Talk:Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Canada is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 23, 2006.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
February 6, 2006 Peer review Reviewed
May 25, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted
April 20, 2010 Featured article review Kept
Current status: Featured article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Canada (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Countries (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject North America (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Supplemental
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia.
 
News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:
Notice: Before you edit the article PLEASE READ the following.
Toolbox
Archive

Archives


2003–05
1
2
3
4
5
6
2006
7
8
9
10
2007
11
12
13
14
15
2008
16
17
18
2009
19
2010
20
2011
21
2012
22

Discussion of Canada's official name

Canada's name
Official Name 1

Future TFA paragraph

Main Page

Coat of Arms[edit]

Where are Canada´s coat of Arms?? Could somebody please re-add them? --37.219.203.167 (talk) 12:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Please see the discussion a few lines up from this. The coat of arms can't be added to this article for copyright reasons. It can only be used on the Coat of Arms article. — Gopher65talk 15:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
How about we use one of the former coats of arms then, since they're public domain? Would that be acceptable or not? Or how about this one? Illegitimate Barrister 18:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
How would it in any way be accurate and representative of the actual coat? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
From a heraldic standpoint (going by the written description of the coat of arms), it is accurate, even if it is not 100% identical to the version used by the Canadian government. Illegitimate Barrister 15:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
From a visual representation, it looks like something my children would have created. It's not accurate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
By saying that, you show a fundamental misunderstanding of heraldry. Heraldry isn't based on images, it's based on blazons. As the long as the depiction follows the blazon it's still correct, regardless of minor artistic variations. For example this and this are equally correct as depictions of the British royal arms, even though they vary superficially. If you read the blazon of the Canadian royal arms, you would see that it matches the depiction linked to above. Zacwill16 (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you think I don't understand heraldry. That's not untrue. I have a background and graphic arts and all I can say is that it's a poor image.
Speaking of misunderstanding, WP:OVERLINK is something you should bone up on. I reverted your change because of that and because you can't simply impose your will on the article after you have seen consensus is against it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Can you explain what you mean when you say I've breached WP:OVERLINK? I didn't add any links to the article. As to the quality of the image, true it's not amazing, but it's the only one available to us. Surely it's better to have a lesser-quality image than no image at all. Zacwill16 (talk) 12:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I stand correct. You made the second edit and I saw the diff of both. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
As to my second point- do you agree that it's acceptable to use an image which is artistically inferior, but still correct? Zacwill16 (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
If the infobox required a coat of arms then it would be acceptable. Since it does not, and we have the option, I would say it's like saying, would you rather have flaming sticks jabbed into your eyes? It's a false dichotomy. A poor quality representation is fine if it must be represented and no free option exists, however since we have the option not to, and consensus is against that poorly rendered version, then we should not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I think you're severely overstating the poor quality of the image. Yes, it's not as attractive as the other version, but it's not all that ugly and it's still undeniably correct. The article would be vastly improved by at least some representation of the Canadian royal arms; as it is, it seems to suggest that Canada has none. Zacwill16 (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Until that statement I severely understated the lack of quality. That statement simply understated the poor quality of it. I would sooner see a scan of a freehand representation by a ten-year-old child—the age in my province where they begin to discuss matters of federal politics and history—instead of the approximation that is represented by that image. No offence intended to the heraldry fan who composed it, but it does not meet the quality and finesse of the official crest. Again, that's speaking from a graphic design viewpoint, not one of heraldry. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
