Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board

Main page

Discussion board

Notices & alerts

Article alerts

Deletion talks

Articles to improve

Requested articles

Projects & portals

Education program

Help & tools

Welcome to the discussion page of WikiProject Canada Discussion du Projet:Canada (Français) General info Members (Userboxes) Main page (Templates) Discussion board (Deletions) Notice board (Alerts - Log) Projects & portals Help & tools Education program All project pages   Announcements Article requests Articles to improve Cleanup listing Unreferenced BLPs Featured content New articles Popular pages Photographs requests Map requests Assessment log, stats, index Guidelines Manual of Style Manual of Style (Canada-related articles) Templates Project banner Infoboxes Stubs References Project category All related pages Canada Education Program I would guess Wikipedia:Canada Education Program would love some volunteers (ambassadors) and help with the overall development of this NEW program.   Welcome   Present Courses   Campus Ambassadors   Online Ambassadors   MOU   Helpful Hints   Welcome to the Canada Education Program! These pages are for students and teachers from Canadian universities. The Canada Education Program, to be started in 2011, is part of the Wikimedia Foundation's Global Education Program. The goal of the Global Education Program is to engage students and professors across disciplines, universities, and countries in using Wikipedia as a teaching tool. Want more information about the Canadian program? Check out this BROCHURE. Want to chat with someone about the program? Log on to IRC to the #wikipedia-en-ambassadors or #wikimedia-outreach channels on irc.freenode.net. Interested in joining the program? Leave a note for Jonathan Obar (obarmsu.edu), the Education Program Advisor for the Canadian arm of the Education Program. To review some examples of what's going on in our classrooms, please check out this page. Canadian Content Added to Wikipedia By our Program New Articles Media Novascotian The Colonial Advocate Upper Canada Guardian Canadian online media Mass Media in Canada Canadian political blogosphere History of free speech in Canada Impact of the Alberta Report Canadian media effect Robert A. Hackett Multicultural media in Canada History of Canadian newspapers Policy Authorship and ownership in copyright law in Canada Confusion in Canadian Trade-mark Law Defences in copyright law in Canada Defences, remedies in Canadian patent law Depreciation of goodwill/dilution in trademark law Fair dealing in Canadian copyright law Fixation in Canadian copyright law Functionality in Canadian Trade-mark Law Indirect infringement in Canadian copyright law Intellectual property law in Canada Limitations on copyrightability in Canadian copyright law Moral rights in copyright law in Canada Novelty and non-obviousness in Canadian patent law Originality in Canadian copyright law Patent infringement in Canadian law Presumption of validity in Canadian patent law Subject matter in patent law in Canada Subject matter limitations in copyright law in Canada Sufficiency of specification in patent law in Canada Trade Secrets in Canada Utility in Canadian patent law Edited Articles Media rabble.ca The Tyee People Harold Innis Michael Geist Policy Copyright law of Canada Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act Psycholinguistics Dysgraphia Eye movements in reading Learning to read McGurk Effect Rapid automatized naming Canadian Press Coverage December 2011 Victoria Handysides: Sackville Student Assignments? There's a Wikipedia Article for That, Here: New Brunswick's Urban Alternative Weekly (29 December 2011) Anonymous: Mount Allison Anthropology Students Producing for Wikipedia, Amherst Daily News (13 December 2011) Anonymous: Mount Allison Anthropology Students as Wikipedians, Mount Allison University Events (12 December 2011) November 2011 Tamara Baluja: Can you guess the top 10 digital tools in today's classroom?, The Globe and Mail (28 November 2011) Maria Trujillo: Wikipedia and Higher Education – The Infinite Possibilities, University of British Columbia CTLT (25 November 2011) Jordan Press: Wikipedia makes push into classroom, Regina Leader-Post (12 November 2011) Jordan Press: Wikipedia makes push into classroom, Star Phoenix (12 November 2011) Jordan Press: Wikipedia pushes to join classrooms, Victoria Times Colonist (6 November 2012) Jordan Press: Can Wiki be trusted in class?, Edmonton Journal (6 November 2011) Jordan Press: Wikipedia gaining respect in places of higher learning, Vancouver Sun (5 November 2011) Jordan Press: An open-sourced education: Wikipedia makes push to become staple of classroom lessons, Montreal Gazette (4 November 2011) Jordan Press: An open-sourced education: Wikipedia makes push to become staple of classroom lessons, Canada.com (4 November 2011) October 2011 Kelly Rankin: Wikipedia goes to university, University of Toronto News (26 October 2011) Wikimedia Foundation Press Coverage Wikimedia Foundation Press Page 2011 census results forthcoming The first release of the Canada 2011 Census results (population and dwelling counts) will be released in a couple weeks (unless history repeats itself, knock on wood). I wasn’t on WP when the 2006 results were released. Was there any organized or coordinated effort by the community when that data was released? Is there a desire or need? Were there any discussions about formatting and/or content consistency, whether nationwide or provincially/territorially, for the census data updates to Canada’s thousands of community/geography-related articles and lists? Is there a desire or need? I'll place a notice of this thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian communities. Hwy43 (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC) What's going to be interesting is when they start releasing the data that used to be 20% sample data (full-form census), now based on the voluntary full-form questionnaire. In particular, any trends may be hopelessly skewed. Franamax (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC) That inevitability will be confirmed upon first release of the National Household Survey in early 2013. Hwy43 (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC) I am about this far from suggesting we shouldn't even use the results from the 2010 census for anything more rigorous than 'this many census forms were returned to StatsCan.' The head of SC resigned, ffs, because of how unreliable the data will now be. → ROUX ₪ 21:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC) The first release, population and dwelling counts, is from the mandatory short form, not the voluntary National Household Survey. Let's keep this thread on the 100% (or 98.1%) data about to be released, not the NHS release in early 2013 based on a X% voluntary participation rate (where X=useless). Hwy43 (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict) Do we know if they are going to adjust the data to control for the probability of different groups returning the census? Either way, I think we should report the data, but we can no longer use it as a sole authoritative source. When possible, we should either cite a backup source that confirms their numbers or cite the 2006 data along with it. