, and even now, because of my complaints last night, there is a "warning" ordering people to use {{cite cgn}} on the reinstated {{CGNDB}} coding issues/errors (which its predecessor did not). The difference between the two is the amount of work involved in using the "new and improved" one, which IMO isn't improved at all, rather cumbersome and requiring useless information like "date accessed" and also requiring the typing of fields/lines such as "id=" and "name=" etc. There is no need for "date accessed" on CGNDB, BCGNIS or gnis entries because they are permanent records and not "dated" or very mutable (BCGNIS and gnis may occasionally add name/history information, but they rarely delete anything). I make a lot of geographic stubs/articles, as many here know, and when you add up hundreds and hundreds of them the amount of time taken to spend those extra 2-5 minutes filling in the blanks to make the code-writers happy is a real annoyance and time-waster. Even now, since I discovered the problems with the reinstated one, I've had to waste a good hour commenting on it, and trying to figure out why it doesn't work, and also writing this, both last night and this morning; I could have created dozens of needed stubs in the meantime (see Template talk:CGNDB). As far as I know, this project nor the Canadian Geography subproject were notified about this, and nobody involved in the creation/deletion process actually has anything to do with Canadian geographic articles....I feel like writing a page WP:CFWT for "colossal f&&king waste of time" about stuff like this. I've asked Plastikspork to remove the "warning"/order from the top of the reinstated template, and to fix the problem; I WON'T use the new {{tl|cite cgn}] time-waster, and will just go back to using straightforward URLs to cite the Geographic Names Database; the whole point of creating {{CGNDB}} was to streamline that and make it quick-and-dirty...{{cite cgn}} does anything but. Another instance of coders and admins making more work for actual contributors.....Skookum1 (talk) 22:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Quebec record labels

FYI, Category:Quebec record labels has been nominated for renaming. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:1972 Team Canada players

FYI, Category:1972 Team Canada players has been nominated for deletion. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 10:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

CGNDB

I have started a discussion for changing CGNDB into a redirect here. I will do my best to inform everyone who might be interested without violating WP:CANVASS. Thanks for your input in this matter. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Repeated deletions of gold rush history from Chinese immigration page

Please see Talk:History_of_Chinese_immigration_to_Canada#Repeated_deletions_of_gold_rush_section. Would somebody else please watchlist this as well as me? This section has been deleted repeatedly and I missed it this time (May 3); if anything it needs expansion as does other non-railway, non-head tax history, which the page obsesses over; there should also, as I said in another section on that page, probably be a split where the comprehensive history of Chinese immigration policy can be dealt with separately from History of Chinese people in Canada, in the more general sense, vs History of Chinese immigration policy in Canada, which is what this page is mostly about (now). I think, in fact, that there's other bits missing from the gold rush history section, I'll have to go back in the page history, e.g. the fact that on the first tax roll in gold rush-era Victoria, 7 of the top 10 richest people in Victoria were all Chinese merchants (the other three were the governor, Dunsmuir the coal magnate, and the HBC as a corporate person); this despite all the wealthy Americans in town up from California. Inconvenient to the political agenda maybe, but true.....anyway will other people please watchlist this page and watch for deletions; and this page should come up for peer review because of its heavy overburden of detailed immigration policy discussions/hype.Skookum1 (talk) 15:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

CfR's launched for subcats Category:People by regional district in British Columbia

I finally realized that these could be CfR-speedy so they're all listed on the speedy rename for categories page now; all templates have been placed etc.Skookum1 (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Question about Templates

I have a question about the standard temples used at the bottom of pages like Template:Canada topics, why is it that we are hiding the main links. I see this here, but it doesn't give a valid reason to hide the links except for aesthetic reasons. I have been talking to a few people about this and had have been making the links visible again but this has been reverted- theres no edit war or anything. I think we should talk about this again, specifically what is more important - easy for our user's/readers/newbies etc.. or the way it looks!. So basically should it look like this with links visible or like this blacked out links (yet still have links). I for one for the longest time had no clue they were links. This was pointed out to me by a few other who are new here recently so i was bold and started to fix them. Anyways what do you guys think!!...Moxy (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The second (blackened links) is incredibly confusing. It's almost as bad as this: Main Page which makes the Main Page (= <font color:black">[[Main Page]]</font color="black">) look like a redlink... Any especially compelling reason to blacken those links beyond personal aesthetic preference? Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 04:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Keep. My two cents is to have the visible links. Not everyone visiting is Canadian and would know that there are links. Argolin (talk) 04:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
If one moves their pointer over the black links, it's pretty obvious they're links. The black and blue text looks horrendous. And, though I know that what's done with other templates doesn't bind us here, I should point out that templates, such as {{Oregon Brief History}}, have their head and side-box links coloured. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't have an issue with the way the template looks. I suggest that if you want to try other designs, do so in your userspace and offer your favourites to us for critique. PKT(alk) 12:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
LOL "If one moves their pointer over the black links, it's pretty obvious they're links" ...if they happen to do that other then that they will never know its a link...For those of us that write the articles we would like them links seen!!.. I still see no reason why they are black except fo looks .... we are here to help people not impede them because you like the color black!! as for {{Oregon Brief History}} its not black ..BLACK = no link to ever one in the world of Wikipidia...Moxy (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
"LOL"? What age are you? Twelve? "For those of us that write the articles..." Yes, "us", as though I, or anyone else who supported the present design, don't contribute to articles. And by the rest of your skewed logic, you want to change the scheme because you like the colour (yes, colour; we Canadians use a u in "colour") blue. I hope you were just having an off night when you wrote that. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
wow you misunderstood that...I did not say anything like that..I simply think that all the editors (including you) and everyone else would like to see the links. I dont realy care what color it is purple, green etc ....just not black or red as this 2 colors clear mean something. Pleases no personal attacks i apologizes if what i wrote was miss understood or written incorrectly. All of us here know all the GREAT articles you have written again sorry if it was worded wrong. What i was trying to say is that this decision here from long ago that was made by 5 people is hiding the work of others. If you look here you will see its clear people dont see the links ..this guy add the title link to the navbox because he though it was missing..anyways lets see what people say about the proposed changes...Moxy (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't know. How easy is it to misunderstand a mocking laugh as the first response to one's comment? But, fine, I'll take it from your further explanation that any flippancy I read between your earlier words came merely out of bad writing and was not genuinely meant. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello? The Main Page is linked somewhere in this post. Can you find it and the other links? 10 points for each correct answer. 100 points max (including my sig). Bonus points for identifying redlinks --Jubilee♫clipman 17:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
There are no redlinks in your post. The highly esteemed CBW presents the Talk Page! 18:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
LOL -- 1000 points for fixing the red link!!!... :) Moxy (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I protest: that was cheating!!!! See may prizes, BTW --Jubilee♫clipman 19:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed change