At any rate, this is all subjective. You personally finding it ugly is not a valid reason for excluding a perfectly correct image. Zacwill16 (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
True and if that were my only argument I would not have stated others as well. To recap:
  1. It's not a pleasing representation.
  2. It's not a misrepresentation of the officially approved crest.
  3. It's not necessary to have a coat of arms.
  4. Other editors do not want it in the article. (CONSENSUS should be enough, but doesn't appear to be)
We understand your position, but it will likely be removed if it's added by you or any other editor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Very well, I give up. All I can say is that this is what happens when authority lies with people who don't know what they're talking about. Zacwill16 (talk) 00:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
In terms of not knowing what editors are talking about, we can leave that aside for now. This is not a discussion about heraldry, which I think is the point that is tripping you up. Whether or not the image in question is "heraldically correct" or not is completely irrelevant and is a red herring. At any given time, there is only one 'legally' correct design, and it is the one approved by the Queen. The Government of Canada has used a different design in the past as their "official" design, and various others have use differing designs to represent the same thing, but that does not make them the approved design. Notice that I make no reference to the blazon, as it has no bearing on the argument at this point. Heraldry vs an authorised symbol (specific design) of state. trackratte (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
We should never mislead readers passing off non official symbols as the real thing. -- Moxy (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I understand, Moxy. I was just wondering why it was allowed on other articles and not this one, that's all. Illegitimate Barrister 18:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree that it should not be depicted at all. Also, there is a difference between being heraldically correct and legally correct or official. In this case the Queen of Canada signed on and approved a specific design (the painted picture) which was based on a blazon. A random rendition which conforms with the blazon but not the design is heraldically correct yes, but that is a red herring. We're not talking about what is heraldically correct here, we are talking about a specific and legally designated coat of arms design. trackratte (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Do you have a source for the Queen of Canada choosing this specific illustration as the sole correct interpretation of the blazon? Zacwill16 (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
If there is a good editorial reason for adding any version of the royal coat of arms or the full blazon to this article, what is it? My personal view as a reader is that it is not needed here. Qexigator (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
+The flag is used above for 'Canadian English', and the maple leaf for Canadian portal, not the Arms. Qexigator (talk) 09:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Zac, if you look at the web sources it will say 'personally approved by the Queen'. If you look at the original documents of any coat of arms which depicts the Royal Crown, you will see the signature "Approved Elizabeth II" signed by the Queen. These documents contain a very specific design, and it is this design which is used. You can see this the most through military units and Colleges, which all depict the Royal Crown. While anyone can render their own interpretation of a military crest, or the Queen's own arms, they are just that, "heraldically correct" interpretations, they do not constitute the 'real thing' simply by being heraldically correct.
While the government of Canada could use any design it chose to, at any time, what makes a certain design 'legal' is the Queen's signature. For example, the current design was used informally prior to 1994 from what I've heard, but the modification was personally approved by the Queen in 1994. Even then, the Government of Canada continued to use the 1957 version until the early 2000s, so for nearly a decade the Government of Canada was using a version as a Governmental symbol which was no longer the personal arms of the sovereign (and therefore the specific Arms of State) approved for use in that capacity at that time. trackratte (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Heraldry is based on blazons not images. All grants of arms will include the blazon first and foremost. An illustration of the arms may also appear, but this is just the artist's personal interpretation of the blazon, and does not mean that all subsequent illustrations must look identical; as long as they follow the blazon they are legally and heraldically correct. The reason the Queen had to approve the design in 1994 was that the blazon was actually changed: the circlet of the Order of Canada was added. The fact that the Government chose to adopt a new interpretation of the blazon had nothing to do with it. They could adopt a new interpretation at any time, and it would still be legal if it followed the blazon. Zacwill16 (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
