Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board

Discussion du Projet:Canada (Français)

Archives
Index (Note that this index must be updated manually each 6 months)

Archive 1 (2004) • Archive 2 (Jan - Jun 2005) • Archive 3 (Jul - Dec 2005) • Archive 4 (Jan - Jun 2006) • Archive 5 (Jul - Dec 2006) • Archive 6 (Jan - Jun 2007) • Archive 7 (Jul - Dec 2007) • Archive 8 (Jan - Jun 2008) • Archive 9 (Jul - Dec 2008) • Archive 10 (Jan - Jun 2009) • Archive 11 (Jul - Dec 2009) • Archive 12 (Jan - Jun 2010) • Archive 13 (Jul - Dec 2010) • Archive 14 (Jan- Jun 2011) • Archive 15 (Jul- Dec 2011) • Archive 16 (Jan - Jun 2012) • Archive 17 (Jul - Dec 2012) • Archive 18 (Jan - Jun 2013) • Archive 19 (Jul - Dec 2013) • Archive 20 (Jan - Jun 2014)

Talk page archiving

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

 Doing... → ROUX ₪ 01:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing (???) that ClueBot burped? The weird thing is that it's a redir to the right place. I wonder what would happen if you deleted the /001 redir? → ROUX ₪ 01:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll give that a try and see what happens. Bearcat (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Didn't work, so I've asked the maintainer of the archive bot for advice. Thanks anyway. Bearcat (talk) 01:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

As noted above, 001 redirects to 1 as a result of archive page renumbering in 2006 (hence a move and redirect). The bot is likely doing a pagename prefix search in the talk namespace of Toronto, and picking up anything of the form "Talk:Toronto/Archive" as an archive of discussions. In order to fix some of this mess, we'll have to move the archive pages and delete the remaining redirects, being careful not to break incoming links. I'll look into it. Mindmatrix 02:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I got rid of '001', now we need to fix the 'Archive2' and 'Archive 2' pages. Mindmatrix 02:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Numbering is now correct, and the sequence is chronologically consistent too. Mindmatrix 15:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Mercy buckets. Bearcat (talk) 04:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I broke it... my bad - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 13:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Ten lashes with a wet noodle for you! (Just kidding.) Bearcat (talk) 04:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Bot to autoassess articles in Category:Unassessed Canada-related articles

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

No objection here. How often would the bot be re-run.......monthly, perhaps? PKT(alk) 15:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, maybe monthly or every 2 months. –xeno^talk 16:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Any idea when the bot can be run? I'm curious to see how many articles it assesses. PKT(alk) 15:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The bot is running now and should assess around 1072 of 1474 unassessed articles. –xeno^talk 18:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

•  Task complete. 1,068 edits. –xeno^talk 15:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Canadian Deaflympics

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

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

Given the very limited amount of coverage that the event typically receives, I'd be very surprised if we could actually cobble together enough legitimate reliable sources to actually do this. Bearcat (talk) 05:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I would be happy to help with articles on these topics in the scope of WP:CSPORT. HalifaxRage (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

nice, I see you already created the Paralympics article... 70.29.210.242 (talk) 07:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Paralympics

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

Canada at the Paralympics

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

Given the very limited amount of coverage that the event typically receives, I'd be very surprised if we could actually cobble together enough legitimate reliable sources to actually do this. Bearcat (talk) 05:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

That would be unfortunate, considering that we're hosting it in a couple of weeks. There was all that press about Chantal Peticlerk a few years back, and Rick Hansen, and there's that Canadian Olympian in Vancouver who's also staying for the Paralympics. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 12:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Very true. I mean, there's almost certainly going to be enough reliable coverage to write up this Paralympics. What I'm less confident about is whether we have the sources to write up a really good history of Canada at the Paralympics in general. And I don't mean to suggest that it shouldn't exist, because it absolutely should. But in a society that grossly undervalues the achievements of our Paralympic athletes, it's really only been in the 2000s that the Paras have even received much media coverage at all — so it's going to be harder than doing that for the regular Olympics is. That's all I'm saying. Bearcat (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

French in Infoboxes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whatever you guys think is correct would be greatly appreciated.

