Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Great Lakes region

The naming of Great Lakes region (North America) is under discussion at WT:USA. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 13:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

{{CanElect11}} and {{CanElect12}}

Template:CanElect11 and Template:CanElect12 have been nominated for deletion. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 07:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Shawinigan Military College

see Talk:Shawinigan Military College, where the existence and what this is, is under discussion. It currently redirects to the CEGEP, which is wrong, but what to do with it is being discussed. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 09:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a barometer of success in Canadian elections and party leadership races (according to the Globe and Mail)

For those who have not seen it, here is an interesting article in the Globe and Mail about how Wikipedia page views can potentially act as an indicator of a candidate's chances in an upcoming election or party leadership race. Not sure how true it is, but it's intriguing. The piece is written by Eric Grenier of ThreeHundredEight.com fame. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

1969 White Paper and Residential Schools in Canada

https://ryecast.ryerson.ca/42/watch/1392.aspx Justice Murray Sinclair speaks about the Residential School System at Ryerson University on September 27, 2011. He mentions the 1969 White Paper in his talk. This should be required listening for all students in the Canadian school system, and especially for university students in Education, any person considering working amongst aboriginal people in missionary work, and for all government workers (nurses, doctors, social workers). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northerngal (talk • contribs) 04:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Canadian poetry

This poor article has not improved much since 2004 when I suggested that there must be more than just English and French poetry in Canada. First Nation and Gaelic poetry has been mentioned on the talk page but hasn't made it into the article. Any Canadian literature buffs here that could improve it? Rmhermen (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

template:Financial services companies of Canada

{{Financial services companies of Canada}} has been nominated for deletion as unused. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 10:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Peer review for "Military history of Canada"

FYI, a peer review for "Military history of Canada" has been opened. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Punch-up in Piestany

The spelling of "Punch-up in Piestany" is under discussion, see Talk:Punch-up in Piestany 76.65.128.132 (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

New template

New template for Inline tags (tags added at the end of sentences) has been created that may be useful to project members.Moxy (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
{{Inline tags}}

See also: Template:Tools and Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup

Prime Ministers by the numbers

Malarious (talk · contribs) made this edit to several articles on various PMs. It removed the order and unlinked Prime Minister of Canada saying that the order was "against WP:MOS, unused and clutter." That was then reverted by 117Avenue (talk · contribs), re-reverted by Malarious and reverted again by P.T. Aufrette (talk · contribs).

None of the three appear to have made any attempt to discuss the matter. So I'm bringing it here for discussion. Should the order be in the box or not. One thing I would like a link to the part of the WP:MOS that forbids the use of it. I will notify the three editors. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty of news articles and academic papers that use terms like "the 22nd Prime Minister of Canada", so I do think that it is notable enough for an infobox, especially given that it doesn't even use an extra line. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
There is nothing in the MOS that I am aware of that would forbid that. It most definitely should be in the infobox as that is something that is quite often mentioned in both newspapers and academic works. -DJSasso (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I think that makes at least four of us who took a look at the rather long WP:MOS article and didn't see anything obviously applicable. The edit comment by Malarious in putting through his proposed mass change a second time ("Against WP:MOS, end of discussion.") was not particularly informative. I think he's going about it the wrong way and would hope for some input from him here. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 00:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
The numbering is allowed, for sure. GoodDay (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I reverted Malarious for several reasons. He didn't provide an edit summary, possibly hiding a controversial edit. He added a hidden note, indicating that there was editor consensus to not re-add it. Cited the massive MOS Wikipedia has, and not what they thinks the number infringes on. Said it was "unused and clutter", which I disagree with because the infobox has a parameter for it, and I see it widely used. The order is widely used, not just for the Prime Minister office, which means there should have been some discussion for the change. And that others would agree this was an uncalled for mass change. 117Avenue (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
My only theory for how it violates the MOS is the line from WP:IBX that reads "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose...". If that is the rule in question, then I disagree that this is too much information. If the problem is with the phrase itself, then I can't find any rule regarding titles of offices or ordinal numbers that this is breaking. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Numbering is particularly needed in the Canadian Prime Ministers bio infoboxes more so, due to the fact that they're numbered via individusal (i.e. PMs who serve non-cosecutive terms don't get counted multiple times). Unfamiliar readers would (for example) mistakenly consider Harper the 28th PM. GoodDay (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Halifax, Nova Scotia

I thought the discussion over Halifax, Nova Scotia was finished in December, I seemed to have triggered the discussion again. 117Avenue (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Eyeballs please

Resolved
 – Wasn't as bad as I thought. Franamax (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Stepping AFK just now, but could some people have a look in on Thomas Mulcair? I think there may be some political spin entering here, outside views would be appreciated as to whether or not this article is being skewed by political operatives, given the obvious context of the NDP leadership campaign. Is there a stable version that could be reverted to and semi-protected to push discussion onto the talk page? Thanks! Franamax (talk) 00:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

proposed move: Official Language Act (Quebec) → Bill 22

See Talk:Official Language Act (Quebec)#Requested move (rationale and discussion). -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

hot chicken sandwich

I'm trying to properly source the traditional Canadian dish "hot chicken sandwich" for wiktionary. Can anyone help? wikt:WT:Requests_for_verification#hot_chicken_sandwich (it's called "hot chicken" in French... which also needs sourcing; and probably the related sauce used on the sandwiches "hot chicken sauce")