We are not talking about heraldry. This discussion has nothing to do with the blazon. We are talking about a specific design. trackratte (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
What? We're talking about a coat of arms; the science of coats of arms is known as heraldry. And this discussion has everything to do with the blazon. the specific design you're referring to is one of many possible and equally legitimate interpretations of an official blazon. Zacwill16 (talk) 01:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
It would be as well to remember that in the case of a coat of arms or blazon, questions of the fitness of its 'design' or a version or rendering of it, or the legality of the use of any version or rendering, are inseparable from heraldry. Qexigator (talk) 01:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
There is only one legal version of the coat of arms. That is quite separable from heraldry: it's law. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I do not see that comment as making sense in terms of a) heraldry and b) law. Can you explain, having regard to the legal status of the College of Arms and the Canadian Heraldic Authority and of arms granted or regulated by them under the Crown. On second thoughts, none of this is about improving the article, so better not. Qexigator (talk) 02:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't make any sense whatsoever, hence why they haven't responded. User:Trackratte plainly acting like on authority on a subject they know almost nothing about. Zacwill16 (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Conflict. @Qex: No, they are not, like any symbol, photograph, design, or picture. Heraldric considerations are separate from the Arms of the Queen as a legal, and legally protected, design. There is only one flag of Canada (as a very specific design). An interpretation of the flag based on the blazon is fine in heraldry, it would be "heraldically correct" interpretation of the flag of canada, but it would not be the Flag of Canada. I don't think anyone is discussing whether or not this image is good to go from a purely heraldic point of view. It would be like placing a flag of Canada with a "natural" maple leaf on the Canada page as the Flag of Canada. It would be bogus, and no one would care whether or not it's "heraldically correct" or not. trackratte (talk) 01:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
While I remain unpersuaded that such comments are on the mark, please see reply to WG above. Qexigator (talk) 02:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm aware that I'm essentially contributing to a dead discussion here, but because there was a point unanswered above I just wanted to clarify for the uninitiated in case it comes up again: the reason that some countries can have their coats of arms added to their Wikipedia articles freely, while Canada cannot, is that not all countries' copyright laws license government-owned materials in the same way. The Great Seal of the United States, for example, is released into the public domain — which means that we can reuse it willy-nilly. For the same reason, Wikipedia is able to freely grab and repost the "official portraits" of government officials, including the president, the vice-president, cabinet officials, Supreme Court justices and members of Congress. The comparable images in Canada, however, are not released into the public domain, but under a different model known as Crown copyright — and under those rules, the contexts in which the images can be reused are significantly more limited than public domain content is. So we can't just add the coat of arms to any article where it fails to satisfy fair dealing criteria — meaning, essentially, that it's okay in the article about the coat of arms itself, but not anywhere else. Yes, it's unfortunate and kind of unfair, but it's not that Wikipedia has different rules for Canada vs. the US — it's that the Canadian and US governments have different rules about the use of their copyrighted content, which constrain us differently. Bearcat (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Where Canada article indicates that Canada belongs to the Commonwealth, it should indicate that Canada belongs to both the Commonwealth and la Francophonie[edit]