Current look -->Template:Canada topics Its pretty clear there's no reason to hide the links except for aesthetic reasons.. so i propose we fix all the template's to look like this below! No real change just showing the links...A list of what would be affected -->[21]...Moxy (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Bien sur, you choose a template in which the title is all one link. Not only does the blue look weak, but when the title contains two or more links with non-linked words in between, you end up with blue, black, blue (and so on) letters. Regard:
And if one of those links has already been used, you wind up with blue, black, purple. Looks unprofessional.
What's possible is something along the lines of what was done for {{Oregon Pioneer History}}, where, for the last header on the left side, the link isn't left blue, but is coloured differently. Our templates could use either a grey or dark blue, such as:
Or:
--Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Wow this dark blue is great ..Ps again sorry Miesianiacal did not mean to offend you!..Moxy (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. And no worries; I understand now you didn't mean offence in the first place. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Miesianiacal: the colours blue, red, and purple are the default colours specifically used for links on WP. If you have a problem with the "unprofessional look" of that scheme, take it up with the developers. The colours are chosen specifically and are in line with those used on the rest if the internet. Alternatively, change the colour scheme in your own browser to one you are happier with. Hard-coding links to appear black is the worst idea I have ever come across, short of hard-coding the text and background to be the same colour (see my admittedly rather over-the-top examples above). Would you have even realised there were links in my post about the main page if I hadn't actually told editors to look for them? --Jubilee♫clipman 19:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
BTW, if this becomes an issue for other editors, I suggest that someone starts an RfC. Not me, though, as I have had my fill of those for a while --Jubilee♫clipman 20:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)x4 We're talking about navbox templates here, not articles. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Exactly, NAVIGATION boxes that are supposed the help people navigate between articles --Jubilee♫clipman 20:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
You make a lot of noise but I see no point. The black links worked without issue for a long time. If they're now - for whatever reason - causing a problem, the links can be differentiated from the non-linked text without resorting to the bare, lame, baby-blue (and then purple when clicked on) coloured letters. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I have np with the dark blue, and think its a middle ground. Its looks like a link and solves the problem of an "unprofessional look"....Moxy (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Noting M's comments about my lots of noise, I'm going to have a go at playing around with the template in my sandbox. Fair point: actions, not words.... --Jubilee♫clipman 23:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
BTW, the title isn't all one link in Template:Canada topics, it's two links one after the other. One would indeed turn wine if clicked while the other remains blue. I fully understand the aesthetic arguments but still feel fuctionality is a far more important consideration. In particular, we should avoid surprising our readers: they see black text and they expect it to be unlinked. Upon further investigation they discover the links. Also, Occam's Razor is worth bearing in mind: why make things more complicated than they need to be? Not only should people not have to guess that there are links in the template but that template itself doesn't need to be anything more than a navbox. It isn't a work of art, in other words, just a navbox. That said I'll see what I can come up with --Jubilee♫clipman 23:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's my design:

I made all the links font color=#002BB8 which is the colour used for bluelinks here on WP. They will stay that colour, therefore, even if they are clicked. There was also much redundancy: for example, things that were black anyway were given font color=black for no obvious reason. I culled those redundancies. All the other article links go wine when clicked anyway so I still don't see the need to hard-code the surrounding links as #002BB8 but it might be a reasonable compromise. Any better? The dark blue above, BTW, was still a little dark for me to see the difference easily between that and black but I could live with it as a subtle way of indicating where the links are --Jubilee♫clipman 00:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

This would be best ..its the opposite of black and would trick people to click them again  :)  !!..Moxy (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
ROFLMAO! Hadn't thought of that... we could make them all wine so they don't think they haven't been there. No wait... --Jubilee♫clipman 00:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
This isn't merely about the look of one template. Whatever's decided here affects all Canada topic templates. So, because the two links in the template title here don't have non-linked words in between doesn't mean there won't be others that do, where it'll still be blue, black, blue, black, & etc. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no bone in this debate, I was pointed here via a post on the template Wikiproject. Here is my contribution (I have added the permalink to my design as I am now going to be using that page for something else). I think the links need to be given a more appropriate color so a viewer (even those with little web experience) knows it is a link. Also, I don't like the current gray background color on some of the subcategories. Seems out-of-place in your all-white template. So I gave it a lighter red color like what is around the main boxes.—NMajdan•talk 20:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Besides the blue links in the title and section headers, I've no issue with this proposal. I think the light-red outlines are a nice alternative to the grey tone. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
It's been well over a week now, and nobody else has chimed in on this matter. I assume, then, that it's okay to go ahead and make the change to the dark blue links I suggested above (?). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Quick straw poll

Dark blue....i think its a good middle ground.....Moxy (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Dark blue - I can live with that and it avoids both of the extremes which could cause confusion, pointed out above (black = apparently unlinked; mid-blue = apparently unvisted link) --Jubilee♫clipman 18:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment (well, question): Which "dark blue" are we talking about? Mine, which is actually dark blue, or Jubileeclipman's, which appears to me as regular link blue? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Yours....Lets get started on this...Moxy (talk) 01:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah. Well, I oppose! ;) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok lets look closer at all this ...2 years ago 6 people were involved in making this decision(1 of witch is now banned and 2 no-long edit here i guess).....So since 2009 i count 58 different editors that have tried to fix the black links in various templates...most say the same thing..or they dont see them at all.. So is it possible that black is not the best choice, i would say so...I see no valid reason to blacken the links. I think the dark blue is a reasonable middle ground it keeps the look of the template nice (even though this should not be a concern what should be a concern is proper layout so people can navigate the topics)...PS Were is DoubleBlue and User:Skookum1 there the only people left that were involved in the begin!!!! Moxy (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok so we are going with darkblue ...i will be changing them ALL to the dark blue over the next week!!Moxy (talk) 20:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The Raccoons and the Lost Star

FYI, The Raccoons and the Lost Star has been prodded for deletion. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 05:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

A poor article, but the topic is certainly encyclopedic. I've removed the prod. - SimonP (talk) 00:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Canada parameters

FYI, at Template talk:WikiProject Canada, there is a suggestion to increase ease of use by accepting full province names as switch names.

70.29.210.155 (talk) 05:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Settlements categories....

In creating a few Yukon items tonight, I had to figure out where "unincorporated area" as listed in CGNDB goes.....some of these will be settlements/populated places, some may be just uninhabited (though notable) localities; but in the newsly-renamed Category:Populated places in Yukon there's some redundancies - for example, why is Category:Settlements in Yukon a separate category from "populated places"....and is there a distinction in the Yukon municipal status between "village", "town", "city", "hamlet" etc? all of which have separate categories...."ghost towns" may or may not be populated, depending on which one....and "Indian settlement" pretty much includes nearly anywhere in the territory; if "Indian Settlement" is meant, i.e. the legal INAC classification with both-capitals, the category should be capitalized that way.....with Teslin Lake, Yukon, Teslin Crossing and Teslin River, Yukon they're all "unincorporated" area in CGNDB....I suppose StatsCan may have some site-specific stats to tell us which ones are populated or not...but, again, which do they belong in? "Unincorporated populated place" seems necessary; or "unincorporated but uninhabited locality" etc...we have similar problems in classifying/categorizing BC places, some of which were inhabited in the past, others which never have been but which are otherwise historically notable; some were Indian villages, some were hunting camps (search BCGNIS for "Caribou Hide", for instance; I haven't yet made an article for it, it's also called Metsantan). Anyway for now I'm using "Populated places in Yukon" for lack of any other knowledge of what's what up there; maybe there's a Yukoner in this group who can sort some of this out....also the use of "Populated places in British Columbia" and/or "Lists of populated places in Canada" on Indian Reserve and/or ghost town articles/categories is a bit of a stretch; most or at any rate at least a good proportion of reserves in British Columbia are in fact not inhabited; ghost towns were (usually) inhabited in the past; some never had populations but were just real estate specs (like Tipella City and Manchester, British Columbia).Skookum1 (talk) 23:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It appears someone took heed from my comments here, or came to the same conclusion independently; but in the case of categories like Category:Former populated places in Canada the title is grammatically wrong and should be Category:Formerly populated places in Canada. See Category talk:Former populated places in Canada.Skookum1 (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
"Settlements" is a distinct category from "populated places" for the Yukon because "settlement" is actually the legal designation of a number of communities in the Yukon. I'm not sure if that's true for any other Canadian province or territory. But while there is certainly some cleanup still to be done to ensure that everything is actually being described and categorized correctly, the basic principle overall is that each article about any populated place is categorized by whatever its legal status is according to the government body that is responsible for determining and assigning legal status to places: if the Yukon government's municipal incorporation laws say that Whitehorse is a "city", Dawson City is a "town", Carmacks is a "village" and Tagish is a "settlement", then we categorize each place as whatever that law says the place is. Bearcat (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Question about the using é