70.49.124.157 (talk) 09:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

River Canard

I recently made an edit to a variety of paragraphs relating to this subject. The text appearing in Wikipedia relating to Family Clan Government, Economic Development and Automotive Riots do not seem based in any published history on the area. References to spaghetti trees, muskrat farming Beneteau/Bondy feuding, etc. appear to be a fabrication. Hence the reference to a well-known historical text of the area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1978J10 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You should add a similar comment to the talk page of the article, rather than here. PKT(alk) 18:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for assistance

It's been brought to my attention that there may be a significant WP:COI edit war going on at Peggy Nash, for the obvious timely reasons. I've editprotected the page for the time being, but due to the scope of the problem it may take a few editors to sort out what's worthwhile editing and what's tendentious POV-pushing from people who are either pro- or anti- her leadership campaign. Any takers? Bearcat (talk) 06:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to Re-name Official Language Act (Quebec)

There is a proposal on the Talk page of this article to re-name it - comments welcome. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Template change

An editor, 174.7.90.110 (talk · contribs), has just changed multiple instances of {{Infobox minister office}} to {{Infobox Political post}}. I'm not sure that it's a improvement but what does anyone else think. They also added the COA which in some cases didn't have a fair use rationale. I got some but there may be more. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 11:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Nova Scotia , Misleading information,(Unconcored ) Mikmaq nation

The MikMaq nation was not concored , but made friendship treatys. (Ian ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.44.92.112 (talk) 16:56, 5 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 | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ? 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)

"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°24′03″N 121°37′38″W / 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°19′01″N 126°35′56″W / 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)

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:

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 :

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)

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. 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)

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)

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)
Toronto census metropolitan area (CMA)

-- 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.
-- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 04:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

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'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: "Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 16 (Code 2498) Census Profile". 2011 census. Government of Canada - Statistics Canada. 2012. -- 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Cleanup listing for WP Canada

User:Svick maintains an excellent tool that identifies articles with maintenance tags on them. Since Wolterbot has been gone for two years and therefore the subpage has not been updated, I asked Svick to set WP:CANADA up for his cleanup listing. So if you are looking for an article in need of help... dig in. Resolute 18:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Very cool. Is there any way I can link this tool on my userpage? The Interior (Talk) 18:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I think you could only link to the output the report generates. It is hosted on the toolserver, so I don't think it can be transcluded. Resolute 19:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
If I may make a request: the link provides *all* articles tagged by the project that need cleanup, which results in a daunting list (over 23,000 articles). Can the tool be changed so that it provides partial article lists, like 100 at a time? PKT(alk) 20:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if the tool can do that. I suspect this is just a raw report. One of the links adds a .csv download link, so you could break it into chunks that way. Myself, I tend to periodically go after categories with small numbers. Resolute 00:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion

I have restarted a discussion at Talk:Canada's Top 100 Employers#Merger Proposal proposing that BC's Top Employers, Manitoba's Top Employers, Saskatchewan's Top Employers, Greater Toronto's Top Employers, and Waterloo Area's Top Employers be merged into that article. This merge proposal has been on the backlog since 2009, so I would like to see a resolution soonish. I am prepared to carry out any merge that is required, but I would like input as to whether a merge is merited on the talk page, the previous proposal died without any comments, and I am not prepared to merge WP:BOLDly in this case. Thanks, Quasihuman | Talk 16:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Template for Legislation

I would like to propose a change to the images template for infoboxes for legislation: Template:Infobox_legislation/images.

The template currently uses "Parliament of Canada" for federal legislation, but "Legislative Assembly" for each of the Provinces and Territories ("National Assembly" for Quebec). The problem with this term is that the proper term is the Legislature: the legislative assemblies by themselves cannot enact legislation, as it requires royal assent by the Lieutenant Governors. "Legislature" is the term used in the Constitution; see Constitution Act 1867, ss. 69 (Ontario), 71 (Quebec), 88 (Nova Scotia and New Brunswick); Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 5, 32, 33.