Where Canada article indicates that Canada belongs to the Commonwealth, it should indicate that Canada belongs to both the Commonwealth and la Francophonie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.252.233 (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear anon from Lethbridge, in paragraph 4 it reads "Canada is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations" and in the "Foreign relations and military" section it states "Canada's membership in the Commonwealth of Nations and the Francophonie". Links to each both times.
Is that enough or would you like something specific added or changed? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Non-comprehensible map?[edit]

File:Mapcanadapopulation.png makes a lot of sense to me. Each dot represents 100,000 inhabitants organized by province. Toronto's and Montreal's populations would make their respective province's too large so they're added separately. It makes sense to me. I also don't see it as a COI. The person who added the map created it, but I've seen similar so it's not WP:OR and the infographic would be a nice addition. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

See File:Final 2008 electoral cartogram.png. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Unlike the cartogram map, the proposed map does not have names in the locations so noone knows the location of each city mentioned. This makes it incomprehensible to everyone but those familiar with Canada's geography. Also edit-warring one's own map into an article is COI. Finally the map has no source information so it is OR and it may also be a copyvio if it is based on another published map. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

This image was recently deleted in an edit without any explanation (replaced with three other images with no comment) WP:UNRESPONSIVE. It was then reverted a second time by a user with the sole comment that it was incomprehensible. It has been there for 9 months without any negative comment WP:CAUTIOUS . I made the image so it may seem there is COI, but I would revert any removal of an accepted file without an explanation and I would ask the user to take it up on the talk page if they have issue with it WP:BRD. This is NOT edit warring...it's asking for discussion during a BRD. If you don't like the image, mention your issue with it on the talk page and it could be improved. If there is consensus that it doesn't belong on the article then it would be reasonable to take it down. I don't need to quote policy on this. Shabidoo | Talk 05:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I have explained the reasons above. There is no major change to the article if a minor map without a legend and without names is removed so WP:CAUTIOUS does not apply. As far as COI, please let other editors restore your map if they disagree with my points. Edit-warring it yourself back is not a good option. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. I like the image. It could use a legend or labels. Is it possible to make improvements? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Walter. Apart from the issues I mentioned above, I am also concerned as to the purpose of the little dots and the squares which give the false impression that Canada's population is evenly distributed in circular clusters forming little uniform rectangular camps. What is the purpose of that? Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Its a completely unsourced - non-comprehensible map. Should not even be here per non-verifiable plus..are we expecting our editors to count the dots and know what the shapes mean thus the area they pertain to.- Moxy (talk) 05:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Good points but even counting the dots does not solve the problem, except if people in Canada live in circular clusters uniformly distributed within the bounds of the municipalities. Somehow I don't think so, although one never knows. :) It looks suspiciously like Legoland. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It is unsourced, but it's based on 2014 census estimates. It would be easy enough to make it match the 2011 census.
I understand the concern that it misrepresents an even population distribution. We should deal with that in prose. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree the graphic should have labels, and possibly be overlaid onto a map in order to make the correspondence to geographic regions more apparent. I think the infographic concept is commonly understood well enough that there isn't a concern regarding people interpreting the dots as a literal geographic location. I think the description page for the image should be updated with a citation for the actual data, so someone looking for the information behind the graphic can find it. isaacl (talk) 05:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