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

The editor in question should be reported at WP:ANI, and French should generally not be used (unless the official name includes French, such as Toronto). That's why we have a French Wikipedia. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, my understanding is that French should only be included in the infobox if that's a "native name" of the place. By that reasoning, many locations in Quebec would have their English names with their French names below, but places like British Columbia would have only English. TastyCakes (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

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

I only noticed the french names recently. I removed them yesterday, User: Freshacconci re added them. I removed them again with an explanation. He re added them again and became quite rude. I decided to stop and ask the experts here, I would hardly call that "removing them repeatedly". If Freshacconci is such an experienced contributor he should know better than to remove civil comments of another user on a talk page. (and then re add them once I ask about reporting him). I am only trying to get a consensus on the issue. not to start a fight. Like I said earlier if they are added to the Provinces what's to stop people from adding them to every city, town, village article on here ? No offence to anyone but French wikipedia is there for french users. Po' buster (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, no disrespect, but you shouldn't have removed them the second time. It would have been better to go to the talk page (or come here, as it is more centralized) at that point. Keep in mind that the French names are official names for the provinces, a somewhat different situation than if it was a mere translation. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ckatz; per WP:BRD once the bold changes (Po' removing French) are reverted (by Freshacconci), you should move to discussion. Since the French has been in the articles for quite a while (since 2008-12-15 for NFLD), there is implicit consensus for including it, and its removal requires new consensus if challenged. -M.Nelson (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

PS Ckatz, can you come up with any archived discussions on this issue off the top of your head? -M.Nelson (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Comment: I have a few thoughts on this issue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By saying Canada is bilingual implies that every Province and city should be listed bilingually. The only "officially bilingual" Province is New Brunswick. Beside NB and Quebec no other Province or City, Towns within it should be listed bilingually or the door opens for fully bilingualism. To say Saskatchewan is more or less french than Nova Scotia would be bold, and incorrect. Po' buster (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not what they're saying. They're saying that if a place has an official name in English and French that both should be in the infobox. Most places outside of French Canada do not have official names in French, the exceptions being Federal entities (provinces, museums etc). Not sure it'd be the way I'd do things if I were starting from scratch, but there's certainly some logic to it. TastyCakes (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

And what I said was that IMO, French names, regardless of the officialness or non-officialness thereof, should be listed only for those provinces, cities, whatever, where the French name is different in form (i.e. "Greater Sudbury" vs. "Grand-Sudbury"), and not for places where the only difference is the word for what type of thing it is (i.e. "city" vs. "ville", "province of" vs. "province de", etc.) And as far as cities go, the state of having a French name that actually differs from the English name in a significant enough way to merit having both in the infobox actually affects maybe seven or eight cities in the entire country, all of which are officially or functionally bilingual places anyway.

You're arguing against an abstraction here, however, as nobody has actually asserted "every province and city should be listed bilingually" — although we haven't all drawn the line at exactly the same place, everybody in this discussion has asserted some form of "it should be present in some cases and not in others".

Oh, and by the way, the words "province" and "city" are not capitalized if they're not appearing in the proper name of a specific province or a specific city. That is, we write "City of Toronto", but "no other province or city". Bearcat (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you on the "type" of thing (although there are exceptions, like City of Ottawa (the rare example where we have an article on the corporate entity) or articles on upper-tier municipalities such as Prescott and Russell United Counties, Ontario). But officialness or non-officialness is relevant, as this debate will inevitably drag in non-place article subjects. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Canada may be officially bilingual, but that is of no import on Wikipedia. (And before any Francophones get up in arms, I love and cherish our nation's French heritage and champion bilingualism, despite my atrocious French, whenever I can. My Canada includes Quebec!) This is the English Wikipedia, and as such, English must take dominance. Unless the placename is explicitly in French (Trois-Rivieres, etc), it should be in English. On the French Wikipedia, the opposite obtains, naturellement. → ROUX ₪ 07:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This being en: certainly means that English should be given precedence over other languages; it doesn't mean that names in other languages can't or shouldn't even be mentioned. Bearcat (talk) 08:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