I would suggest changing "Legislative Assembly" to Legislature for each of them, but didn't want to tinker with such an important template without a consensus. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Renaming of Ontario unorganized territories

See Unorganized North Cochrane District for example and the talk on Talk:Unorganized Kenora District. Can you point me one reference using the name "district" for those unorganized territories (who are actually part of a district) ? The way I see the titles now, it's like if those are actually districts, which they are not, because the word "part" has been removed. Amqui (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

For the example you pointed out there, it is the Unorganized northern portion of Cochrane District. StatsCanada website gives these places indexable names, but in all technicalities these are simply the vast areas of land lacking any sort of municipal organization, including naming (see Place Names of Ontario, a book found at the Ontario Archives as well as in many local libraries around the province). The north could possibly uncapitalized, in this case, to make it more apparent that it is a descriptive title. The old titles were unweildly. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not saying to revert to older titles, but we could use Unorganized North Part Cochrane District or something alike to make it apparent they are not a district nor even the globality of the unorganized territory of the concerned district. What I'd like to see is how those unorganized territories are refer to in official publications other than Statcan ? Amqui (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I've been pretty hard pressed to find sources online regarding this. StatsCan is the only body that names the areas and further subdivides them into smaller areas. When you perform searches for the term or variants, most sources refer to areas in northern Ontario lying outside of municipalities as simply "the unorganized areas of [the district]".a good example - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Then perhaps we should only have one article for unorganized territory of each district and have sub-sections within for the different census regions ? Amqui (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

You're a little late to the discussion Amqui, see Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 12#Unorganized areas in Ontario. Adding "part" to the title doesn't work for areas where there is no cardinal direction, such as Kenora. Furthermore, it is not necessary for the title to explain everything; the articles makes it abundantly clear that it involves only part of the district. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 21:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm only talking about the ones who include a cardinal direction. The title for Kenora is clear as it is right now since it includes the whole unorganized territory of Kenora District. Since our only source on the subject is Statcan, I think we should use Part where they do. Amqui (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Entering this discussion late, just like I did the last time. At Unorganized North Cochrane District, I see revising the lead to state "Unorganized Cochrane North Part, also known as Cochrane, Unorganized, North Part, is an unorganized area in the District of Cochrane..." would allow a reader to quickly determine that the descriptive title of "Unorganized North Cochrane District" means "Cochrane, Unorganized, North Part" as named by Statistics Canada. Hwy43 (talk) 06:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I think we should find another source besides StatsCan in order to proceed. Unorganized areas of Foo District would make some sense if my hunch is correct, and would eliminate confusion that it is a proper name. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 07:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
My only concern with Unorganized North Cochrane District is that it's an original research since the only source we use says North Part. Amqui (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Doing some internet digging, I've come across the term TWOMO: Territory Without Municipal Organization. The use of Nipissing North (TWOMO) is mentioned in this report.[3] Original research doesn't apply to article titles, as they can be descriptive or achieved through editor consensus. Personally, I'd like to stay away from the index card like names given by StatsCan if it is at all possible through some other alternative. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
If we stay away from the Statcan's names, there is no reason why to keep more than one article for each unorganized territory per district since they seem the only one to make that "arbitrary" division. Amqui (talk) 03:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, there is. As I stated in the previous discussion: Although these subdivision may be created by Statscan, they are also used by other agencies and ministries. Besides, it has long been established that we make separate articles for each census subdivision, including unorg. areas (like Quebec). Merging them inhibits a clear distinction of the areas concerned. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 12:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
But if they are arbitrary for indexing purposes, why would we create two articles for what is really one area without municipal organization? I'd even challenge the names given by Statscan as being arbitrary, as these places aren't named (unless a law has been passed to name them); they're the parts of the district that haven't been subdivided in any way into lesser subdivisions. I'd also challenge the notion that we make separate articles for each census division; precedent can be broken, and it makes sense here. I highly, highly doubt there was ever a law passed to subdivide these unorganized territories and name them (required for them to be individual entities or subdivisions), in which case StatsCan is just indexing; StatsCan doesn't have the legal authority to create jurisdictions, so we can't rely on them to validate the existence of separate entities. There is no clear distinction between different unorganized parts in many cases, except for these StatsCan divisions (which we are relying too heavily upon here). The entirety of a district that doesn't have organization is the unorganized area of that district; not, outside of organized areas, the remaining land of the district is divided into unorganized areas. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 14:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

First, we don't know if they are arbitrary. Second, by taking this position, you are also starting another open-ended discussion for which consensus will be difficult to reach. Because if we are not using StatsCan as our standard, what other guideline do we have to come to a final decision (one that will not be challenged every time a new editor comes along)? I see no problem with relying heavily on StatsCan; many other organizations do that as well, therefore WP statistical data for CSD's should match it for consistency. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The definition webpage[4] of "census subdivision" from the 2011 census states the following.

"Census subdivisions (CSDs) are classified into 54 types according to official designations adopted by provincial/territorial or federal authorities. Two exceptions are 'subdivision of unorganized' (SNO) in Newfoundland and Labrador, and 'subdivision of county municipality' (SC) in Nova Scotia, which are geographic areas created as equivalents for municipalities by Statistics Canada, in cooperation with those provinces, for the purpose of disseminating statistical data."