We already have files like this one or this one at the main article on population . But do we need to jam this in chart form here to? what data is more important to convey in this manner ,,,,population distribution or population demographics like ethnicity, religion and language. We can say this better with words over a chart in my opinion. Moxy (talk) 05:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Good points. Also what about making a map as Walter and Isaac propose but using colour-coded provinces instead of dots, where colour represents a given population density described in the legend? Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
There is no need to make things complicated with bots or graphs..... File:Distribution of Population, 1851 to 1941.jpg or File:Canadian pop from 1851 to 1921.jpg is a good way to show this. Would like to also point out that for stats of this nature as per WP:CANPOP we should be using census stats...as does the rest of the article -- Moxy (talk) 05:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
It's not complicated. It's very simple to understand. Those graphics are nice, but archaic in both information and design. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Let's see if a colour-coded population map superimposed on a map of Canada can be created with proper location names and a legend. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 06:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
The questions I have about the dots and I know the layout of the country are... What are the green dots on the right for..Montreal? Are the blue dots on the right Newfoundland and Labrador and PEI? is red New Brunswick and Nova Scotia etc... A much better way can be found to get this information across.--Moxy (talk) 06:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Yup, the colour-coding is something that popped right up as really problematic when I looked at the map. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 06:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I like the map, but I think it needs some improvements:

1) Dots = squares instead (don't know why, but dots looks funny). Changed my mind. I'd want the actual outlines of the provinces, just sized to their actual proportion of the population.
2) Squares Province outlines = all one colour.
3) Light text overlays over the provinces.
4) No separation from the provinces. The size of the provinces should naturally distort to the size of its population. That's the entire point of such a map!

Other than that I like the general idea. — Gopher65talk 00:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

These seem to me like excellent technical suggestions. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I rendered a map with the outlines and then shrinking it and that map actually looked very incomprehensibe as the entire north was about the size of PEI and it was difficult to connect them. I also tried distortion and it looked awful (sort of like the US map here.
Thanks for your input. I considered making the map with squares like this one but I'd have to do a fair bit of work because each square will have to be 10,000 or even 1,000 pop (which will increase accuracy a lot). If I do that however, I'll have to exclude Montreal and Toronto as separate entities, which is a pity because a lot of information is gained from it (i.e. it's notable with this map that Toronto is bigger than the East coast provinces combined) but as one of you noted...it is a little confusing what the dots at the top right represent (it's montreal) but in any case the map is about provinces and not cities so I'll leave them out. As squares I'll be able to render it with the provinces touching each other. Colour coding is necesary for the boxes but I could make them all slightly different shades of one or two colours (it's less tacky that way). This kind of map will take some time so I'll make a mock-up in a week or two and see what you think.Shabidoo | Talk 19:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much Shabidoo for your explanation and for your hard work. I will take part in the consultation process you propose. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

colony for convicts/ mentally ill people[edit]