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Per above, not necessary for releases of data from the mandatory short form. We can use data from the short form data releases as a sole authoritative source. Hwy43 (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC) For other countries, we rely on their census data which in many cases surely uses far less rigorous statistical practices. What's the true population of Somalia, for instance? Regarding Canadian census data for 2011, what other source could be more authoritative? After all, no private research agency can compel compulsory truthful compliance with their survey requests either. If some well-respected researchers publicly challenge a specific published figure from the census, we could certainly cite that in the usual way that we report noteworthy controversies, but in general it would be very unhelpful to stick asterisks and footnotes on every single fact and figure in Wikipedia that uses the 2011 census as its source. And the errors caused by 2006 data being badly out of date probably outweigh the errors caused by 2011 data being collected in a less rigorous way. All in all, we shouldn't WP:POINT just to express our pique at the government. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Even more off topic, some day we should figure out a way to properly explain ethnicity data, where people can tick as many boxes as they want, resulting in 200% of the population having an ethnicity in any given table. Franamax (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Sorry to distract the thread from your OP Hwy43. I think we should just decide on a process now, in particular making sure we get everything. I wonder if a bot to update infoboxes would be useful here? As far as what's elsewhere in articles, that's going to have to be done by hand. Do we have a list of all the articles we need to deal with? We could divide that up and tick each one off as they're done. Bearcat did something like that with municipalities once, can't put my finger on the details right now. Franamax (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC) What about automating the population numbers by means of a template (similar to {{Population Dutch municipality by code}})? Then we insert the template just once in an article/infobox and only have to do an update to the template afterwards. Or what about automating the {{Canada census}} template? -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 22:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Interesting idea, but probably unworkable as I think we're dealing with a much larger dataset. And we would still have to update the footnotes. Making the conversion would be just as much work as just updating the figures too. Franamax (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC) This shouldn't be unworkable, certainly not from a technical viewpoint. We just need someone willing to write the code. I don't know HTML coding well enough to do it... -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC) For reference, I started a discussion in 2007 about the Canada 2006 Census data release (and I've been meaning to do it for the 2011 census for several weeks now). The discussion about it is in the archives. We didn't do much as a project, but we were fairly active in individually updating articles. Mindmatrix 01:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Regarding articles to update, let's start with Canada 2011 Census and (nearly) everything in Category:Census divisions of Canada. That ought to be plenty of work right there. Mindmatrix 01:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Eek. So Category:Census divisions of Canada has Category:Census divisions of Ontario as a member, which has Category:Kawartha Lakes as a member, which has, among other pages, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock (provincial electoral district) (needs to be updated) and Fire Services in Kawartha Lakes (no need at all). And that's not even getting into Category:Communities in Kawartha Lakes, nor the issues of CMAs, urban / suburban populations etc. If we just even wanted to do population and land area, where do we get that list of article names? Franamax (talk) 02:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC) I think Mindmatrix meant just the top level articles first... -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC) In particular, articles about census divisions and census subdivisions. Data sets for other geographic units will also be available (federal electoral districts, census tracts, the new statistical area classification, and the new forward sortation area tables in October 2012). See Census profile, Highlight tables and Topic-based tabulations at StatsCan for further info. Aside: StatsCan will also be updating the thematic maps and GeoSearch (hopefully with a new interface for GeoSearch, as the old one is antiquated by internet standards) and introducing other geographic products. Mindmatrix 21:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Here's a thought: if I can find someone to process the results from Special:LinkSearch for links to www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/* [1] and narrow it down to a list of article pages (ideally sorted by province), could we agree to work from that one list and classify each article as we go as "updated", "not done (wait for NHS)", "not done (reason)", "base data done, needs NHS" and such-like? Franamax (talk) 03:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Oh, good. Now the project that is often updated immediately can finally stop using ancient data that was irrelevant 4+ years ago. At least our population counts will be somewhat accurate for the next six months or so... Resolute 04:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC) I'm all for a good guideline on what exactly is acceptable as a "current" population or land area number. I'm pretty sure I can dig up a municipal planning document somewhere with an incorrect or wild-guess pop figure for 2010. Can I use that right now? Up-to-date figures are good in the artcile, isn't it just the infobox numbers we strictly restrain to be obsolete? Franamax (talk) 04:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC) (after e/c, Res has probably spotted what I meant) And wasn't there a thing recently about whether Calgary or Ottawa was the 4th-largest urban area or something? That was based on competing new population estimates IIRC. Franamax (talk) 05:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC) And lists like this. There's always room for both the last federal census, and the most recent civic census, and yes, estimate. And truth be told, in the infbox, I personally would always use most recent civic census or estimate, leaving the last federal census figure in the lead. Resolute 05:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC) So what then, latest figure published anywhere? StatsCan update, city council survey, regional government listing of cities, provincial government latest estimate? What takes precedence? Franamax (talk) 05:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Are we discussing changing WP:CANSTYLE#Population? Because I would like to see it changed as well. I believe infoboxes should be a source of quick, reliable, information, and Canadian municipalities should list the most recent census in the infobox. Only when municipalities are being compared, should the federal census be a mandatory reference. 