This indicates that all but two CSD types are classified based on official designations adopted by a level of authority that is not Statistics Canada. Only two types of CSDs are created by Statistics Canada (in NL and NS), and even those are created in cooperation with provincial authorities. Thus, Ontario's various CSDs that are unorganized territories or parts thereof must be designated by some authority other than Statistics Canada (presumably a ministry of the province or less likely a federal ministry).
Based on this, I support the existing state – separate articles for the separate parts of Ontario's unorganized areas and separate articles for each CSD. Hwy43 (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

So, if that's the case, they are using official provincial divisions, I would assume they are also using official provincial names, so why don't we use Statcan's names ? It's either one or the other. Amqui (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Canadiana

With the cessation of Britannica's print edition, I noticed that we don't have Encyclopedia Canadiana as an article. I remember seeing such a beast in my highschool library way back when... 70.24.245.141 (talk) 07:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately, this is not the only gaping hole in Wikipedia. Why not join Wikipedia and contribute your first article? Ottawahitech (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Just published! Could someone rate this?

Hello,

I just published an article I've been working on for a week or so, Princess Theatre, Edmonton. I believe it's in the scope of your project. Would anyone be able to go over there and rate it for me?

--Rawlangs (talk) 05:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Shucks. Only a B? Could anyone let me know what would have to do to get this up to GA, A, and higher? If the article is breaking any formatting guidelines, I would be happy to fix them. If it's the copy, let me know! I'll go over it again. I'm still learning here and any help would be appreciated. --Rawlangs (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
One suggestion: Wikipedia standard for references isn't really to use minimal footnotes that merely allude to the reference in question, and then have a separate list of the actual references; rather, they should be combined so that the complete reference information is included directly in the footnote. That is, instead of having a footnote that reads "CBC News, 2010" and then forcing the reader to seek out an entry for "Demolished theatre subject of 2 lawsuits". CBC.ca. CBC News. 25 February 2010. Retrieved 18 March 2012. in another section of the article, the footnote itself should be "Demolished theatre subject of 2 lawsuits". CBC.ca. CBC News. 25 February 2010. Retrieved 18 March 2012. Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
On the contrary, the citations follow wikipedia's manual of style exactly. I read all of the advice on footnoting and citation I could get my hands on. Wikipedia allow several styles of citation, providing that only one style is used in any particular article. I chose WP:CITESHORT in order to logically arrange and improve the precision of my citations. The article cites more than fifty sources. These are arranged alphabetically below the list of footnotes. The point of the style is to allow the user to arrange citations both in the order of citation, and alphabetically. I copied the style after seeing it used in the featured article Tom Swift, which I referred to for best practices when I was building my reference list. --Rawlangs (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
To get higher than a B class article, you need to subject it through community peer review processes at WP:GAN and WP:FAC (I don't believe WP:CANADA has an A-class system in place). Be sure to give WP:WIAGA (What is a good article?) and WP:WIAFA (What is a featured article?) a lookover, as they will give you an idea of what is expected of such articles to pass nominations. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Audrey McLaughlin

Does anyone have a photo of Audrey McLaughlin? The NDP party article and the bio both are missing photos. 65.92.180.131 (talk) 03:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Caterina Fake

Caterina Fake is a co-founder of Flickr (from Vancouver) and I had always assumed she is Canadian. Turns out she is only listed as an American? Ottawahitech (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Location and nationality don't really have any direct relationship. If the sources claim only that she is American, that is all we claim. Resolute 22:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. If she was born and raised in the United States, then she's an American who currently resides in Canada; until we can locate a reliable source specifically confirming that she's formally taken Canadian citizenship, that isn't the same thing as being Canadian. Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Monarchists r us

In the past couple of days, there's been an anonymous IP who persisted in adding both Jack Layton and Thomas Mulcair to Category:Canadian monarchists, even though Layton's views on the subject were at best ambiguous and Mulcair's are entirely unsourced. What I've noticed, however, is that of the 34 articles now remaining in the category, there's a much larger sourcing problem — I've randomly checked eight of them now, of which seven contained no reliably sourced indication of the subject's views on the subject one way or the other, and just one contained a source to properly support the categorization.

Accordingly, I'd like to request some assistance: every article in the category needs to have at least one legitimate source added to support the person's categorization as a monarchist, or else it needs to be removed from the category if such a source cannot be located. Is anybody willing to help go through the category to do sourcing checks? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

SNC Lavalin scandal

I noticed there's a SNC Lavalin scandal, and it isn't about one of the accounting scandals at SNC, nor is it about Libya... seems like disambiguation is needed, and some more articles? (like for Libya?) 70.24.244.198 (talk) 11:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