It has recently been brought to my attention that English Wikipedia is now aggressively changing tiles with french type to English versions. (basically redirects a being reversed). This is something we have been doing here at the project aswell like with Montreal if i am not mistaken. Basically what i am getting at is to do this an admin is required. Y because most pages with french in the title already have a redirect like Métis people (Canada) -- from -->Metis people (Canada). I am asking for any "ADMIN" volunteers to help with this ...meaning i could talk to you directly so we don't overflow the Move page request page..as most will be simple and with no controversy -- just removing an accent or 2.. If you would like to help me in this pls let me know... all i am asking to be done is the move itself...I will find the pages. listing a few everyday on a sandbox page i will make... No bot is involved just what i see from day-to day as the bot is not doing well and in many case is reverting a's and e's!!Moxy (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... that's weird. Wikipedia keeps weird things like the German-Beta (eszett), Icelandic mutant P (thorn), but doesn't like "é" ? 70.29.210.155 (talk) 05:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
If anybody tells you that there's a policy dictating this, they're wrong. As pointed out at WP:CANSTYLE (as well as at WP:UE, which clarifies that the "Use English" rule is based on actual usage in English), the rule for Canadian-related titles is that we do maintain the accent if it's documentably maintained or ambiguously some-people-use-it-and-some-don't in Canadian English (e.g. Trois-Rivières, Université du Québec à Montréal), and only drop it if and when CanE has a clear usage consensus in favour of a non-accented spelling or an alternate name (e.g. Montreal and Quebec when they're not part of a longer institutional name for which CanE uses the French name, Montreal West instead of "Montréal-Ouest", National Assembly of Quebec instead of "Assemblée nationale du Québec", etc.) No rule anywhere on Wikipedia requires us to drop all accented characters regardless of usage; we use whichever form of the name is most commonly seen in real-world English sources, whether that usage includes an accent or not, with an addendum of "err on the side of respect for our francophone compatriots" if we can't make a clear-cut determination that some alternate form unequivocally prevails over the officially correct French form in actual usage. Bearcat (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments requested on NHL template

Anyone interested in hockey and minutiae of table layout may want to comment on Template talk:NHLBracket#Team order in the third round because it looks like I and another user might be arguing in circles with eachother. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 08:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons update

The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons (UBLPs) aims to reduce the number of unreferenced biographical articles to under 30,000 by June 1, primarily by enabling WikiProjects to easily identify UBLP articles in their project's scope. There were over 52,000 unreferenced BLPs in January 2010 and this has been reduced to 32,665 as of May 16. A bot is now running daily to compile a list of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

Your Project's list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/Unreferenced BLPs. As of May 17 you have approximately 410 articles to be referenced. The list of all other WikiProject UBLPs can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/WikiProjects.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It's back down to 387 current count right now. Seems like some work is going on, but some help still needed i expect. --doncram (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Date format at Victoria Day

There is a dispute regarding the date format used at Victoria Day; should it be [Day] [Month] [Year] or [Month] [Day], [Year]? Discussion is taking place at Talk:Victoria Day#Long date format. There's presently a stalemate, with two editors supporting each variant; additional input is therefore appreciated. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation of unique-named towns

Is it still our policy to only disambiguate town names when needed, as per Wikipedia:Canadian Wikipedians' notice_board/Style'guide#Places? I just got rid of the disambiguation for a whole bunch of unique-named towns in Newfoundland and Labrador, like Happy Valley–Goose Bay and Humber Arm South, but I've noticed that most unique-named small towns in most provinces have the province as disambiguator, so I'm wondering if the style guide is out of date with actual practice. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The guideline for Canadian places is that disambiguation is not needed unless two or more articles would qualify for the plain title (and the article in question isn't the primary use), subject to the qualifications set out in the guideline. It can be controversial sometimes -- some editors prefer the approach used for American cities, which is to almost always disambiguate -- however, that approach has been rejected for Canadian cities (as reflected at WP:CANSTYLE), and we follow the approach used for city and town articles for most countries of the world (i.e. disambiguation if necessary). Mind you, many articles were created when long before the guideline was adopted, so you will find disambiguation where it isn't necessary. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
In addition to Skeezix's summary, I'd point out that our practice has also traditionally been to have a page move discussion on the place's talk page before moving it to the undisambiguated name, so that we have a documented record of the research that's gone into ensuring that the place genuinely qualified (and that we could point to as proof of consensus if somebody came along later and tried to arbitrarily move it back to the comma-province title.) That said, as written we also added the proviso not to get into a move war over it if somebody does move the page to the plain title without soliciting that discussion first, so nobody's going to blanket-undo all your page moves — but for future reference, please be aware that we do generally want a documented discussion before a page gets moved.
Also, I'd encourage you to participate at Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/Cities, a project which has been identifying the places that are likely to qualify for such page moves. It's been moving far more slowly than we'd like, because once the most obvious big cities got dealt with it petered out somewhat — but there are still a lot of places to identify and/or move as appropriate, if you (or anyone else) would like to help out. Bearcat (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Considering that there are hundreds, maybe thousands of pages that could be moved (and that most probably only have a couple watchers) starting a talk page conversation for each one seems like a bit of a bureaucratic overkill. I couldn't find any reference to a town named "Port au Port West–Aguathuna–Felix Cove" other than Port au Port West–Aguathuna–Felix Cove, Newfoundland and Labrador, so I decided to be WP:BOLD and move it. Can I just start a single proposal to move all pages with disambiguation in Category:Towns in Newfoundland and Labrador where the page without disambiguation redirects to the page with? —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, once the major cities and towns were dealt with, we were planning on merging discussion for groups of 20-25 places at once (or more). That way, all of them can be discussed and moved at once, but entries on the list to which others object could be removed from the list and discussed separately. I started some of this two years ago, but I haven't done much with it since, so feel free to take the reins on this. I would suggest creating a subpage for each discussion at the WP:CANCITY talk page, and linking to it from this project page to add some visibility to the discussion. Mindmatrix 20:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
So rather than simply moving the pages with unique names, I need to copy a list of them, mark which I want to move, wait a week, and then move them? That seems completely unnecessary. If there is controversy about which city is the most notable with its name, then we clearly need a discussion, but for cases where the pagename without disambiguation redirects to the name with disambiguation, and there is no disambiguation page, why do we need to start hundreds of WT-space discussion pages? —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, the renaming of Goderich and subsequent reversion is an example. (It met all the criteria you mention when it was first moved.) The biggest issue is the lack of information about communities in other parts of the world, especially Africa. There's a strong bias toward US/UK/CAN/AUS/NZ places on Wikipedia, and Africa entries are sparse. At the very least, instead of simply checking redirects, do an article-space prefix search before moving a page. (Of course, this fails to address the issue of entries missing in WP.) I have no problem with editors being bold and doing these moves, but I've also found many simply haven't bothered doing a cursory check for other similarly named places. A redirect isn't a guarantee of uniqueness or primary usage. (Yes, I agree that places with names like "Port au Port West–Aguathuna–Felix Cove" are highly likely to have unique names and should be moved without discussion.) Mindmatrix 13:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
To avoid another Goderich incident, how about we make a rule for moving, such as "if a search for the town name at Special:PrefixIndex yields no other communities, and no non-community subjects more notable than the community, it can be unilaterally moved". We can also say that if someone comes around and makes an article about a village in Africa with the same name, we'll be glad to add a disambiguator to our article and create a disambiguation page. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't have an issue with that, though when I was going through the lists, I would also do a quick net search filtering out all mention of Canada and the province of the place in question. If there were any hits of relevance, the article about that place wouldn't be nominated for a move. (This really calls for a browser add-on/extension to automate the search.) Mindmatrix 01:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Tangential to this is that lately Wildbot has been placing tags about the presence of undisambiguated names on various talkpages where it's not just needed; e.g. re Whitehorse as in the latest tonight; that's on Talk:Teslin Crossing where I haven't taken it off; note also, though, that in the form "Teslin (disambiguation)" should somehow be exempted from this bot's activities, if anyone here knows how to do that; that's a dab page but it could/would also apply to e.g. Nanaimo so we're not constantly removing bot-placed "this page contains undisambiguated links" notices (whatever the precise wording).Skookum1 (talk) 03:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