117Avenue (talk) 05:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC) This is getting off track again. I'd be pleased to discuss what Resolute introduced and others have subsequently added, but under a different discussion thread and preferrably after this wave of 2011 census updates is complete. 2012 estimates and civic census results won't be released until the last half of 2012. Hwy43 (talk) 06:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I'm now reviewing the discussion that has transpired since this afternoon. To add to the ideas presented above, I've created the following list of Statistics Canada census subdivisions based on CSV downloads from the 2006 census that could be used as a starting point for identifying articles at the municipal (or municipal-equivalent) level. Hwy43 (talk) 06:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC) I notice there are WikiProjects for all provinces as well as one for the territories. Perhaps we should seek volunteers from each project, which are familiar with the articles within their projects ranging from their communities to their highest levels of geography, to prepare a list of articles that will require update. Existing categories and list articles will be helpful in compiling the lists. Hwy43 (talk) 06:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC) The {{Canada census}} template has been updated with a 2011 column. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Thanks P199! Hwy43 (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC) I also wonder if WP:CANSTYLE#Population shouldn't be updated. As per Statistics Canada itself, the population estimates are considered to be the accurate population figure (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/hp-pa/estima-eng.htm). I don't really see why Wikipedia shouldn't reflect the best available data. 99.255.60.22 (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC) I've just created a template that will automatically format a reference to Statistics Canada as a citation. I named it {{SCref}}, and it's still a work in progress. Hopefully, this will remove some of the clutter from articles citing StatsCan for population info. It can be used for provinces and territories, CMAs, CDs, CSDs, and FEDs (federal electoral districts). I plan to expand it to add census tracts and other units. It should also be able to handle various census years (so far 2011, but I'll be adding 2006, 2001 and 1996). If you have any suggestions, please leave them at the templates talk page. Thanks. Mindmatrix 00:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC) Very useful - thank you! I'll take a closer look at it once I'm through my to-do list and may have some questions/suggestions. Hwy43 (talk) 05:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC) I think SCref was unfinished, you were trying to turn it into a full-blown {{cite web}} citation, and it was broken. I simplified it into a plain single-bracket external link, and it should be usable. eg: {{SCref |year=2011 |unit=cd |type=prof |code=2498}} gives: "(Code 2498) Census Profile". 2011 census. Statistics Canada. 2012. http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CD&Code1=2498&Geo2=PR&Code2=24&Data=Count&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All.  -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC) I updated {{SCref}} further, and now it works for 2001, 2006, and 2011 as a {{cite web}} citation. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC) "Lac Portarè"? what does the flower repersent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.134.149.130 (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC) The inscription on File:Hang on to them - Lac Portare 1875.jpg seems to say "Lac Portarè", which doesn't exist, not to mention the fact that è doesn't make sense as the last letter. It's some Canadian lake, probably close to a Hudson's Bay Company fort. Any idea what it could be? Thanks. InverseHypercube 19:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC) It is probably « Lac Portage ». There is many Lake Portage but considering the context, it is one in British Columbia. 54.400797°N 121.627192°W / 54.400797; -121.627192 To understand the context, there is here an Inventory of sketches made by Harry Bullock-Webster. This Inventory give the title, the place and the year of each sketch. « Hang on of them » is dated 1875. Another sketch dated 1875 is « Out After Rein Deer », Fort Babine. Fort Babine is not so far. 55.317034°N 126.598892°W / 55.317034; -126.598892 Jeangagnon (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC) Yes, that's probably what it is. Thank you. I actually uploaded all the sketches by Webster; see Commons:Category:Sketches_of_Hudson_Bay_Life. InverseHypercube 03:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC) Science and Technology Recently I made an edit to Science and Technology section on the article, "Canada". It was about medical contributions made by certain Canadians. For some reason, the contribution I made was for no reason taken away. JoJaEpp (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC) If you look at this link, the user who removed it did offer an explanation. You could start a section on the talk page of the article to discuss putting it in. The Interior (Talk) 23:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC) Quite so. I also explained in more detail here. Sunray (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Canadian political office/governors/monarch article infoboxes An anonymous editor has expressed a desire to change the infobox presently used (or used until the anon changed it) on articles about Canadian ministries from Template:Infobox minister office to Template:Infobox Political post. His case is based on a desire for alignment with equivalent articles for other countries, which mostly use Template:Infobox Political post, if they have an infobox at all. However, Template:Infobox minister office is part of an infobox system coded to deliniate between federal and provincial/state ministers, federal and provincial/state governors, and the federal and provincial/state crowns; a system that includes Template:Infobox vice-regal and Template:Infobox Monarchy. It was used in articles about Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, and (perhaps) UK ministries, governors, and monarchies, though the exact extent of its use is presently unknown. The system is now used in nearly all (if not all) monarchy articles and all articles on governors of various types, at least those in the Commonwealth realms, as well as Canadian ministry articles. The anon has been urged to take the discussion to a larger forum, but has so far resisted. So, I am here to request input from members of this project, since this affects a number of articles that fall within the scope of WP:CANADA. The discussion is taking place at Talk:Prime Minister of Canada#The Infobox. Thanks. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Well, I think Miesianiacal is distorting the facts a little. First of all, I didn't resist coming here. I was fully willing to bring up the issue, but I didn't think I should until the users on the talk page felt that a proposed idea to change the Political infobox itself to include a colour icon of some sort was fully rejected. I thought were still discussing the topic, and therefore I didn't feel that it would be appropriate to bring up the issue if the users and I were going to pursue the change on a larger forum. Second, the infobox template preferred by Miesianiacal (and Miesianiacal alone on the talk page might I add) is not used with everything he has listed. Here are the facts: a) All infoboxes regarding the monarchy (monarchs, governor generals, etc. of various countries) use the template. (Template:Infobox minister office) b) The United Kingdom (besides the monarch) do not use the template what so ever, meaning the prime minister, cabinet, and other government officials do not use the template. c) Australian ministers (finance, defence, foreign affairs) including the prime minister do not use the template. d) The New Zealand prime minister does not use the template. Please note: I was the one who changed the infoboxes of the Australian and New Zealand prime ministers to the standardized one (my preference), but the users in both those countries seem to be absolutely fine with the move. Now, here are the people who do use the template I prefer Template:Infobox Political post: a) All heads of government and heads of state (that are not a monarchs), so presidents, prime ministers, U.S. governors, chancellors, AND their cabinets (Example: U.S. Secretary of State, Australian Foreign Minister, British Foreign Secretary) use my preferred template b) The countries with monarchs as head of state (Norway, Denmark, Japan, etc.) have the monarch using Miesianiacal's preferred template, BUT the prime minister or president, and government officials use my preferred template What I am essentially trying to convey is that every political government official (not monarchs), so the presidents of the U.S., Mexico, Ireland, Germany, Italy and the prime ministers of Australia, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and the ministers of foreign affairs of various countries, ALL use my preferred template. The list goes on. You can check every government official that is not a monarch on here, and you will see that they ALL use my preferred template. Here are some examples (there are many many more): 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_the_United_Kingdom 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minister_for_Foreign_Affairs_%28Australia%29 4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PM_of_India 5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_of_Defense 6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China 7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_France And those are just some. Every political infobox is the same. Although, there is one that doesn't: Canada. That's right, Canada is the only country that uses this outdated infobox for its government officials, while all the other countries have remained consistent in using the Template:Infobox Political post template. My main argument is CONSISTENCY. Wikipedia needs to be consistent, and for that to be accomplished, we need to have the same infobox for every political figure. Now, the question of if we really want to be consistent, shouldn't we change the infobox of the monarchs as well, will probably come up. Unfortunately, because all the monarchs use this template and it spans over so many countries, a lot of editors would have to be involved and the discussion would get very big. So, for a start at least, I am proposing that we stay consistent with all the political office articles on Wikipedia. Now, my issue is consistency and the fact that, to me, the old template looks outdated, but there are a number of issues outlined by other editors about the template Miesianiacal supports: 1. "I might be commenting too late, but I think Infobox Political post is better. I see no need to colour code the ministries, and it does produce a CONTRAST issue. Infobox Political post looks more how an infobox should look, and includes fields for an emblem, and incumbent since. I think we should move to this to be consistent, and get rid of these silly colours." -117Avenue 2. "I think that being standardized provides more atheistic benefit than looking nicer.. In my opinion, the default should be standardized infoboxes and that we should only use a different one if (1) the standardized one lacks a feature that would provide important encyclopedic information for Canada, and (2) that feature cannot be or won't be implemented in the standardized template." —Arctic Gnome 3. I do like the new layout, because I am not a fan of the to color lines under the title "Prime Minister of Canada", as the contrast does not meet our basic standers for color contrasts (My wife is color blind and she say's she sees no words in the 2 colored strips (see WP:CONTRAST). -Moxy The government officials of Wikipedia all use the Template:Infobox Political post template, EXCEPT Canada. Why should Canada be left out? It simply doesn't make any sense. PLEASE LOOK AT THIS. I have the support of four editors (including me) to change the current template and use the standardized template that all of Wikipedia uses. There is one person who does not agree with me: Miesianiacal. He told me that four VS. one is not enough, and that I need to consensus of this talk page. So, I ask you, do you support my proposal to remain consistent will the rest of Wikipedia? I hope I have made my agreement clear, but if there is something you are not sure about, please don't hesitate to ask. I know that was long, so thank you for taking the time to read. 174.7.90.110 (talk) 05:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC) I'd be content with either option. Your proposal per consistency or Mies' opposition per differentiating federal & provincial. GoodDay (talk) 06:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Talk about distorting facts... --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC) I see no reason why these infoboxes should be inconsistent with articles from other countries. If there is a strong desire to maintain the colour coding (something about which I am ambivalent, as there is nothing explained about such coding in a way that is meaningful or accessible to the average reader), then simply encode it into the template which is used by other countries. → ROUX ₪ 18:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC) The Canadian one is better, and not wildly different. I see no reason why consistency somehow trumps the fact that the Canadian version has functionality the other doesn't. Rrius (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC) Why do you feel the Canadian one is better? Why do you feel it has more functionality? The proposed standard infobox includes fields for an emblem and an Incumbent since. The only functionality it removes is the coloured lines that say ministry, federal, and state, which I feel serves no purpose. There is no explanation for their use in any sort of template documentation, there is no navigational use for a user, and there is also no explanation of what they mean for the reader. Wikipedia is big on consistency, guidelines, and consensus. The reason we have templates and infoboxes is that there is some consistency between articles on this project, I hope no one here is a proponent of "everyone write and own your own page, forget about what is done elsewhere". WP:IBX discourages the duplication or forking of infoboxes. We have manual of style guidelines in order that everyone can write articles in a similar layout and style, and the encyclopedia will be easier to use. We use consensus on template talk pages, and WikiProjects, to implement this consistency, and build the cohesion. 117Avenue (talk) 03:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC) Could not have said it better myself. 