  • I think the title is generic enough to add other scandals as new subheadings. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 21:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Anything to do with Category:SNC-Lavalin is starting to attract more scrutiny (and vandalism), and it looks like this is only the beginning... The whole area requires MAJOR cleanup if we want visitors to be left with positive feelings towards Wikipedia. Just my $.02 Ottawahitech (talk) 12:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

inaccurate listing of political position of liberal party of canada on wikipedia

The political position of the Liberal Party is listed as Centre to Centre-Left on the right hand side of the wikipedia entry. Also in the Wikipedia text it states "In the conventional political spectrum, the party sits between the centre and the centre-left.[2]" This is inaccurate according to the reference that is being used, which says the following: "Ignatieff: Liberal party is a ‘coalition of the centre’, Ignatieff says ‘big red tent’ needs left and right votes". Toronto: thestar.com. "We have to stand in the centre, drawing people from both sides of the political spectrum." Taking this reference into account a more appropriate statement would be "In the conventional political spectrum, the party sits in the centre.[2]", or alternatively "In the conventional political spectrum, the party sits between the centre-right and the centre-left.[2]" Thus, it's political position should therefore be changed to "centre", instead of "centre to centre-left" in the box on the right hand side of the wikipedia entry, as well. Taking into account that the NDP is listed as centre-left and the Conservatives as centre-right on their respective entries, which are appropriate, then the Liberal Party's political position within the Canadian political system should be that of preferably only "centre" or alternatively "centre-right to centre-left". This change would be more appropriate than what is listed now when taking into account the Ignatieff reference. Please provide feedback. --Electoralpolitics (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC) Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Electoralpolitics (talk • contribs) 20:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC) --Electoralpolitics (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the left-right scale is that it is routinely inaccurate. Personally, I would not trust the party's own members self-definitions as that is all electioneering. Case in point was the last election, where the Liberals seemingly moved away from the centre, and toward the left to try and combat the NDP, only to have it backfire. This despite Ignatieff's own statements. The source used in the example may be inaccurate, but I think the overall view point is not. The Liberals have traditionally been described by independent pundits as Centre-Left, and I suspect that would be fairly easy to source. I also don't think that is a negative thing, really, as it implies a broad spectrum of views, which would be consistent with the party's claims. Resolute 22:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Electoralpolitics, but could you find some sources outside of the party's own claims? Thank you. InverseHypercube (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Some edits coming our way

UBC's North American Environmental History course will be adding some substantial content to some Canadian topics over the next three weeks. A list of the articles can be found at the course page here: Wikipedia:Canada Education Program/Courses/Present/North American Environmental History (Tina Loo). There are some ambitious and substantial expansions/new articles involved on really interesting topics. Posting here to request a few more watchlisters on these articles; the students have received some good instruction on WP rules, but wikiexperts they are not. Any help would be appreciated. The Interior (Talk) 07:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully it won't turn out like the university experiment last summer, with many copyvios. There's bound to be some though if each student is assigned a unique article (the slackers of the class). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes we are going to have to watch out for copy vios from our students. Noticed one today (as seen here) copied from the CBC archives ... All the articles listed under these courses will soon be edited.Moxy (talk) 02:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Need to deleate these rediects

We now have redirects to Cats in many articles because the redirects below were made to eliminate red links despite them not actually going to articles. I brought them up for deletion but I guess noone replied so they were kept. Need to fix this as the articles will never be created if they are redirects and the fact that peopple will link these up not realizing they lead to cats over articles. Moxy (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Re-targeted to Category:Monuments and memorials in Canada - more specific PKT(alk) 20:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments required at WikiProject Quebec

Additional input is requested for the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Quebec/Archives/ 1#Quebec infoboxes. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Canadian Forces cleanup noted at WPMILHIST

Please see WT:MILHIST, where there is a cleanup request for Canadian Forces categories. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 04:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Unsupervised class project

Hey all, could someone take a look at the group currently editing Saskatchewan? It appears to be a university class of some kind, but they're not listed at either WP:SUP or WP:CEP, and appear to be rather unsupervised. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

At first glance, the entire climate change section they've added needs to be split to a separate article and only summarized in the main Geography section. They are going to lengths such as explaining that agriculture is one of our oldest economic activities, and without agriculture we would experience food insecurity (!). That hardly seems like summary (or Wikipedia) style. Franamax (talk) 05:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Vimy Ridge Main page tomorrow

For tomorrow the Battle of Vimy Ridge article has been chosen to be featured on the main page. I recommend giving the article a look over before it runs. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

It's been proposed to re-name "Balfour Declaration of 1926" to "Balfour Report"

The proposal is currently being discussed on the Talk Page for Balfour Declaration of 1926. I oppose the request myself; the reason for it appears to be that those who are interested in the Balfour Declaration of 1917 seem to think that it should be the only Wikipedia page that uses that term; see the Talk Page for the Balfour Declaration, which until a few days ago was "Balfour Declaration of 1917". Comments on the proposal welcome. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I've just now posted a request on the Balfour Declaration page that it be reverted to "Balfour Declaration of 1917" with a disambiguation page for the two Balfour Declaration articles. Anyone interested in this issue should look at the discussion on both pages. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 09:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Boeing Vertol CH-113 Labrador

FYI, the Canadian Labrador helicopter article Boeing Vertol CH-113 Labrador, has been proposed to be merged to Boeing Vertol CH-46 Sea Knight, the US military article. 70.24.248.211 (talk) 07:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

"the US military article" I feel I must protest this characterisation - It is the main article of the whole type for the US, Sweden, Japanese, and civil Canadian examples as well - It isn't just the US military article. Kyteto (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Bathurst Island