English is added here and here, not here or here. Seems they give both names except where the difference is minor (ie an accent). TastyCakes (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Check out the inconsitancies at both Wikipedia's concerning the Montreal Canadiens & Quebec Nordiques infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

True, French Wikipedia only gives those names in French, but they do that at all hockey teams, for example here and here. TastyCakes (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I was shocked to have discovered that, earlier today. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Fair enough, but it's a bit of a moot point as nobody is advocating full bilingualism. What I consider important is the official name(s), period; if there are two official names, regardless of language, we should list them. If an official name is only in non-English languages, then it should be translated (since this is ENWP), and it is not appropriate to translate to a non-English language (again, ENWP not multilingual WP). I think that the French Wikipedia should be doing the same thing, but even though they aren't, there's no reason why we should stoop to their lower (in my opinion) standards. -M.Nelson (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Well said, M.Nelson. I'm extremely puzzled as to why the practice over on the French Wikipedia is relevant here. If the French wikipedia article on British Columbia doesn't have a section on demographics, do we delete the demographics section here in our B.C. article? We should be making content decisions based on our policies, guidelines and consensus, not on the basis of some quid-pro-quo with other projects. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

As to the comment "the whole world isn't French/English", nobody has suggested that it is. Nobody is suggesting that we provide translations of names for the benefit of readers across Canada. We are talking about basic, elementary facts about the article subject -- for example, the fact that B.C. has two equally valid official names - British Columbia and Colombie-Britannique - remains the same whether the reader is in Chicoutimi, Victoria, Warsaw, Mexico City or Mumbai. It's a key legal fact. Nobody is suggesting that we provide a translation service. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Who's to say what is "official" and what is not. Perhaps at the municipal level it may be City of Regina, and at the Federal level it may be City of Regina / Ville de Regina. Po' buster (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

"Ville de Regina"? Uh, no. Official provincial or city names are well-documented in law. They are not something open to interpretation by imaginative Wikipedia editors. PKT(alk) 18:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The official name is the name under which it is established -- in the case of a city like Regina, it would be the provincial statute or charter that established the municipality. It has nothing to do with the various names in various languages that public authorities may use to refer to the municipality. Regina wouldn't have an official name at the federal level, because as a municipality it is the creature of the provincial government. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Fench should only be included where it is relevant, which outside of Quebec, is quite rare. Resolute 19:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

How would an official name not be relevant? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I could do without the condescending comments PKT, I'm trying to make a valid points and have a good conversation/debate. And Cities are not "owned" or "run" by the Province, they are corporations overseen by the Province.I agree with Resolute, french is really not relevant outside of a french named regions. Sure it is an official name, IN FRENCH. We use the official names in english on ENWP. Po' buster (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobody said that cities are, quote, "owned" or "run" by the province; PKT and Skeezix said that the official names are documented legally in, among other things, "the provincial statute or charter that established the municipality", which sounds pretty legit to me. -M.Nelson (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not what I'm getting at. I'm saying they are corporations, they follow no guidelines with naming. A town in Ontario with 60% french residents could have an english only title, and a town in Alberta with 0% french residents could have a bilingual name. To remain consistent across the board english should be used only.Po' buster (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course they follow guidelines for naming. They have a piece of paper that says what their name is. You can go ask to look at it. If the piece of paper says they have two official names, that's what we should report. Franamax (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agreed! The piece of paper can say "City of Calgary", "Ville de Calgary", or "Poopsville" for all I care; they should be included nonetheless, and editor discretion/common sense (or perhaps some unknown guideline, or perhaps some new guideline) will decide that "City of Calgary" goes at the top. NOTE THAT I'm not sure if there is currently consensus for "Ville de Calgary" to be included even if it is an official name -- I'm pretty sure that the Grand-Sudbury consensus says no -- but I think it should. -M.Nelson (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Calgary isn't the best example, because it is Calgary is both English and French (as Bearcat mentions above, the "City of" part isn't something we would typically include in the lead or infobox). As for Greater Sudbury, the article should be titled Greater Sudbury, the city should be referred to throughout the article as Greater Sudbury, but the lead and/or infobox should mention that the municipality has two official, equally valid names:Greater Sudbury and Grand-Sudbury. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