174.7.90.110 (talk) 03:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC) By the way, IP overstates his support among other editors, as is seen if you actually read what the other editors said at the original discussion. Also, IP flat out lies when he says Mies told him four versus one isn't enough for consensus. Mies said did not see four strong supporters and urged IP to come here. That sort of behaviour is not helpful, and I hope he or she refrains from it in the future. -Rrius (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC) Rrius, I didn't lie at all. There are four people, now five, (including me) who support the change, and Miesianiacal said "You do not have consensus. Please see WP:CON." when I politely asked him if a consensus had been reached. He told me that I didn't have a consensus, so I did not "flat out" lie. I've been civil, honest, and constructive since I brought up this issue, and I don't see Mies angry with my behaviour, so why are you criticizing me? Look, I'm new here, and I simply brought up an issue that I thought was important to address. I was definitely considering creating an account, but after being repremended for something I didn't do, and realizing the level of condescension IP users get, I'm re-considering the thought of creating an account. 174.7.90.110 (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC) Because it looks like you lied. You said above about Mies, "He told me that four VS. one is not enough..." That is not true, and you know it is not true. In the earlier discussion, before you introduced the idea that you had four supporters, he said what you quote in your contribution immediately above. You later brought up your 4-to-1 argument, to which Mies responded as follows: I see Moxy as being not entirely supportive, asking for, as I have, further input. Arctic.gnome originally stated Template:Infobox minister office looks nicer than Template:Infobox Political post. GoodDay was fine with the status quo, though didn't mount a passionate defence of it. So, I really only see two with strong support. Regardless, I still think you should be taking this to WP:CANADA to get input from the participants of that project, who oversee the improvement and maintenance of Canadian articles. At no point did Mies enter into a discussion about how many people you need for consensus. You just made that up. If you made that up in your head and believed it, I'm sorry for calling you a liar. But I don't see how you could have been having that discussion and assumed that. Perhaps you don't understand the process here. We were in the early stages of a discussion where some people supported you, one didn't, and others made noises in both directions. That is not consensus. Frankly, it is wrongheaded to claim consensus for a change when so few editors have contributed. Also, your count of four to one was misleading at best, which made the fact that you felt the need to not only mention Mies's remark about consensus, but misstate it, in setting out your case here made it look like an attempt to discredit Mies rather than his arguments. Given that, it looked like a lie. -Rrius (talk) 02:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC) Alright, I absolutely see why you think I lied, and I most definitely apologize. When I said that "He told me that four VS. one is not enough", I was trying to say that he doesn't believe a consensus had been reached. When I wrote my arguement above, I must have forgot that I talked about the four VS. one point after he had told me a consensus had not been reached. So, I take that back, but my intention was definitely not to decieve people. Again, I apologize for the confusion, and I can see why you would think I lied. As for the number of supporters, I was not lying at at all; there were four people (including me) that supported this change. Now, there are six (including me) who support the change, and two that do not. Supporters: Me, 117Avenue, Arctic.gnome, Moxy, Walter Görlitz, and Roux Opposers: Rrius, Miesianiacal 174.7.90.110 (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC) I don't ever recall stating explicitly that I support the change, only that I don't see any particularly good reasons why there should be a separate template. → ROUX ₪ 03:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC) Oh, alright, sorry. I just assumed that's what you ment. Well, do you support the change? 174.7.90.110 (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC) I support you not making assumptions. Beyond that I have very little interest in being dragged into yet more Miesianiacal pedantry and bullshit. → ROUX ₪ 03:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC) I'm sorry if I failed to assume good faith. Anyway, Mies's point was absolutely correct: you can't argue that you had consensus to change the infoboxes at all the articles based on the few people who had commented at just one of the articles. Even at this point I think there should probably be a notification at a number of the other offices. While most of the people who edit the federal articles are represented, I'm not sure that is true for all the provincial articles. Noticing all of them would be too much, but maybe we should leave notices at lieutenant governors and administrators, premiers, speakers, chief judges, and any other articles that make sense to editors here (I realise a number of those won't exist). I'm willing to do that work tomorrow, but not tonight. If anyone thinks of any other articles that should receive notice. -Rrius (talk) 04:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC) I think that's a great idea, Rrius. I mean, we already know what our views on the matter are, so there isn't really any point in debating each other if our views are so tightly held. New perspectives and more opinions will help us see what the level of support is on both sides. 174.7.90.110 (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC) Hugh McFadyen Could you take a look at Hugh McFadyen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) ? Someone is seemingly trying to whitewash the article, not for the first time either (that IP located to government offices). More eyes from people who know more about the subject would be appreciated. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 23:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Template:Music of Canada Could any brave and willing members of this project weigh in on a discussion at Template talk:Music of Canada on whether or not "God Save the Queen" is officially the Royal Anthem of Canada and whether or not it therefore should be included in the Canadian music navbox? There are a limited number of participants in the discussion, so it would be helpful to draw input from wider afield. Cheers. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC) An RfC was opened on this subject. Input from other users is still welcome, since the debate is somewhat at a stalemate and not many new opinions have been voiced for a few days. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Canadian Aboriginal Languages Wikipedia Coordination on Meta Good day, I started a Canadian Aboriginal Languages Wikipedia Coordination page on Meta to coordinate the efforts on all small wikis in Canadian aboriginal languages. You are welcome to join and bring your suggestions. Thanks you, Welalin, Amqui (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC) Proposal to re-name Natural Resources Transfer Acts I would suggest re-naming Natural Resources Transfer Acts to Natural Resources Acts. The reason for this proposal is that I checked the 1930 Federal statutes, and three of the four federal Acts are titled Natural Resources Acts, not Natural Resources Transfer Acts. I've put the citations for the four federal Acts and the equivalent Saskatchewan Natural Resources Act in infoboxes on the page. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC) • No-one commented on the proposal, so I went ahead and re-named the page: Natural Resources Acts. I also manually changed links on other pages that I was aware of; if there is an automated way to update links, could someone do so for any links I've missed? Thanks! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC) ridings: emdash. endash, hyphens See Talk:Calgary—Fish Creek, where the perennial issue of what dash to use has come up in Canadian ridings, and why an emdash is wrong according to Wikipedia's style recommendations, but is used by Elections Canada anyways, etc... 65.92.182.149 (talk) 06:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Just for clarity's sake: Calgary-Fish Creek is a provincial electoral district in the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, not a federal one, and accordingly Elections Canada's naming conventions don't apply to it. Bearcat (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Looking at the nomination, it affects other titles than just this one, with no specification that it is restricted to Alberta. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 09:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC) {{CanadaSupremeCourtbio}} I have created a new template for external links to biography pages of Supreme Court of Canada justices at the Supreme Court website. It is very simple to use: in most (but not all cases) the only parameter is the justice's surname (in lowercase). For example: {{CanadaSupremeCourtbio|cannon}} → Supreme Court of Canada biography The template documentation describes how to discover the right parameter in exceptional cases (usually it is the lowercase surname plus a number). Some (I don't know how many) external links need fixing because they use the old (now broken) /aboutcourt/ URLs. I am googling for these now. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 21:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Allegations of biased editing by political party might be worth investigating : “ Aside from being used to administer the Vikileaks30 Twitter feed, the address has been used frequently to update Wikipedia articles — often giving them what appears to be a pro-NDP bias, actions that have attracted the attention of numerous Internet observers in recent months. ” Not sure what observers the National Post is referring to, first time I've heard of the NDP editing Wikipedia. Someone with more technical knowledge than me might be able to pinpoint the IP(s), its range is supposed to be 192.197.82.0/24. It would be worth a look. (cross-posted from Jimbo Wales talk page) CharlieEchoTango (contact) 10:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC) I replied here. 99.235.194.16 (talk) 12:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC) Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act Related, I have begun a start-class article on the bill, but would definitely appreciate more eyes and participation in expanding it. In particular, someone with greater knowledge of the previous incarnations of this bill that died on the ledger at the last election(s) and someone who has a secondary source with a good, neutral explanation of the powers the bill would grant. And, of course, eyes that will have to watch for the inevitable neutrality concerns given how controversial the bill is. Including, of course, my own work as I am very aware that virtually everything I have read thus far has been negative on the bill. Resolute 00:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC) Astley v. Verdun, 2011 ONSC 3651 Would anyone interested in Canadian law please look into writing an article about this case: Astley v. Verdun, 2011 ONSC 3651? Ottawahitech (talk) 13:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC) Wouldn't it make more sense for a general article called Astley v. Verdun, rather than one of the specific rulings in the case? There seems to be two notable features of the case (which other secondary sources have commented on): 1) the amount of damages that were awarded for a defamation case, and 2) the permanent injunction the court placed on the defendant preventing him ever publishing any comments about the plaintiff. I could probably put an initial article together this weekend. Singularity42 (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC) Just found another notable person invloved in this case and added him to Robert_Verdun#publisher_of_the_Elmira_Independent - it is starting to look like this is not the end of the list... Ottawahitech (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC) I'm actually not a fan of the Robert Verdun article. Isn't the J Robert Verdun article a case of WP:BLP1E? From what I've read from the news coverage, he is self-described as a "shareholder-rights advocate", and his only real claim to notability is being the defendant in the defamation case. Once the Astley v. Verdun article is started, let's decide whether the J Robert Verdun article should be kept... Singularity42 (talk) 15:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC) Ottawahitech, you should post a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian law. PKT(alk) 16:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC) Article now been created. Discussion should continue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian law#Astley v. Verdun,. Singularity42 (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC) I have found out during my wiki-career that, unfortunately, moving discussion to article talk pages may mean that these discussions may disappear ALTOGETHER when those articles are later deleted from Wikipedia for a variety of reasons, sigh... Ottawahitech (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC) Category:The Brier Category:The Brier has been proposed to be renamed. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 February 19. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 07:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC) Discussion has been closed, the category won't be renamed. PKT(alk) 22:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC) Is Mike Myers "Canadian" or "British-Canadian"? There's an edit war about this. I'm not Canadian, so I don't know if people actually self-identify as "British-Canadian", and whether specifically Myers does. Please comment at Talk:Mike Myers. Barsoomian (talk) 05:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC) fairly complete online archives of Montreal Gazette newspaper, and many others Fairly complete archives of the Montreal Gazette are available (all the way to the 1870s) at Google.com. This seems to be something new, these pages only started turning up in Google searches recently. For instance: Abel Vineberg (May 22, 1950). "Lapalme Is Unanimous Selection As Chief of Quebec Liberal Party". Montreal Gazette: p. 1. http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=Fr8DH2VBP9sC&dat=19500522&printsec=frontpage&hl=en. Retrieved February 22, 2012.  