Bathurst Island was moved, so the incoming links need to be repointed to Bathurst Island (Canada), for those that refer to the Canadian island (or repaired, if it's about other islands Bathurst) 70.49.124.225 (talk) 06:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Bathurst Island (Nunavut) is the direct link. PKT(alk) 12:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Hmm... that wasn't the outcome of the RM request... seems like it was moved twice. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 04:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Don't really see it as being that big a deal. Just on the off chance there is another one in Canada, couldn't find one, it will save a move later. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 Canada

Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 will be a global public photo contest/project aimed at historic monuments, organized by various Wikimedia chapters and groups. In 2011, there were 18 participant countries in Europe, and in 2012 it looks like there will be at least 31 participating countries, including Canada.

The focus in 2012 for North America will be historic sites designated at the national level. In Canada, that will be National Historic Sites of Canada (the intention is that subsequent years will focus on other types of historic sites).

Given that there are just under 1000 NHSCs in Canada, it seems shocking that we not have articles or images for hundreds of them. The main objective of Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 is to significantly improve our collection of images and other media related to NHSCs, and to hopefully subsequently build on that exercise to improve the body of articles on Wikipedia pertaining to NHSCs.

Anyone interested in this project is welcome to join us at Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 Canada. All levels of participation/input are welcome! --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Big Dan Mine

Hello. Could someone please do a peer review for the Big Dan Mine article? The peer review can be found here. Thanks. Volcanoguy 22:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Canadians

Looking for input at the Canadians article. Question is does the article need an etymology section. Pls see Talk:Canadians#Etymology.Moxy (talk) 06:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

CTV News Montreal

I've just noticed that someone recently created an article about CTV News Montreal, which I wanted to bring here for some discussion. Firstly, the article is sourced almost entirely to invalid primary sources, such as subpages of CFCF's own website and YouTube clips, and cites very few, if any, real reliable sources that are properly independent of the subject — and secondly, this raises the question of whether articles about individual Canadian TV stations' local newscasts are the kind of thing we should even be doing at all.

So I guess my first question is: do we even want this, or is there a consensus to agree with my own first impression that this is a giant piece of WP:AFD bait? And secondly: even if we do want this kind of thing, is anybody willing to help clean it up with real sources? Bearcat (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, Pulse News (the most identifiable name associated with this program) is pretty famous in the Montreal area, so there should be many outside sources for it, in English and French. Considering it used to have the highest paid anchor in Canada (including national broadcasts), means that it's a hefty program. So, while most local newscasts are not that notable, that cannot be applied to all local newscasts. And probably not to CFTO's newscast either. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 04:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Pulse News is pretty famous in the Montreal area. And secondly, I worked very hard to find sources, and perhaps they are rather primary. But still, I worked very hard on that article and I would like to see it go on. It took me a long time to find appropriate sources; the Youtube one can be deleted it's not that important. But alas I don't want to see my hard work go down the drain. We can try and clean it up. Creativity97 (Talk) 16:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

@Bearcat; I don't have a problem with this subject matter. There is certainly precedent for creating articles about local news programming (eg; CityNews, CP24 Breakfast, The Morning Show (Canadian TV series), & the contents of Category:Local news programming in the United States), and while I certainly understand Wikipedia:Other stuff exists I suggest long-standing local news programming has more notability than many short-lived, nationally-televised programs for which Wikipedia has articles. PKT(alk) 17:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, for what it's worth, the difference is that CityNews is technically about all the local newscasts that have ever aired on Citytv — even though TO's the only market that still has one today, it's still one article about the entire set of shows that have ever existed under that title, and I would be distinctly unwilling to support splitting it up into separate articles for each individual CityNews. And for The Morning Show, I'll admit that I created that myself — but I did so at a time when the sources were implying that it was a national show, not a TO-specific one, and I wouldn't have created it at all had I known what I know now. But at any rate, the primary problem here is the lack of reliable sourcing — an article that's sourced almost exclusively to the topic's own web page is distinctly unacceptable no matter how notable we may think the topic should be in theory. Bearcat (talk) 02:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Aulavik National Park photo needed

We have images of every Canadian national park except Aulavik National Park. Granted you can't just jump in the car and take a shot as you drive by, I hope we can find a freely-licensed image. I found none in a quick google search and sent emails to the only two users on Flickr who have images but neither has been active recently. Perhaps Parks Canada would relicense one or put us in touch with someone willing to upload a personal photo? Rmhermen (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Wallace Wilson

I've got a problematic article that I need some assistance with. The article Wallace Wilson, which describes the subject as a former Canadian senator and MP in the 1800s, was created yesterday by User:Spoonkymonkey. However, since the creator left the article uncategorized, I've had to attempt to track down additional information (what province Wilson actually represented, etc.) in order to figure out how to correctly categorize him — and that's where the first part of the problem comes up. So far I've checked our historical lists of MPs and senators, the articles on the 2nd and 3rd Canadian Parliaments and the lists of historical MPs and senators on Parliament's own website, and in fact none of them indicates that anyone named Wallace Wilson has ever served in either house of the Canadian Parliament at all. (There were two people in Mackenzie's government whose surname was Wallace, but neither of their biographies fit this one, and nobody whose surname was Wilson or whose first name was Wallace.)