Main source of immigration initially for canada were convicts/ mentally ill people. Should state this in history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.253.253 (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Not true. Several hundred convicts, mostly people who refused to pay the salt tax, were sent to French Canada in the mid-1700s, but that's the only time convict labor was sent. TFD (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Linking North America in the Canada article[edit]

From[1]

There was a discussion on the article's talk page and we decided that linking nations and oceans, and definitely linking the continent, was a violation of WP:OVERLINK. We do not want it linked. Please explain why you feel it's necessary on the article's talk page. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
My edit summaries explained.[2], [3] Your failure to specify is not helpful. Qexigator (talk) 08:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Qexigator (talk) 08:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
"North America" means the continent. My dictionary has no secondary meaning for it. It is never used to mean "British North America" or the "United States of America", so I don't see where any elucidation is required. Per WP:OVERLINK, among things not generally linked are "the names of major geographic features and locations". Willondon (talk) 09:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Maybe good enough for some, but still begs the question. Given that the article is about Canada as a political entity and its territory, and distinct from Geography of Canada, the link would do no harm to anyone. Articles such as this are intended to be intelligible to a world-wide readership, including those who may be unclear about "North America", and others who may be hazy about "British North America" mentioned in the article. How is a npov reader, not having a Canada- or North America-centric pov, to know what it means in this particular article, for example in view of view of:
  • UN 'Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings'[4]:b/ The continent of North America (003) comprises Northern America (021), Caribbean (029), and Central America (013).
  • North America—when used to denote less than the entire North American continent, this term may include Canada, Mexico and the United States.[5].
Would be helpful if there were a link to a discussion on the article's talk page mentioned above, if it is not imaginary. Qexigator (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
If only there was a way to search for terms on every Wikipedia article.
{sarcasm off}
You've changed your reason for linking now. Which would you like us to discuss?
In short, there's no need to link major geographical features such as continents. There is no possible way that a person could become confused about what the term "North America" or "continent" could mean in this context so linking isn't necessary to alleviate confusion. The article does harm though as a sea of blue is distracting and if we start by linking the largest of geographic features discussed here, the argument can be made that all geographic features should be linked. No thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
No change, and I see no useful answer, but perhaps some strawmanning. If you cannot support negative assertions, it would be better to retract graciously and avoid pointless sarcasm. I had noted "New opening sentence" in July 2010[6]. Have you anything better? I do not favour blueing up for its own sake. Your comments confirm the surmise about topic-centricity. There is no possible way that a person could become confused about what the term "North America" or "continent" could mean in this context: there you are mistaken. Not all inhabitants of North America or elsewhere can reasonably be assumed to be as clear about that as those who know it, and the purpose of these articles is to let the less-informed become better informed. So, why not think your position out afresh? Qexigator (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
If you can't find a useful answer, you're not looking. I see no constructive reason as to why it's needed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
If it's not to be linked in the lede, perhaps it should at least be linked in the "Geography" section of this article. While we don't want seas of blue (in articles, anyway), Qexigator has a point about assuming what readers know and this being a place for the less-informed to become better informed. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
"How is a npov reader, not having a Canada- or North America-centric pov, to know what it means in this particular article?" The dictionary. I don't see that its meaning here deviates from a dictionary definition, or has any peculiar meaning in the context of the article. I think you're stretching here. Willondon (talk) 00:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, you have not sourced a dictionary which could be cited in the article, and a dictionary definition is not able to assure the reader what this particular article is about and how the name or description is being used. An editor's job is to help the reader, not to be akward or to score points in a cleverness competition. Mies.'s proposed way of doing this is obviously neater for all concerned (not excluding readers). Qexigator (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
That's the whole point of not linking or citing common terms that are in the dictionary: they don't need them because they are commonly found in a dictionary. And are you suggesting we link to assure the reader that the term is being used as found in the dictionary and has no meaning peculiar to this article? When you say "An editor's job is to help the reader, not to be akward or to score points in a cleverness competition." I'm completely baffled as to what this means or refers to, (sorry). Willondon (talk) 00:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I had a similar point.
The general assumption of OVERLINK is that we must assume our readers have a general understanding of common English terms. We don't link all terms that have encyclopaedic or lexical merit just because they are present in the article. That creates a sea of blue. We don't link common terms because we assume that the reader has the ability to both recognize them and has the ability to search for further information on those terms. Links should only be used for terms that are novel or offer deeper insight into the subject of the present article. That has not been shown to be necessary here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
sea of blue: using hyperbole suggests no better point is available. Why should anyone be baffled by my point above: a dictionary definition is not able to assure the reader what this particular article is about and how the name or description is being used? Editors should not assume every reader can know as well as editors may think they know themselves how the editors are thinking. Now, instead of bickering, let us see what can usefully be done as Mies. proposes above. We can take the text as we find it and link thus:
Canada occupies most of North America, sharing land borders....
or do you feel inclined to do a little copy edit there as well? Qexigator (talk) 01:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
"a dictionary definition is not able to assure the reader what this particular article is about and how the name or description is being used" Is the term being used in a way different from a dictionary definition? The argument seems to be for a link to assure the reader that the term doesn't differ from what they would find in the dictionary. I'm confused. (not about most things, just this, and a small handful of other things) Willondon (talk) 01:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment noted. Qexigator (talk) 06:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad you've read what I wrote before and are familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I've linked the term now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment noted. Qexigator (talk) 06:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Let's go forward more constructively[edit]