That brings up the question, is the official name "City of Calgary" or simply "Calgary"? If it is "City of Calgary", then that (in my opinion) should go in the infobox (as it does now). If there is an official French version of the name ("Ville de Calgary"), I think that this should go in the infobox too. The actual names don't matter to me at all; unless they are identical, both should be included. -M.Nelson (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not relevant because this is is not the French Wikipedia, and the French name is completely unused in English. Resolute 19:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Po'buster, I don't agree with your point. Official is official, regardless of language, and should be reported/reflected as such. PKT(alk) 20:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It so happens I am a municipal lawyer. Municipalities are corporate entities, but they are established by provincial statute. The statute sets out the legal name(s). Even if they were a business corporation (just for the sake of discussion), set up no differently than any company, the articles or incorporation would still establish the official name. This isn't something that is subject to various interpretations. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Would you also agree that municipalities and their various corporations are "creatures of the province"? Franamax (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are routinely described that way. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not relevant because this is is not the French Wikipedia, and the French name is completely unused in English. Resolute 19:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

An official name is always relevant, whatever language it is in. If two official names exist, both should be shown. The English part of en:wiki just means that we give prominence to the English form of the name. Franamax (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Franamax; I agree wholeheartedly. PKT(alk) 20:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I also agree that it is important to include the French names when they are official. - SimonP (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree as well. How can the full extent of the legal name not be relevant? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Becuase the French translation is just that, the accepted translation. To use the British Columbia example that was mentioned to start this debate, the only parts on the BC Government website that even include the option of viewing in French are pages dealing specifically with official bilingualism and French education. Otherwise, even the government itself views French as an irrelevancy. Resolute 00:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not an "accepted translation" - it's the official name. Please read the comments above. The Constitution creates the province as "Colombie-Britannique" as much as it does "British Columbia". Neither name has greater legal validity than the other. The fact that I have a nickname which I use exclusively does not change the name on my birth certificate. Similarly, the fact that the BC government offers limited services in French does not alter the fact that the province has two official names, one in English and the other in French. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Please indent your comments to make clear what you are replying to, or put new aspects to the thread at the bottom. For what goes where, shoot 'em all and let {{Infobox settlement}} sort it out. Compare the use of parameters at Shanghai for instance. A good example to look at though is Brussels, an officially bilingual country, where the official names are shown in all languages. The difference here is that one of the two languages already is English. For QC, I would think maybe name=Quebec City and native_name=Ville de Quebec. Using name= instead of official_name= is a finesse to recognize the fact that in Canada, the official name is indeed whatever the provincial government says it is, we don't want to refight the language wars, so let's just use name=. For entities which do have two official names, such as British Columbia, regardless of what the template docs say, we should always use both official names with a line break in between and the English one shown first (IMO). Franamax (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Both of your examples of are of countries where english is not an official language. I can see adding them in that case, but when english IS an official language they don't need to be included. Po' buster (talk) 13:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Dublin may be a better example, although I don't think its infobox has been formatted as nicely. TastyCakes (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Putting aside the debatable and irrelevant "where english has no rights what so ever" point, the examples that Po'Buster has identified are pretty clear cut. As per WP:CANSTYLE, we'd use the name most common in English, and we'd also specifically mention their official name where it differs from the English usage.

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

My comments weren't "debatable and irrelevant" about Quebec articles. If you didn't understand them I will rephrase them. In Quebec French is the only language. They did not sign the constitution act (82). The cities and towns (to my knowledge) do not have official english titles. What happens then ? I am not arguing, just wondering.