The user doesn't seem to have a history of creating deliberate hoaxes, so I'm not prepared to assume that's what happened here — but this does bring up the second part of my problem: based on other aspects of his edit history, I have some reason to believe that he's a user I've had disputes with in the past under a different name, who would be especially unlikely to take me seriously if I asked him about it directly.

Thus, I need some assistance from the political history junkies on this one: can anybody assist in helping me to figure out whether this is

  1. a valid article about a real person which got posted at an incorrect name in error,
  2. an actual historical oversight involving a legitimate person who somehow got missed on Parliament's own list of past members, option ruled out; I've found online copies of the Canadian Parliamentary Companions contemporary to the years in question and they all utterly fail to list a senator or MP named Wallace Wilson either;
  3. an accidental conflation of two different people, or
  4. a full-fledged and deliberate hoax?

Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I get absolutely no hits doing an archives search for "Wallace Wilson" on the Library and Archives Canada website, a result which seems highly unlikely if this person has actually been an MP, a Minister and a Senator. The only Google result for "Minister of Provincial Railways" is this article. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I see the article has now been PRODed.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The Parliament of Canada website maintains a database of all MPs past and present. There was no MP named Wallace Wilson, and no Senator either. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is the complete list of Senators appointed in 1867. There's a Charles Wilson, who doesn't fit the bill (no stint as an MP, etc). -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

War of 1812

After looking at a few articles for the war, I noticed that that some talk pages complain about US bias, or UK bias, or lack of Canadian content... perhaps this should be something that WPCANADA takes up as a COTM (improving all the 1812 war articles), since this is the bicentennial year (for the first year of the war), and that Canadians generally believe that Canada won the war (while Americans also believe the same thing)...

70.24.251.208 (talk) 12:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Ted Opitz

Another situation that's going to need to be watched out for over the next few days. Despite today's court decision overturning last May's election results in Etobicoke Centre, MP Ted Opitz has eight days to decide whether or not to file an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada — which means that at least for the moment, he's still the incumbent MP for at least another week. However, several articles have already been edited to reflect the seat as being already vacant — so we're going to need to keep an eye on this.

I'm not entirely clear on whether he'll still be considered an incumbent MP for the duration of the appeal if he goes ahead with it, or whether he'll be an "unseated" MP who will then be reinstated if the appeal goes his way, but hopefully the media coverage will clarify that — but if he decides not to proceed, we can definitely denote the seat as vacant as soon as he announces that. But either way, our articles should continue to reflect him as the incumbent MP, not as an unseated one, at least until such time as his decision on whether or not to appeal is announced.

Accordingly, the following articles need to be carefully watched by as many people as possible over the next few days:

It's also worth noting that at least one of the editors in question portrayed the situation as being connected to the robocall scandal — however, it's a completely separate issue pertaining to possible voter registration irregularities committed by Elections Canada, which has nothing to do with robocalls (and which is therefore another issue to watch out for.) Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

FLRC

I have nominated List of post-confederation Prince Edward Island general elections for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyone? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Should the article on the pre-1942 Conservative Party be merged into the article on the Progressive Conservative Party

It appears that the adoption of the prefix "Progressive" to the former Conservative Party was largely a name change but not a change in the fundamental organization of the party, Conservative members simply became Progressive Conservative members. Furthermore the PC Party always stated that it was the same party as the one founded in 1867 - then called the Liberal-Conservative Party. Also note that even though the pre-1942 Conservative Party was originally called the Liberal-Conservative Party from 1867 to 1873 that there is no separate article on the LC Party. At the 2003 PC leadership convention I recall viewing on TV a logo emblem at that convention that showed the dates "1867-2003". I am suggesting that it appears that the Progressive Conservative Party was the same party as the Conservative Party of 1873-1942 and the Liberal Conservative Party of 1867-1873 and that the article on the pre-1942 Conservative Party should be merged into the Progressive Conservative Party article. I would like to hear other views.--R-41 (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I agree that the old Tories should be merged into the newer Tory party article, unless we separate out the even older Tories (Liberal-Conservative) as a separate article. If we do the later case, then each era should be a subarticle of another article. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, the 1942 party was not a new party but simply a new name for the old Conservatives.Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 05:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

List of ice hockey teams in Saskatchewan at WP:FLRC

I have nominated List of ice hockey teams in Saskatchewan for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Canadian cuisine

The categorization of Canadian cuisine was broken. I've recategorized it under Canada templates and Cuisine templates, though there might be a better categorization to choose.