[undent]wow, I wouldn't have guessed at the number of places named Whitehorse, so I did disambiguate that....but I've seen this on other items, including mentions of Vancouver and similar well-known citynames...if I'd known about Whitehorse's other uses I'd have already disambiguated it, of course.....the lede on that page is a bit silly, to me, but that's not of issue here...Skookum1 (talk) 04:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

On a related note, when I was removing provinces from town names, I found a few examples of more than one town with the same name in the same province. How do we want to disambiguate those? Now we have things like Charlottetown (Labrador), Newfoundland and Labrador and Charlottetown (Newfoundland), Newfoundland and Labrador, but I would rather have all perenthesis go at the end of the article title. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 09:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

For the first one Charlottetown, Labrador does not exist so it could go there. Charlottetown, Newfoundland is a redirect to Charlottetown, Newfoundland and Labrador which is a disambiguation page. Leave the disambiguation and move Charlottetown (Newfoundland), Newfoundland and Labrador over the redirect. You could also go with Charlottetown, Newfoundland island or Charlottetown, Newfoundland (island). Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 16:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
We've had a smattering of practices we've used since 2004. The current practice is to use a sub-provincial jurisdictional tier as the disambiguator, such as is done for Pine Grove, Ontario. (Though in that example, the last entry should probably be Pine Grove, Vaughan, Ontario.) Mindmatrix 19:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I like the method used by Pine Grove better than the one with parentheses in the middle of the title. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Heritage Classic

FYI, there is a request to merge the 2003 Heritage Classic into NHL Winter Classic. See Talk:NHL Winter Classic.

76.66.193.224 (talk) 07:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Canadian Afghan detainee issue

Hello all. Not sure if this is the right place to post this, but I wanted to alert you all to the article Canadian Afghan detainee issue. Most of the article's content has been made by myself and User:Boyd Reimer, and so I concede that there may be multiple issues with it, especially NPOV given the nature of the topic. If any of you have a few minutes, I would kindly ask that you take a look and provide any feedback either by posting on the talk page or the to do list. Thanks a bunch. --Natural RX 06:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

AFD on Canadian actor Argiris Karras

There is an AFD discussion at AFD here on Canadian actor Argiris Karras. I only just now added WikiProject canada tag to the article, by the way. --doncram (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Lynx -- Collaboration project of the month

Greetings fellow Wikipedian! The article Lynx has been selected by WikiProject Cats as the collaboration project for the month of June. We welcome the help anyone has to offer to help improve this article! --Tea with toast (talk) 00:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Quebec Autoroute shields are wrong

The autoroute shields used on the articles, and residing on Commons are wrong. They have a red rectangle at the top of the shield, but the real shield has a representation of a viaduct and a divided roadway beneath it in white in the red rectangle.

See File:Quebec Autoroute 30.svg and http://www.mtq.gouv.qc.ca/portal/page/portal/Librairie/Images/Symboles/ecussons/r30.gif

76.66.193.224 (talk) 10:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

And from the page File:Quebec Autoroute 30.svg, "It does not include the stylized overpass that appears at the top of real signs, since that portion is copyrighted." If that's the case then it can't include the overpass. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 16:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
It can't exist on commons, but it can exist here. For the infobox, the modified one is fine in the small junction diagrams, but the official shield should be used in the main image, with an appropriate FUR applied to the image. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
76 is correct. We can't upload it to Commons as it wouldn't be a free-use image, but we can upload it here as fair use. Bearcat (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Regional (D/d)istricts of British Columbia

I have been browsing the article Regional districts of British Columbia, the category Regional Districts of British Columbia and their talk pages (see here, here and here), and I am still confused on one point: When not part of the name of a RD, should the phrase "{R/r}egional {D/d}istrict" be capitalized? Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not a proper noun, so the short answer is "no". It should be handled in the same way as "regional municipality", for which the leading characters are capitalised as part of a proper name, such as Regional Municipality of York. So, we should have "regional district" in normal prose, and proper names such as Regional District of Nanaimo. Mindmatrix 13:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for responding so quickly. I've initiated a nomination here to rename most of the 'regional district' categories. Comments would be welcome. Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

St. Paul's

FYI, St. Paul's (federal riding) has been nominated to be renamed. See Talk:St. Paul's.

76.66.193.224 (talk) 23:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Barely Cooking up for deletion

Barely Cooking has recently been tagged for deletion, due to lack of notability. I assumed that, for the sake of completeness, that every Canadian television show would eventually have its own Wikipedia article. How does one establish notability, beyond the fact that it has actually broadcast? NorthernThunder (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it the first nude cooking show? Or first Canadian one? 76.66.193.224 (talk) 12:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject North America

FYI, there is a proposal for a WikiProject North America, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/North America

76.66.193.224 (talk) 04:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Pomte/Template:SK hwy tiny shield & User:Pomte/Template:SK road shield

FYI, some articles are using templates sitting in userspace. I don't think it's a good idea to use userspace material in articlespace.

76.66.193.224 (talk) 09:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The second template is User:Pomte/Template:SK road shield. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 04:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Placed a request for help at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks

SriMesh | talk 22:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

SS Francisco Morazan

The Francisco Morazan was wrecked on the South Manitou Island Shoal in 1960 and apparently the wreck is still there (see bottom page of document). Is there anyone who can get a photograph of the wreck to add to the article? Mjroots (talk) 07:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Dashes in ridings

For any punctuation sticklers, you might want to check out a debate about dashes in Canadian ridings Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Back to zany em dashes for Canadian ridings. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It just seems like WP:ENGVAR violations to make Wikipedia consistent with some guideline, instead of the policy of WP:COMMONNAME. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

History of Canada going to GA review soon

I am looking for comments and some copy editing if someone is willing of our History of Canada article before i bring it to GA review!...can leave comment at User talk:Moxy#Re:History of Canada .. thanks Moxy (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to get some feedback over on Wikimedia Commons about a potential change to the copyright templates on public domain Canadian images. These templates are visible the 7,000 PD Canada images when used on Wikipedia. Right now, the tag is quite ambiguous, allowing three different kinds of public domain status, so I would like to split it. However, because Commons is pretty quiet, very few people have commented. Please see Commons:Template talk:PD-Canada to provide your input. Thanks. --Padraic 14:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

SNC Lavalin scandal

FYI, SNC Lavalin scandal has been nominated for renaming. The article says it involves EDC 76.66.195.196 (talk) 12:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Greater Sudbury

Over the last 12 hours or so, an anonymous IP (which resolves to somewhere in the southern United States) has been doing a major rewrite on Greater Sudbury, adding a really deeply tangled mix of valuable changes and inappropriate ones (such as American spelling, imposing imprecise and inaccurate terminologies, overcapitalization, section headers like "World War II and its Afterwards", etc.)