Let us see what can usefully be done as Mies. proposes above. Shall we take the text as we find it and link thus:

Canada occupies most of North America, sharing land borders....

Would that suffice or should there be a little copy edit there as well? Qexigator (talk) 06:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The heading is misleading. The discussion has been constructive. The majority of the editors have been constructively telling you that linking of the continent is not appropriate all doing so will not be tolerated. You have been uncostructively telling the other editors that they're wrong. This proposal is not constructive but a back-door attempt to have your way over the consensus opinion, against the guideline that has been presented multiple times and against imminent reason.
Copy editing would be acceptable. Linking will be met with a removal based on consensus and WP:OVERLINK. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Noted, but why cavil at the heading? Qexigator (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Woah. I don't see any consensus here. I don't see where it was ever established that the link informs readers more than a dictionary would. Let's wind it back to the top of the thread. Your original edit summary argued "a reader may need to know that it is (was) not British NA nor USA, but is a geographical area containing both." My first comment was "'North America' means the continent. My dictionary has no secondary meaning for it. It is never used to mean 'British North America' or the 'United States of America', so I don't see where any elucidation is required." Can we move forward from that point, after you address the comment? Again, it hasn't been established yet that the link is useful, never mind how to apply it to the article. Willondon (talk) 09:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Please identify
  • 'consensus': where on Talk has that been manifested exactly, I have asked for that above.
  • 'majority', namely for/ against...?
Qexigator (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
A more sensitive approach to editing would be aware of the fluidity, uncertainties and unexpected ambiguities of language, and that the ordinary reader (student, young or old, journalist etc, general reader puzzled by something read or seen) may meet here for the first time the expression British North America and need some clarification about the way in which 'North America' is being used in respect of political and/or topographical entities. We would delude ourselves to suppose that this is neccessarily as self-evident to all others as it is to some. Such a reader may be more familiar, for example, with North Britain or Northern Ireland, or have habitually thought of USA as "North America" (sad but true enough, and not necessarily contemptible). It would help if editors would try and see such a problem less dismissively and with a little more imagination and respect for all sorts and conditions of readers, especially those not already sharing the pov tendency of this or that editorial opinion. Qexigator (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
To answer your question of where the consensus has been hammered-out, in the archives.
Three separate discussions. The last was so anticlimactic that I was the only one who needed to respond.
Now as per your incorrect categorization of my response as "cavil"—it was not an unreasonable complaint and taxonomy by headings is certainly important as it frames the entire discussion—I think Qexigator's response makes it even more clear. You are pushing your opinions and you need to be chastised. We were being very constructive and your suggestion that we should be more constructive moving forward is an attempt to frame the discussion on your terms. That the editors here do not accept your proposition doesn't make the discussion unconstructive. It may just be that you are proposing ideas that are ill though out. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
At last, links to the earlier discussions being relied on to support 'consensus', which certainly helps to put the present discussion on the sort of footing which the heading was calling for, whatever might be said for 'taxonomy'. Perusing the Archive, I soon came upon this statement of principle, with which I concur: This is an encyclopedia meant to represent the situation accurately for readers across the globe. ... 16:29, 1 June 2007 (but that occurred in a discussion about 'largest country', not pertinent here). I am happy to agree that those discussions tend to support the view that, while (as I and others see it) a link for North America would be in order (as proposed above) and in accord with that principle, it may be seen on balance to be inexpedient, taking one thing with another. I also noted This is probably one of the most schizophrenic articles on Wikipedia. (3 June 2007), but that may not be fair comment, or not any more. Also noted an impassioned diatribe against supposed "overlinking" in the top (17 May 2012 ). But another opined Relevance is in the eye of the reader, not the editor (18 May 2012). The points made for linking were, to my mind, more cogent than those against. Qexigator (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I will assume that you are not clear on the progress of articles and are unable to determine what an article looked like on a specific date. To that end, and to support the comment made June 3, 2007, I offer the following version of the article as it was at the end of May 2007. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
While understanding neither why that assumption was made, nor its purport, I have seen the version linked. Qexigator (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Given the various points arising in the above discussion, it looks as though tweaking 'North America' to read 'the continent of North America' would be acceptable or at least not unacceptable, and, to my mind, that would suffice unlinked, in a way which 'North America' on its own does not. Any reader needing something more could take the hint and find the article for Continent, and I surmise that what is written and linked there about 'North America' agrees with the intent of the 'Canada' article (please correct if not so). Qexigator (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
That seems a reasonable solution to me. Willondon (talk) 00:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Can we fix this please...looks like a child wrote the first and second sentences....no need to say north 2 times nor should we start the second sentence with the word "it". -- Moxy (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Not so, 'north' is not repeated, and there is no rule of grammar or style against beginning a sentence with the pronoun 'It' in a context where the noun, in this case 'Canada', is not in doubt. The present version is:
Canada is a country in the northern part of the continent of North America consisting of ten provinces and three territories. It extends from the Atlantic to the Pacific and northward into the Arctic Ocean.
That could be tweaked or rewritten in various ways, such as:
Canada is a country consisting of ten provinces and three territories located in the part of North America that extends from the Atlantic to the Pacific and into the Arctic Ocean.
Qexigator (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
"Canada is a country consisting of ten provinces and three territories located in the part of North America that extends from the Atlantic to the Pacific and into the Arctic Ocean." I like that version. Willondon (talk) 00:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The current version (as at 16.43 4 May) is now:

Canada is a country, consisting of ten provinces and three territories, in the northern part of the continent of North America. It extends from the Atlantic to the Pacific and northward into the Arctic Ocean, covering 9.98 million square kilometres in total, making it the world's second-largest country by total area and the fourth-largest country by land area. [7]

That version is, perhaps, the best so far, and this discussion could be considered closed, letting further discussion be in a new section. Cheers, all! Qexigator (talk) 06:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)