RE: Dom bot sur Wikidata
Title for article, "Bill 78"
Hi Arctic.gnome, I'm wondering if you could make a few comments on the the talk page for Bill 78, whose name you just changed to its official title. As I noted on the talk page there, the title should remain "Bill 78" because that's the common name, because it's short, and because the official name given by sponsors is obviously an effort to "sell" the legislation. I'd like to read what you have to write about it though, in case you are thinking of something important, and might convince me, or be convinced. -Darouet (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
List of Canadian Senators
- @Natural RX: The page still needs to be edited to show the old party membership. The article List of current Canadian senators is where we list senators by current party. The article List of senators in the 41st Parliament of Canada is more like a historical document and should list all parties that the person belonged to at some point during the 41st Parliament. See this old revision to see how Patrick Brazeau is listed as a member of two parties using rowspan. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Template:40th Canadian Parliament standings has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. 117Avenue (talk) 06:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Phi Gamma Delta page-edit
Hi Arctic Gnome, I was editing for language and grammar on the Phi Gamma Delta page, when i noticed that there was a section on hazing allegations that is not present on most other Fraternity pages. Therefore I feel that this addition adds a bias to the article that, of course, wikipedia hopes to avoid. Actually, i know for a fact that there are at least six fraternities who have faced judicial consequences for confirmed instances of hazing, but none of whom have that information posted on their wiki pages. Due to this bias toward negativity, I'd request that the hazing allegations section of the Phi Gamma Delta page be removed to avoid the aforementioned. It is especially important due to the public nature of these organizations - they rely heavily on both wikipedia and their own websites to inform potential recruits, therefore a biased slant one way or the other may cause opinion to be swayed, in opposition to the fact-presentation mandate of the encyclopedia.
- @Peraou: That's a reasonable argument, but people have been removing and re-adding that section for a while, so you should get consensus on the article's talk page before removing it. If you can get a consensus about it, we'll make it official and add it to the FAQ at the top of the talk page. --—Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)