I've reverted the changes and put a three-day protection on the page. However, I was wondering if I could enlist somebody to come help out in reviewing the edit history and reapplying those changes which were actually useful and valuable — while the good ones were outnumbered by the bad ones, they do exist buried in there somewhere. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth restoring any of his changes, they really didn't make much improvement. I reviewed some of his other contributions, looks like the work of a disgruntled ex-copyeditor with an axe to grind. -- Ϫ 05:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Funny, I thought I was watching Greater Sudbury but apparently not. Anyway, yeah I too checked out the IP's edits, and I think OE is being kind in his/her description. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The first thing I thought he did have a valid point about was the sentence about Paul Robeson performing at the Mine Mill convention, where he correctly pointed out that the sentence needed to make a better distinction between a convention hosting a concert and that convention being a concert. Though admittedly I added that change off the top, and didn't think it would turn out to be the only useful thing he had to say... Bearcat (talk) 22:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

New category

Is this normal to see a cat titled this -->Category:Categories named after populated places in Canada..just think its odd, what exactly does it mean. Moxy (talk) 01:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's an odd name for a category, but it was applied to those categories by an administrator - namely User:Good Olfactory, so I'll assume that it makes sense in the grand scheme of things. PKT(alk) 02:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
See Category:Eponymous categories, specifically Category:Categories named after populated places. I added a few subcategories to that today. They are odd, I agree, but help to organize when you have a lot of eponymous categories on one topic. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
It certainly does look kind of odd, and it admittedly isn't terribly useful from a user navigation perspective — but there are reasons why it's useful from an organizational or structural perspective. That said, I do wonder if maybe they should be made hidden categories instead, since their primary purpose isn't really user-oriented. Bearcat (talk) 22:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


Photos from UK The National Archives

For those of you that edit on Commons, see this Flickr collection from The National Archives of the UK, which consists of many early photos of Canada (1850s onward). Most of them are now public domain, and would make good additions to the Commons. Perhaps we can get a bot to upload them. Mindmatrix 17:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. Some of the images are already in the Commons, but most are not. A number of the images require extensive cropping, as they are reproduced from an album, so it is a large job. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Where are they? I've searched the Commons category Photographs in the National Archives (United Kingdom) but didn't find any of them. (Though I notice some of your uploads from yesterday don't appear in the search, but do appear in the appropriate category.) Mindmatrix 15:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I was referring to the 1856 Armstrong, Beere and Hime shots of Toronto, for which we have a couple of versions on Commons. There may be others, either not properly labelled, or the same images retrieved from a different archival source. But that's just a maybe - other than the above-noted 1856 photographs, there might be nothing already uploaded. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Be careful, too. Some of the images are copyvios. For example, one set of images is from a 1963 NFB book entitled 'Canada in Pictures' - still under copyright in Canada. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed that. Mindmatrix 15:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Based on Mindmatrix's response to my comment above, I just quickly created a temporary hidden cat over at Commons (Commons:Category:TNA Flickr Canada images project) to keep track of what has been uploaded, so to try and avoid any duplication of effort. Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps someone should inform Commons:Commons:WikiProject Canada ? And fr:Projet:Canada ? 70.49.127.65 (talk) 03:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Canada and Wikipedia

Just FYI trivia

http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/geo

-- This breaks down editors by country, you can see how Canada fairs in relation to other places

70.49.127.65 (talk) 07:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

My proposal is very simple... I sure most have noticed that most sub projects (excluding those like Canada Roads and Quebec). I simply think that we should redirect there talk pages only to this talk page. Most of us that are in the sub projects talk here anyways. I DO NOT wish to redirect the projects in anyway just there talk pages. What do you guys think? Moxy (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Your first sentence is incomplete - do you mean that the talk pages of "most sub projects (excluding those like Canada Roads and Quebec)" are inactive? If so, then yes, I agree with your proposal. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry - its hot here! yes you are correct. I just think it would be better to have more eyes on theses topics - project pages are fine ...but to have more involvement the talk pages could simply be directed to here..we can have the archives linked on main project pages.Moxy (talk) 21:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I think you should post a talkback message to all the involved subprojects, to inform them of your proposal, should some people not pay attention to WT:CANADA. And I'd like to know which projects you are talking about. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 03:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I do plan to do this if I get positive replies here first.Moxy (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd say go and post the messages. That will give you a much quicker answer as to whether there is appetite for a centralized discussion point. Certainly I would support it for the mostly unused talk pages. Assuming no resistance, you'll wish to add a header of some kind to this talk page explaining why the person looking for WT:ALBERTA (for example) ended up here though. Resolute 01:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Bramalea, Ontario, History

No year is given for the start of Bramalea--not even that it occurred post-WW2.--Oldontarian (talk) 09:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Asiancourt

I recently reverted an edit at Agincourt, Toronto that mentioned Agincourt being referred to as Asiancourt as it seemed undue. It has been reinstated (diff). On investigation it seems that variations of the text have been in the article for some time (July 2005 and February 2009 for example), so perhaps I was being unduly sensitive. Anyone want to offer an opinion? Johnuniq (talk) 10:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

While there should be more referencing done on the article, I don't have a problem with its current content. PKT(alk) 11:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

a title needs to be edited

I editted a spelling error in the content of a page, but did not know how to change the error in the title. How can this be done? Yeltnuh2 (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Moving a page. utcursch | talk 04:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
You can make requests for renaming a page at WP:RM -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 03:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

location map

Is it possible to get a Southern Ontario Locator Map? Intoronto1125TalkContributions 19:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. 117Avenue (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Yukon and Nunavut are now also operational. For anyone else watching this, please see Template:WikiProject Canada/map templates, you may find one that you didn't know existed, or you may find that my list isn't complete. 117Avenue (talk) 01:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Without the gridlines is that possible?? Intoronto1125TalkContributions 02:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
You mean the census divisions? Why? It should be the same as province location maps. Otherwise your point is on a blank field without much reference. 117Avenue (talk) 05:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
It clutters up the map + possibly blocks letters from appearing. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 11:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The NU one works great thanks. I tagged the NT map as it doesn't work correctly. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Is it possible to get a Greater Toronto Map as well without gridlines? Thanks!! Intoronto1125TalkContributions 01:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
You'll have to see if the watchers of Template:Location map Canada Toronto would like a change, but I don't see the point of a reference map without points of reference. 117Avenue (talk) 02:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I've started a discussion to ask about the sense of an inset map addition to the Southern Ontario Locator Map template at the template talk page. --papageno (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I see the NWT map works now. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation of Frank Chester

done
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I guess I should ask here too. Frank Chester is currently about a Canadian (specifically Manitoban) politician. There is also a relatively important cricket umpire, Frank Chester (umpire). And then there is Frank Chester (disambiguation).

I'm not convinced that the politician is overwhelmingly better known than the umpire. I think the politician should be at something like Frank Leslie Chester or Frank Chester (politician) and the disambiguation page Frank Chester (disambiguation) moved to the main page.