Due to contentious editing at Template:American cuisine, this has resulted in the deletion of the image at the Canadian cuisine template. It might be a good idea discuss whether to keep the image or not, and someone should watch the template to see if further contentious editing at American cuisine results in spillover to this template. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 11:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Sunwapta Pass, Alberta

The article on Sunwapta Pass, the boundary between Banff and Jasper National Parks, lacks a photo. I located an outstanding photo of the pass on Google Earth [5] but I don't know how to add it to the infobox. Perhaps someone could add the photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.141.160.164 (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry that image can't be used unless it is released under a compatible licence. Usually a Creative Commons license that allows the image to be used for commercial purposes and can be changed. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 02:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Quebec referendum, 1980

For over a year, this article has contained a blank map of the referendum results, rendering it completely useless. Unless the data can be added, I think the map should be deleted. Compare to map at "Quebec referendum, 1995". 174.93.215.12 (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II

Is Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II really "mid-importance"? It seems to be "low-importance" since it is not the investiture of a new monarch, or death of one. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 08:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Importance can be time-sensitive. In the long-term that article will probably be low-importance, but for the next couple weeks lots of people will be reading it, so it's kind of important. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

FLRC

I have nominated List of Yukon general elections for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyone? (tap, tap, is this thing on?) The Rambling Man (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Paulson, Manitoba

I started an article on Paulson, Manitoba with coordinates from the Atlas of Canada and a 1942 reference from the Montreal Gazette. The article might benefit from the attention of editors who are familiar with Dauphin, Manitoba and the surrounding area. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I have added a few more parameters to the Infobox, and also substituted a reference to the Geographical Names Board of Canada Canadian Geographical Names Database using the {{CGNDB}} template. One can search the database here. If a place or geographical feature is named in Canada, this is a great resource at which to find it. Clicking on "Info" in a search result gives the full details, including the unique identifier parameter needed by the CGNDB template. There is also a link to a Toporama map centred on the place of interest at the Atlas of Canada. --papageno (talk) 20:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal

I'm coming here with an appeal for some outside input at Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal, which falls within the scope of this project. There seems to be a few problems, but proper resolution of them is being hampered by a disruptive anonymous editor who persistently reverts and refuses to engage in discussion at the talk page. I don't want to here promote any one side of the disputes; I would just like more eyes on the page and/or input in the discussions. Cheers. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

An RfC has been started at Talk:Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal#Article arrangement. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Canadian psycho and Canadian Psycho

Canadian Psycho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Canadian psycho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) currently redirect to Luka Magnotta; but there have been many "psychos" in Canada (such as Kimveer Gill, or Robert Pickton), so, shouldn't these point somewhere else? (like a list) or should they even exist? -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 00:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand your point, but Magnotta's the only one of whom I'm aware who has picked up that nickname in the press. I think the two redirects are terrible, but unless somebody else does something heinous and picks up the moniker, I guess the redirects are acceptable. PKT(alk) 14:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
There is a lot of a BLP issue here. Certainly he has been called that in the press, which is why I'm not going to simply speedy delete the redirects, but he has not been convicted of a crime as of yet. This may be worth bringing up at the BLP noticeboard to see if there is enough merit to retaining these redirects. Resolute 16:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Candidate Infobox

Is there a infobox for people who have ran as candidates in Canadian elections? I have looked but all I found was one for the United States. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

There's {{infobox candidate}} ... 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
70.49.127.65, that redirects to the infobox for actual office holders, which Newfoundlander&Labradorian is aware of. Newfoundlander&Labradorian, there isn't one, because a person doesn't get an article just for running, {{Infobox person}} is used for most professions. Is there an issue I'm missing? 117Avenue (talk) 06:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed articles of people who have run for elected office who have no infobox and I had seen the US version so I was just wondering if there was one for Canada. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 11:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
{{Infobox candidate}} can be used as seen at Template:Infobox officeholder/example#Nominee/Candidate. It is a little US-centric, but it can work. Graham11 (talk) 21:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

"Transport" or "Transportation"

Currently, our head categories are called "transport", while most of the subcategories are called "transportation". A category rename request has been opened to see what they should be called. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 June 25. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 03:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Perth requested-move notification

A requested move survey was started at Talk:Perth_(disambiguation)#Requested_move, which proposes to move:

Background: There was a previous requested-move survey which ran from late May to mid June. There was a great deal of controversy surrounding the closure and subsequent events, which involved a number of reverts and re-reverts which are the subject of an ongoing arbitration case. There was a move review process, which was closed with a finding that the original requested-move closure was endorsed; however, the move review process is relatively new and untried. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 04:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

List of city nicknames in Canada

This list article needs serious cleanup. In particular, references based on reliable sources (not user-generated media such as blogs, forums, tweets, etc.) for the hundreds of nicknames are required, as well as weeding out editor-derived/questionable nicknames from the genuine nicknames of widespread usage. I've cleaned up the Alberta section, and am looking to the members of the Canadian WikiProject to help out with the rest. I'll post requests for help on the provincial/territorial WikiProjects as well. Thanks, Hwy43 (talk) 07:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

bump. This matter could benefit from more work. PKT(alk) 22:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board/Archive_16&oldid=1142510865"