After clicking on the above link as an example, clicking on the "Browse this newspaper" link, and then switching between Day, Week, Month, Year, Decade in the "Show" selector lets you see any day's issue. "Browse all newspapers" gives many more, for instance Le Devoir is here. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 13:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Actually, the Gazette has been online for a few years now. Several other papers (notably the Calgary Herald) had many editions from founding to 1986ish added about 15 months ago. Unfortunately, Google has discontinued its newspaper scanning project and even dramatically scaled back the search functionality. Which is a shame, because most papers are very incomplete. But, there is a great deal of information to be had. You can get to the list of papers available here, while a well typed google news archive search will bring back many results. Resolute 15:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Yeah the Ottawa Citizen is another example. You used to be able to browse and search a particular newspaper, but the searching a particular paper feature is gone now (part of Google's grand screwing-everything-up master plan that they're doing now, I imagine). Check your local library research catalogue, as many provide full archival access to local papers (eg my Toronto library card gives me access to the full archives of the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC) WP:ENGVAR Question Hey, I'm sorry to bother y'all here, but I knew of no other way to reach a wide audience of Canadians. There's an ENGVAR issue that currently exists on a few soccer templates, and it seems as though the disagreement is between Americans who follow MLS and Englishmen who live and breath football. The question is in regards to Hono(u)rs, used to refer to League Titles, Cups, and other trophies won by a team. What would be the accepted variant in Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal? (And yes, it's ok if it's not the same for all 3). Are you proud northlanders more likely to say "Awards and Honors" or "Awards and Honours"? Any help would be appreciated. Achowat (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Honours, for me. I suspect the Globe & Mail would do the same, also National Post. The Star could go either way (those are the three biggest national papers). The Sun (tabloid rag) would probably drop the u. → ROUX ₪ 19:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC) I'm not sure you will find any concensus. I'm an ex-pat Brit, so I would use honour, and get away with it, but not having gone through the education system here, I don't know if there is an official ruling on this. I did searches for honor and honour on the Globe and Mail, and honour won hands down (x10). The National Post agreed but only x2. Canadian_English#Spelling_and_dictionaries says this: "French-derived words that in American English end with -or and -er, such as color or center, retain British spellings (colour, honour and centre)." Whether any of that reflects the real world, I don't know. My impression is that anything goes, and with overwhelming US influence in the digital age, it could all be wrong. Derek Andrews (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC) We'll go with Honour then; thanks guys! Achowat (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC) We were taught "honour", "neighbour", "colour", etc during my education in Windsor, ON. It's my understanding that most of the country uses British spelling for these situations. PKT(alk) 20:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Ditto, out in Alberta. As far as I am concerned, Canadian English consistently uses -our. The Toronto Star is the biggest outlier from a RS point of view, as it consistently uses American English, I have found. Resolute 20:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Yup Canadian English is to use the u in such situations. It was pounded pretty hard into my head in school that not having the u is wrong in Canada lol. -DJSasso (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC) This explains Canadian English spelling: Canadian English#Spelling and dictionaries. Singularity42 (talk) 20:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Canadian university articles could not be edited; now fixed Apparently, the domain shanghairanking.com was recently put on the spam blacklist. Because this was linked externally from the template {{Canadian university rankings}}, this meant that any article transcluding this template could not be edited. This is an example of Wikipedia's extremely user-unfriendly handling of spam blacklisted domains, since edits to articles suddenly become unsaveable and there is often very little clue as to how to track down the problem... in this case, the text "shanghairanking" occurred nowhere within the actual university articles themselves. I fixed this by editing the template. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 03:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC) Isn't this more of a Village Pump issue then a Canadian Wikiproject issue? Singularity42 (talk) 04:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC) Where is the blacklist request? We can whitelist valid links. Franamax (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC) Meta discussion is here. Franamax (talk) 04:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC) After some quick discussion in several places, the site is no longer blacklisted, so it should be possible to re-add the template link. Apparently it might be on XLinkBot's blacklist too, so we'll have to see how that turns out. Franamax (talk) 06:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC) It seems it was added to the Wikimedia spam blacklist on December 29, 2011 (!) I'm not sure how it was that we were able to edit those articles all this time (perhaps the whitelist, as mentioned above), nor what kind of glitch occurred today to temporarily re-blacklist it for Wikipedia. I verified that it was indeed blacklisted for a time (a few hours, perhaps, as it turns out). The domain in question was also found in UK and US university templates, so someone probably would have (did?) escalate it to Village pump or higher. Anyways, it looks like it's all over now. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 09:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC) "Someone"? You're welcome. ;) Someone else did mention a problem with US templates half-way through the process, that was when I threatened to just unilaterally whitelist it locally. The response was to your post here though, I'm glad it fixed things for other countries too. Franamax (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC) BLP watchlisters, on your marks I've noted that with the emerging robocall scandal, at least one attempt has been made to give it play in our article on Eve Adams, the MP who happened to be employing Michael Sona at the time the scandal broke. As always, we have a requirement to follow WP:NPOV and WP:BLP; until such time as there's a proven link revealed in the media between Adams herself and the robocalling operation, the fact that one guy who was involved in it happened to subsequently work for Adams isn't automatically relevant to an article about her (any more than it would be relevant to Peter Mansbridge's article if Sona had happened to take a job working at The National instead.) Accordingly, I'd like to request a few willing watchlisters to help keep an eye on this. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC) User:Mindmatrix 's Template:SCref for Statistics Canada citations for census divisions, etc. This can be used for citing "Census Profile" and "Focus on Geography" data from the 2011 census. It could be extended to other census data pages, and probably other years. The nice thing is that when you edit an article, you can just look at the longish URL for 2006 and pick out the numerical code for the census division (or subdivision, metropolitan area, etc.) and then just construct the SCref call for 2011 on the spot, in the Wikipedia edit box. When you preview, you have a working link to the corresponding StatCan census page for 2011. Examples (or see the documentation page at {{SCref}}): Minganie—Le Golfe-du-Saint-Laurent (formerly Minganie—Basse-Côte-Nord) {{SCref |unit=cd |2498}} "(Code 2498) Census Profile". 2011 census. Statistics Canada. 2012. http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CD&Code1=2498&Geo2=PR&Code2=24&Data=Count&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All.  {{SCref |unit=cd |year=2006 |code=2498 }} "(Code 2498) Community Profiles". 2006 census. Statistics Canada. 2007. http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-591/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CD&Code1=2498&Geo2=PR&Code2=24&Data=Count&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All.  Toronto census metropolitan area (CMA) {{SCref |unit=cma |535}} "(Code 535) Census Profile". 2011 census. Statistics Canada. 2012. http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CMA&Code1=535&Geo2=PR&Code2=01&Data=Count&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All.  {{SCref |unit=cma |code=535 |year=2006}} "(Code 535) Community Profiles". 2006 census. Statistics Canada. 2007. http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-591/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CMA&Code1=535&Geo2=PR&Code2=01&Data=Count&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All.  {{SCref |unit=cma |type=fog |535}} "(Code 535) Focus on Geography". 2011 census. Statistics Canada. 2012. http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/fogs-spg/Facts-cma-eng.cfm?LANG=Eng&GK=CMA&GC=535&Data=Count&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All.  -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC) Thanks for fixing the problems with that template, and expanding its functionality. After announcing its existence, I completely forgot to fix the errors (after playing with it for awhile). In addition to the uses indicated above, my intention was to be able to embed it in the reference section as a named reference, or in an infobox for the area_footnotes or population_footnotes parameters. The latter would prevent infoboxes from being polluted with too much text associated with the ref. I'll extend it to handle using the ref with multiple targets, and add population centre handling too. Mindmatrix 23:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC) It now works for 2001, 2006 and 2012. {{SCref |unit=cma |code=535 |year=2001}} "(Code 535) All Data". 2001 census. Statistics Canada. 2002. http://www12.statcan.ca/english/profil01/CP01/Details/Page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CMA&Code1=535__&Geo2=PR&Code2=01&Data=Count&SearchText=&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&GeoLevel=&GeoCode=535.  -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 04:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC) Pirate Party of Canada In the past few days, members of the Pirate Party of Canada have been editing their article, making additions and changes reflecting changes to their organization. I don't really question the correctness on the changes, as I know they are more knowledgeable about the topic than I, but I am having a hard time filtering out the COI and promotion. Being a party advocating intellectual property reform, they have their own wiki, which I believe makes them experienced editors. Any help would be appreciated. 117Avenue (talk) 04:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC) Personally, I am more concerned about all the established articles that are disappearing from Wikipedia at an alarming rate. Most Canadian material will be threatened if we don't start doing something about it. Just my $.02 Ottawahitech (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Category:Canada Masters Is this the "Canada Masters", "Canadian Open" or "Rogers Cup" as a category name? See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_28#Category:Canada_Masters 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC) Popular canadian article up for deletion See: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Foot_hockey Ottawahitech (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Looks like there's lots more see:Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Canada Ottawahitech (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC) Makes me wonder why we don't have an article on shlockey yet. (https://education.spectrum-nasco.ca/product.htm?Product=PE07265E&Source=Category&Category=PE%20-%20FUN%20REC%20ROOM%20GAMES) This was certainly more popular on my school yard. -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC) Leading journal demands Harper set Canada’s scientists free Just wondering if there is already an article in Wikipedia that addresses this: [2] ?? If not, which article would you add this info to? - I would rather not start a new article because articles that I start seem to attract deletionists, and I believe this type of info should be preserved. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC) Options include academic freedom, scientific freedom, politicization of science, and 41st Canadian Parliament (and maybe 40th Canadian Parliament). CBC also had a few articles about this in the past two years or so. Mindmatrix 23:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the ideas. Here is another one I just thought of: create a criticism and controversy section in Privy_Council_Office_(Canada) (something rarely seem in Canadian government wiki-articles). What do you think? Ottawahitech (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC) Today's Featured Article for Canada Day Just wanted to give the project a heads up: Highway 401 was just promoted to FA. I intend to try and run it as the TFA for Canada Day this year, as it will be the 60th anniversary of the numbering of the route. I haven't seen any planning for another article, so I assume that at the moment it won't cause any conflicts. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Go ahead. Jarome Iginla would be a good fit too (also his birthday), but I plan on nominating Calgary Stampede for the July 6 centennial, so that might be too much Calgary for one week.  ;) Resolute 02:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Congrats on the FA! I think that's a good idea. I would just note, however, that John A. Macdonald was supposed to be the TFA for Canada Day last year, but was pulled a few days before due to a silly content dispute involving the article summary. At that time, the plan was to use the Macdonald article for the TFA on Canada Day in 2012. I have no idea if that is still the plan, but you may want to confer with User:Wehwalt who shepparded that article to FA status. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)