Further comments welcome at Talk:Frank Chester. -- Ferma (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Music of Canada

Template:Music of Canada has been orphaned / removed from its relevant pages - with the reasoning that the template puts the article in an odd category. I think this is the most obscured reasoning I have ever heard for removing a long standing navigational tool. Very odd to think that the cat placement is more important then helping our readers in navigating a topic. The only reason is this - so its there a way to fix the template to avoid this problem. Anyone here know how to fix the problem Moxy (talk) 18:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

For the record, it's not about editwarring, nor is it about "my way" — rather, Wikipedia has actual rules about categorization and templating, which {{Infobox music of}}, the base code which is used to structure "Music of Country" templates like {{Music of Canada}}, is not consistent with. The problem, specifically, is that {{Infobox music of}} automatically generates and places articles in a top-level category (Category:Canadian music, in this case), even if the article is already in an appropriate subcategory — making it impossible to properly diffuse the top-level category because there's no way to remove the unwanted extra category without removing the whole template. For that very reason, Wikipedia specifically deprecates using templates to automatically transclude pages into content categories the way {{Infobox music of}} is currently doing.
Simply put, {{Infobox music of}} needs to be modified to remove whichever line of code is pushing the articles into Category:Canadian music (or the similar top-level categories) in addition to the categories that are already on the pages themselves, or perhaps to add a switch by which such categorization can be voluntarily turned off where it's not needed while still leaving the function available in other cases. But this isn't about me being picky; it's about Wikipedia's actual rules around this kind of thing.
And, in addition, it's important to note that templates and categories are both navigational tools; they simply use different structures to facilitate that navigation. So this isn't a choice between navigation or categorization — it's about ensuring that our navigational tools are working in tandem instead of counteracting each other. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Dont you think its best to have more navigational options over just the cat (its current state) Thus far the actions have only lessen the navigational potential of the articles. But the cats are ok - this is better? What is best, remove it from the reaming 345 articles - or get it fixed. I see good intent, just executed badly without proper steps being made to fix the problem at hand. We dont orphan templates or article because they have a very small problem. Who is being hurt by the fact the article happens to be in the parent cat? Simply put "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Just upsetting to see a template that has had so many editors involved in its content placement and layout simply be removed all over for this min minor reason with no attempt to fix it. Moxy (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
How many times am I going to have to explain to you that I've already made multiple prior attempts to get the problem fixed before you actually understand that I've made multiple prior attempts to get the problem fixed? I can't just fix it myself, because I don't know how to fix complex template syntax — but I've asked on multiple prior occasions to have it fixed by somebody who can fix it without success.
Templates and categories are both "navigational" tools, simply structured in different ways — just because you prefer one method of navigation over the other does not mean that the other one isn't a method of navigation. And neither does it mean that it's not important to fix clutter that's interfering with the method that you don't care for, because many other users quite legitimately prefer that method and aren't being properly served if it's not being properly maintained and organized.
Is it better to have more than one navigational option? Of course it is. This whole thing is a temporary measure, only until a problem that's interfering with the proper functioning one particular navigational method is fixed — and then once that happens, I'll be more than happy to participate in reimplementing the other one. But it's not a problem that we can just ignore and not do anything about — because this has nothing to do with "rules for the sake of having rules" (which is what WP:IAR is all about) and everything to do with improving the encyclopedia by cleaning up unhelpful clutter. Bearcat (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
You keep saying you have tried to fix it - yet I see no talk on the matter anywhere and have asked you to point us to it a few times now. Thus far your the one making the decision on only have one navigational option. Again does this sound productive? A post about the problem should have been the first step not remaval of a template that many have worked on. Moxy (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Um, I have to find the past discussions before I can point you to them. Bearcat (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Odd there was not a talk at the actual templates talk page - you would think that the template its self would be the place to ask about fixing that template. Its not that I dont believe you I want to see why it was not fixable so we dont go down that path again. Your able to explain the problem better then I - why dont you ask over there now? I dont want to see the removal of the template from the other 300 articles as many many editors have worked hard on all these, just because of the cat its gets put in.Moxy (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, you quite often get faster responses to these things if you post directly to Wikiprojects rather than template talk pages (those requests often get missed). I've posted a new request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates, so let's see if that gets some action this time. Bearcat (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Help to get Laura Secord to FA by the 2013 anniversary?

I've done a lot of work redoing and expanding the Laura Secord article recently. I think it would be great if it could be made a Feature Article in time for the 200th anniversary of her famous walk. That would be June next year. Is there anyone at this project who would like to chip in? CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 07:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm in. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Good idea. And now I crave chocolate. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Good choice on topic! I've got a few projects of my own on the go, but when you think you are ready for one, ping me and I'll offer a copyedit/peer review. Resolute 18:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

I am confused about the copyright status of pictures on the Parliament of Canada web site. The image on the page for Maurice Breton has a tag of "© House of Commons 1953". However, the Copyright Act of Canada says that the image "shall continue for the remainder of the calendar year of the first publication of the work and for a period of fifty years following the end of that calendar year". I have added this file to the "Possibly unfree files" list and the discussion is here: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 July 26. I apologize if this has been discussed already. --YUL89YYZ (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that means that the copyright was first registered in 1953, which would mean it is now PD in Canada (copyright expires after 50 years). However, that may or may not mean it's PD in the US, depending on when/if it was published in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Does us uploading to Wikipedia's server an image that's PD in Canada count as "publishing in the US"? —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
IANAL, but: it theoretically could, assuming no prior US publication, but unless such an image would be considered PD in the US it would be deleted as copyvio (and a deleted image probably wouldn't be considered published, for obvious reasons). Nikkimaria (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Government of Canada explicitly states that published items become public domain at the end of the calendar year 50 years after publication. This applies worldwide; the URAA does not apply to crown copyright works in Canada. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
An excellent point. Do you have a link to the government's explicit statement? I think adding that to the image discussion at PUF would settle the matter quite nicely. Resolute 18:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Only an email from a senior copyright advisor Carolyn Grey; there doesn't appear to be a mention of public domain online.
from Copyright@ontario.ca
"Under section 12 of the Copyright Act, the term of Crown copyright is "the remainder of the calendar year of the first publication of the work and for a period of fifty years following the end of that calendar year". Once the term of copyright has expired, materials are in the public domain and may be reproduced without seeking permission."
Hopefully this will do, but just in case I've fired a similar email to copyright legal services. 6 to 8 weeks. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Canada's copyright laws do not apply worldwide - there's the rub. To be used on Wikipedia, the image must be PD in the U.S., and U.S. copyright law does not recognize crown copyright. This was a perenial debate over U.K crown copyright - between those arguing that the copyright legislation in the U.K. acted as a form of worldwide release versus those who said it merely established public domain within the U.K. Finaly, to eliminate the ambiguity confirmation was obtained from Her Majesty's Stationery Office that materials with expired U.K. crown copyrights could be freely reproduced worldwide (see Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#UK Copyright and [22]). We need the same confirmation for Canada, which is exacly what Floydan has been doing. Unfortunately, the situation is complicated in that there are 11 crowns (10 provinces and the feds). The email above from Ontario is good insofar as materials of the Ont government are concerned, but needs to expressly state that it applies outside Canada, as that is the issue (we all know the stuff is PD in Canada and don't need written confirmation on that point). When Floydian gets confirmation from the copyright office, that would presumably cover federal materials (as well as, arguably, materials produced by the territorial governments). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 10:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
The provinces all rely on the same federal statute though, and not their own independent laws... Wouldn't this mean whatever applies in Ontario also applies in BC or to the feds? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 11:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, yes, the Copyright Act applies to all materials produced in Canada, produced either privately or by any level of government. But just because a copyright has expired in Canada does not necessarily mean it has expired in other countries, and while one province, for example, might be happy to make clear that its intellectual property is public domain worldwide once it is public domain in Canada, it is entirely possible that another province could try to assert copyright outside of Canada's borders. I suspect that most, if not all, provinces, would fall in the former category, but we'd need to get that confirmation.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 10:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Not necessarily. I believe Ontario and the Feds both use Crown Copyright, so one can expect that terms to be similar, if not exact. Not every provincial government uses Crown Copyright, however. I'd have to re-check, but I actually think the Government of BC retains full copyright. Resolute 15:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Canada's copyright laws do not apply worldwide, but if the government says "once Crown Copyright expires, we consider this material to be in the public domain worldwide", then the copyright holder is explicitly releasing said material into the public domain, worldwide. Resolute 15:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but where does the federal government say "once Crown Copyright expires, we consider this material to be in the public domain worldwide"? It's that last word that is the issue. Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
How so? "once the copyright expires, we consider this material to be in the public domain" is plenty to indicate that the copyright holder (the crown) is explicitly releasing their material to the public domain after 50 years. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't catch the fact that Resolute was referring to the email from Ontario, not the feds.