Also you use very vague language in your arguments which avoid the topic completely. You said "where there is/are official name(s) that differ(s) from the English usage, mention it/them in the lead and/or infobox" Well that is the argument right there. I don't think anyone is arguing about mentioning them in the lead/article, it is whether they should be mentioned in the info box . "And/or" voids your argument. Po' buster (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure the point is debatable (I didn't say I didn't understand it) - restrictions on some uses of English does not equal "no rights". And I'm certainly entiled to speak to the issue of whether or not Quebec's language laws have any bearing on this issue. The one thing I honestly don't understand is how Quebec's refusal to sign the Constitution Act has anything to do with this.

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

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

The problem with places in Quebec isn't French vs. English officialism. While there hasn't yet been a clear consensus on how to deal with the problem, with the result that there are a variety of approaches used in different articles, the problem is that the word ville doesn't have a clean, consistent English translation. It means both "city" and "town", and there are no objective criteria for establishing a distinction between the two. So in many cases we would have to apply some sort of arbitrary and self-invented rule (which would constitute original research, a no-no on Wikipedia), to decide whether any given ville is a "city" or a "town" in English. But it has nothing to do with privileging the French name because of language rights — it has to do with the fact that there's no clear and unambiguous way to determine whether it's the "City of Gaspé" or the "Town of Gaspé", "City of Sherbrooke" or "Town of Sherbrooke", etc. So while there are a few obvious cases (I don't think anybody would ever seriously propose that we describe Montreal or Quebec City as "towns" instead of "cities", for instance), we admittedly haven't yet figured out a consensus on how to deal with it — with the result that the infoboxes for villes in Quebec aren't as consistent as they should be. But it's not an issue of official language — it's a lack of clarity about how to translate ville into English. Bearcat (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

um well we should obvi translate "VILLe" to "VILLage" since they r so similar -M.Nelson (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is insisting that we use "City of..", "Ville de..." in the infoboxes or the article. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 01:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, actually some of the Quebec infoboxes that Po' mentioned do have Ville de.... But I should also point out that M.Nelson's edit summary made it pretty clear that he was joking and didn't mean that suggestion to be taken seriously. Bearcat (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

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

This has absolutely nothing to do with bending over backwards or accommodating other languages. If the article subject has official names in more than just English, we should mention it. That's all. I'm not sure why it matters a whit what they are doing on the French Wikipedia. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 01:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It should matter, as all are under Wikipedia. We shouldn't be mentioning other languages (sourced or not). Can ya imagine what the top of the infoboxes would've looked like if we had to have 10 or more names? Even the 2 names are crowding each other. GoodDay (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you name any Canadian topic that has 10 or more different official names in 10 or more different languages? If you're really that determined to use "slippery slope" arguments as a scare tactic, at least choose a slope that could actually occur, not some wild imaginary scenario we're never actually going to face. Bearcat (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thankfully, there's not 10. If there had been 10? these infoboxes would've been over-crowded (less we hurt anyone's feelings). GoodDay (talk) 01:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for anybody else's ideas about what should or shouldn't happen here — but the suggestion that I made would require maybe 15 to 20 Canadian geographic articles to contain two names, while the vast majority would still contain just one. And while practice on fr: shouldn't dictate what we do on en:, as you've already noticed fr: does include the English names for places whose English and French names aren't the same. I'd note, as well, that en: does already include official names in Inuktitut for places such as Iqaluit and Nunavut. Is there a really compelling reason why we should do that, but not include official names in French for places which actually have them? Bearcat (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I was pleased to see english used at provincial infoboxes at French Wikipedia, though they weren't used at NHL team infoboxes. Inuit names are used? ahhhhhh. GoodDay (talk) 02:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's be clear here, fr:wiki does what ever it decides and en:wiki does whatever it decides. There is no quid pro quo. They make their own decisions based on the needs and consensus of their own language wiki, and we do the same for ours. I'm quite sure their discussions are just as passionate, but they're different. Franamax (talk) 07:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice, if EN:WP would decide to delete non-english from itself. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay, I DISagree with that completely. I can live with anglicization of non-english names for the convenience of EN:WP users, but other languages deserve recognition in appropriate circumstances. PKT(alk) 18:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The other languages can have their places on their respective Wikipedias. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Possible Solution