In any event, to respond to Floydian's question, not really. Copyright in Canada does expire 50 years after publication, so they could simply be acknowledging the state of the law in Canada. What we are concerned about specifically, given the rules here on Wikipedia, is that these materials are public domain the U.S. In otherw ords, the Ontario government will not assert a copyirght interest in these materials in the U.S. U.S. copyrght law does not acknowledge crown copyright and the rule of the shorter term does not apply in the U.S. Arguably, therefore, Ontario could assert copyright on materials in the U.S. that are public domain in Canada. That's why this issue was solved for U.K. crown copyright materials when the U.K. government confirmed that it treated PD materials the same domestically and worldwide.Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for typos and any bad sentence structure. I am on holiday and doing this on a mobile device. Sorry. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Well... At this point you're making assumptions to the utmost precaution. The copyright holder stating that it becomes public domain after 50 years is a pretty strong statement. Either way, I've requested further confirmation and I'll post the email here after (don't ask me to use OTRS, not happening) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 13:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Not really. All they appear to have done is regurgitate the law in Canada, and the state of the law in Canada is not the issue. An acknowledgement of the law in Canada doesn't help us. The sole issue is the copyright status outside Canada, and there is nothing in the email that implicitly or explicitly indicates that they gave any consideration or thought to copyright status outside Canada. And, although I am not sure it is needed here and part of me hesitates to ask, why wouldn't you use OTRS?Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Too many hoops of fire to jump through. I'm lucky to get a response from this government, and expecting them to forward some specifically worded email to the precautionary Pete's is going to result in no response. I'm asking the copyright office, because they hold the copyright in the US if there is copyright in the US; if I get a response stating that they consider material public domain anywhere once the copyright expires, then that's an explicit statement from the copyright holder that URAA doesn't renew crown copyright (beyond the sheer absurdity of these legalities in the first place). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 14:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
You're thinking of the reqirements for an image to be freely licensed. There is no recommended text for public domain. OTRS is just a means of logging emails and releases, so there is always a record. In any event, any responses on thi issue would get posted to Wikimedia lists rather than OTRS, I presume, much the same way as the response from the U.K. government.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Picture need in the Greater Toronto Area.

Anyone able to grab a shot of the following: Centennial Park, Blessed Pope John Paul II Catholic Secondary School, Ajax Sportsplex, Caledon Equestrian Park, CFB Borden, Will O' Wind Farm, the Athlete's village for the 2015 Pan American Games site at West Donlands. Anything is appreciated! Intoronto1125TalkContributions 00:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

There are images of Centennial Park and CFB Borden on the Commons, but admittedly not the greatest selections. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Correct hence why I am asking if anyone could get pics. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 01:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
It would be helpful if you mentioned you were already aware of these, instead of saying "Anything is appreciated!".--Skeezix1000 (talk) 01:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Missy Franklin

FYI Talk:Missy Franklin is currently discussing issues concerning people with dual citizenships, in this case, Canada and USA -- 70.50.151.36 (talk) 08:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Updates to GCpedia page

Following Wikipedia recommended protocol, I put suggested changes to the GCpedia page in the talk page. It has been about a month and has not seemed to be noticed. How can I ensure that it gets reviewed by editors? Joymosk (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Shithawk

Could one of you all add an item to the "Other Uses" section of the article Shithawk about the the Trailer Park Boys bit? The cruel landlord frightens a child-like man that if he doesn't behave properly the shithawks will get him. This is well known in Canada, where the show is quite popular. I'd do it myself but I don't know how to word or cite it but thought that someone here would be able to do it easily. Thanks! Chrisrus (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I will not, personally, as I consider such pop-culture pieces of trivia detrimental to articles. Resolute 15:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
It's a new usage. It's the Shithawk as boogieman. It's another thing that the word refers to, other than the cursed bird. It's what "Shithawk" means in some quarters. See here: Shithawks will get you! and Shithawks aren't real! Chrisrus (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I've never heard it. Maybe it's some local idiom, but I wouldn't include it. PKT(alk) 14:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Do you know how many shit-somethings we'd have to set up for this show? Shit storm, shit weasel, shit hawk, shit winds, should I go on? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 14:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
If all those terms had articles, their usages in the show might be added. None of them do, so don't worry about that; it doesn't matter. Chrisrus (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Please read our guideline on WP:POPCULTURE. The key, as always, is the presence of real reliable sources that can demonstrate the significance of the mention (and not just the existence of it.)
Wikipedia has an ongoing problem with a lot of people adding exhaustive lists to articles of each and every time the topic in question gets mentioned in a single line of dialogue in a TV show or movie or in a song lyric or whatever — but such content is rarely, if ever, supported by sufficient sourcing to demonstrate that it's actually important enough to be noted as a genuinely encyclopedic aspect of the topic and not just random trivia.
Long story short, if you can provide real reliable sources (newspaper or magazine articles, etc.) about the TPB usage of "shithawk" expanding into general usage, then it could potentially warrant mention in the article — but if all you can offer is YouTube clips from the show which depict the character himself using it, then that simply doesn't cut it in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Trizec Corporation and Properties

There are two companies named Trizec, Trizec Corporation and Trizec Properties:

Trizec Corporation is clearly Canadian. Trizec Properties might have Canadian roots, or some historical connection to Trizec Corporation, I don't know. If you search wikipedia for Trizec you'll see there a few dozen mentions of these two Trizecs. I think members of this wikiproject are probably best equipped to judge just how notable Trizec was/is, and I hope one or more of you choose to create an article or two article about them. Thanks in advance. 67.100.127.174 (talk) 10:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Brampton-Mississauga Credit River Park murder?

Do we have an article on the Toronto-area bodyparts murder? -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

No, there isn't enough known about the situation to warrant an article yet. If anything, an article would belong in WikiNews based on what is known so far. PKT(alk) 12:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't seem like anyone writes for Wikinews. Big events seem to not get coverage there. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 13:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
An article is completely unnecessary. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 14:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Sometimes a murder is just a murder and does not warrant encyclopedic coverage. As far as Wikinews goes, it's always been a wasteland, and little more than a drain on Wikimedia's resources. Resolute 23:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

SK Legislative Assemblies

I have found that there are articles for each of the 27 Saskatchewan Legislative Assemblies to date, except for 20th Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan and 21st Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan. When they are created, please start their respective talk pages with the WikiProject Canada banner as used for the other articles in the series.

I have posted a similar note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Saskatchewan. PKT(alk) 15:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Toronto k538.jpg

File:Toronto k538.jpg has been listed for immediate deletion as being unsourced. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 03:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

After reading the above topic about copyright, I am now thinking that the copyright status of any material doesn't matter, since it is being uploaded to Wikipedia, an American website, that effectively puts the material outside of the copyright coverage. Does this mean we can upload anything from Canadian government website, despite their having Crown copyright, since CC does not apply to the United States? This is an issue that has been bothering me, for years, because it just seems like a huge, immovable barrier. Is there ANY way that material, such as pictures, could be used on Wikipedia without any problems? NorthernThunder (talk) 22:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

No, because anything published in the United States is automatically copyrighted, regardless of where it was created. The US may not recognize Crown Copyright, but it would recognize the Canadian government as the owner of the material, and therefore they, not we, would own the copyright under American laws. Also, Wikipedia only considers images that are under a compatible license in both the United States AND the country of origin to be "free". See also the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, which is a giant pain in the ass. Basically, while any Canadian photograph created before January 1, 1949, is public domain in Canada, only images created before January 1, 1946 are also in the PD in the United States (as I just came to realize in a FAC). Crown Copyright would be the exception, because if the federal government explicitly states that all images are considered PD worldwide when the Crown Copyright expires, those works would thus become PD in the United States as well. Resolute 23:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Fingers crossed on that last point. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 04:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
The Canadian government needs to abolish Crown copyright. It is my understanding that they don't make much of a profit from that anyways and it does get in the way of open government. NorthernThunder (talk) 07:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
(Still waiting on a response by the way) I hound them quite regularly about it. They completely avoid referencing it or answering it. "As I asked, why is the government spending my tax money to enforce copyright on materials produced with my tax money, in many cases against Canadian citizens who have already paid the cost of producing the item through their taxes? This material belongs to the public that paid for it to be produced, not "her majesty", not "the crown"."
Unfortunately I think only one thing would solve this: Finding an MP who is a big history buff and convincing them to try and get something done from the legislative side of things. - Floydian τ ¢ 10:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the update, Floydian, and for pursuing this. I agree that it would be great if all materials produced by the federal government were public domain (as in the U.S.), but that is unlikely to happen. What department are you emailing, Floydian? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
The address I'm currently waiting for a response from is droitdauteur.copyright@tpsgc-pwsgc.gc.ca, which is the Crown Copyright and Licensing office of the Public Works and Government Services department. - Floydian τ ¢ 16:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
You appear to be emailing the right department. Damn. Maybe a more formal request, on Wikimedia Canada letterhead, might prompt a more thoughtful response from them? I think it's worth pursuing if everyone agrees. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I notice that Russia and the UK have agreements with Wikimedia... I wonder if anything can be dug up on how those governments were approached? - Floydian τ ¢ 14:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
What kind of agreements? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
In the case of Russia, it allows anything uploaded to the president's website to be used. Template:Kremlin.ru
In the case of Britain, it makes it verbatim that crown copyright expires worldwide to PD. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Justin Bieber listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Жастин Бибер and Джастин Бибер. Since you had some involvement with the Justin Bieber redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). 76.65.128.252 (talk) 04:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

image:Gregor FDB-1 test.jpg

File:Gregor FDB-1 test.jpg has been listed for immediate deletion as being unsourced -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 08:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It's been kept. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

images of Canadian quarters

a large number of Canadian quarters images have been put up for deletion, see Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2012_August_30 in three separate sections -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 06:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Scum Lake

The redirects, Scum Lake and Scum Lake, British Columbia, both of which currently target Scum Lake Airport have been nominated at redirects for discussion. Your input into the discussion would be most welcome - see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 September 1#Scum Lake. Thryduulf (talk) 23:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Danuta Gleed Award

Hello,

in case you are interested in literature and lists: I nominated the Danuta Gleed Literary Award which might show you some sympathy. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 14:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

French article request for Canada–Iran relations

Would someone who knows French mind starting an article on the Canada–Iran relations on the French Wikipedia? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

File:BruceLee1971.jpg

File:BruceLee1971.jpg is up for deletion. It is a screenshot of Bruce Lee in his only television interview, for The Pierre Berton Show. The question revolves around Canadian copyrights to the show. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments in Canada - Lists of historic places

Hello everyone!

A few days ago, I put raw data about Canada's heritage places in wiki tables for each provinces (btw, thank to Skeezix1000 for the agreement to go ahead with it, he's working manually since so long on similar lists and I didn't want to step on his toes). Anyway, you guys are very quick because BC already separate tables in regions... a big thank you for your help.

The only thing is that errors happened during the automation of the listings. InverseHypercube pointed this out on my talk page (see fr:User talk:Benoit Rochon#List of historic places in British Columbia). Also on our Flickr group, a member of the pool flagged that some IDs were wrong (see this picture for instance).

So for the next couple hours guys, may I ask you to hold your horses until I find what happen? I think I already know what happen, so I request another extraction yesterday, but the bot takes 20 hours to do this, I'll have news probably tonight. My apologies to people who work on this list, I hope to fix this asap.

Now anyone in Ontario found similar problems with List of historic places in Ontario? Thanks to let me know here, or even better, on my :fr:Talk page. Best regards, Benoit Rochon (talk) 14:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

When you say the ID was wrong do you mean the Federal/Provincial/Municipal? If so I found some in the List of historic places in Nunavut, Northwest Territories and possibly Yukon. I know I fixed some in the NT and NU but I'm not sure about the YT. I just noticed that the English and French version of historic places is not working. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 14:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I noticed the CRHP was down this morning too. Glad to know it's not just me. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Previously mentionned by Multichill : "It's not the first time we make a third party site crash"... monuments sites often crash on September... I wonder why!? It seems that Wiki Loves Monuments is pretty popular. Now, for IDs, yes I meant Federal/Provincial/Municipal. When I first request an harvest of data by a bot, I ask the bot runner to merge Federal/Provincial/Municipal IDs for a same historic place, because I'm organising Wiki Loves Monuments and I didn't want people to look all over the place for 2 or 3 IDS for the same place. The basic idea behind this merge is places like "Hartland Covered Bridge" who has 3 IDs (1330, 7623, 16366), so 3 different files on HPC website. By trying to make it simple for users, I pollute the data base and now I regret it so much because it has a lot of impact on WP-en, WP-fr, you guys, us guys (on our lists), the bot runner, the contest participants, the pins on the maps, etc... My bad on this, because all federal buildings, train stations, province houses (and more) that have same name but different IDs were merged. And now the gov website crashed for the third time since Friday! OMG, what a mess, I want to die!! Again, my apologies for this, I'll fix it the best I can.
I should have a clean data base by tomorrow, I'll request the bot runner to sort by province, then by city, then my postal code, and then alphabetically. Afterward, I'll put the PURE data on sub-pages and try to fix as much as I can, but some work done in the past, unfortunately, might be lost. This is why I'm asking to hold your horses for now. Thanks for not murdering me...  :) Best regards, Benoit Rochon (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Areas of Sudbury Ont.

I want to comment on the history of Gatchell, Sudbury District. I was born in Gatchell, at home in Aug/1944, Bulmer Ave. The only hospital in Sudbury (St. Joseph's) had closed their maternity unit because of infection, so deliveries were happening at home. Gatchell was made up of a wide variety of cultural backgrounds, in my immediate neighbourhood were people of Irish, French, Finnish, English and Italian backgrounds. It was a working class neighbourhood, most of the men employed by Inco. We still had outhouses and the "honey wagons" that regularly emptied them. We had ice boxes and ice delivered in large blocks carried with ice tongs, milk was delivered in glass bottles by the milk man with his horse (whom we would feed apples) and cart, bread was also delivered to the door. Any excavating was done by a team of horses. There wasn't any organized sport, we created our own, sliding down hills,skating, there was an outdoor rink at the school and we laced up our skates, sitting outside on snow banks, later there was a "shack" built ? near Dean St with an actual stove in it. What a luxury! Summers were spent swimming at the "pond", a natural spring uncovered by Inco.

My memory of an increase in Italion immigration was in 1950 when I was 6 yrs old and being assigned in school to help a young Italian girl learn how to read English. My father and brother helped build St, Anthony's Church. We all attended Our Lady of Perpetual Help School which later became known as St Anthony's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annsladybugs (talk • contribs) 17:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Stratford.jpg

File:Stratford.jpg is autocategorized into cleanup categories for missing source and missing author -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 19:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

PayingRespectsToTrudeau.jpg

image:PayingRespectsToTrudeau.jpg has been nominated for deletion for failing NFCC -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Canadian Mohawk people

Category:Canadian Mohawk people, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for merger. 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board/Archive_12&oldid=1094198510"