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

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

The french should be removed (if there's an english translation) from the Quebec cities articles, too. GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Po' buster, your idea is OK. GoodDay, your suggestion makes no sense. Are you saying that if a city in Quebec has an English translation we should use that, even if it's not official and rarely used, rather than the correct French version? What about places outside Quebec who's name is French? something lame from CBW 22:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

If they got an english name? use it, let the French Wikipedia have the french names. Atleast make the english names prominant (in the infobox). GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

So Montreal would be Mount Royal? freshacconci talktalk 00:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No Montreal would be Montreal, instead of "Ville de Montréal". Po' buster (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Montreal would be as follows -- the title and the body of the article would refer to Montreal, as that is the most common English usage, but the lead and infobox would also refer to the official name in French. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I checked up on Moscow, Tokyo, Helsinki etc etc. Non-english is being used in alot of 'city infoboxes' (too many for me to imagine). Atleast let the english version be the most prominant. GoodDay (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually Po' buster according to GoodDay's comment Freshacconci is correct. Montreal would be Mount Royal, possibly with Montreal in smaller wording, but what GoodDay still needs to explain is what happens to non-Quebec cities who's names are in French, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario for example. Also what about cities with names that are neither English or French? Such as the well known city with a Latin name? something lame from CBW 12:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

:) --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Where there's an english version, make that version prominant in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Guys, there would appear to be consensus that we don't need "City of...", etc. (although I note to Po'Buster that the places at issue extend outside of Quebec). But there isn't consensus to eliminate all references to non-English names. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

So can we begin to remove "City of" from Canadian City articles ? Po' buster (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No probs here & don't forget to make the english prominant. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

So in other words make sure that "Saint Marie's Waterfall", "Queen, Saskatchewan", "it looks like a caribou" and "Our Lady of Perrot Island" are prominent in their infoboxes. Never mind that those names are never used, make sure that English prevails over common sense and accuracy. Or we could go with common sense and accuracy and do something similar as with places like Kugaaruk, Nunavut and have Notre-Dame-de-l'Île-Perrot (Our Lady of Perrot Island). something lame from CBW 23:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No one is Proposing changing city and town names. Just using the english spelling. Montreal instead of Ville de Montréal, Sault Ste. Marie would remain Sault Ste. Marie because that is it's name. It wouldn't magically become Saint Marie's Waterfall. I truly don't understand why this subject is so hard to comprehend. Removing "city of" and "ville de" and using non accented spelling. Not that difficult of an idea. Po' buster (talk) 00:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say anybody was suggesting that we change the names. Just that the unused English names are made prominent in the infoboxes possibly to the exclusion of the original and official non-English name. As you can see from french shouldn't be added to the Infoboxes at English Wikipedia. Same goes for all languages., French should be removed from all infoboxes on English language Wikipedia (let alone Canadian related infoboxes).,We shouldn't be mentioning other languages (sourced or not)., It would be nice, if EN:WP would decide to delete non-english from itself., The french should be removed (if there's an english translation) from the Quebec cities articles, too. and If they got an english name? use it, let the French Wikipedia have the french names., it would appear that the total removal of all non-English is exactly what GoodDay is suggesting. While they are not saying we should change the names they are saying use only the English translation. something lame from CBW 13:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I've modified my stance (earlier). I'm saying, if non-english is necessary? fine. If there's an english version, make the english version more prominant. GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus yet for making English more "prominent" - whatever that means in practice. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

There does appear to be, as Po'Buster, has suggested, for removing the type of thing from city and town articles - looking through the discussion above, nobody appears to object to that (You can't do it for every place article, as upper-tier municipalities typically require the modifier). That change alone would probably eliminate most of the dispute. However, I just want to point out that in the case of Montreal, for example, that means eliminating the first two words of "Ville de Montréal", but there is no consensus on removing "Montréal" from the lead or infobox. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

As long Montreal (minus the accents) is prominant (i.e. larger lettering) in the Infobox, then that's cool. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no qualms with that. Whatever the title of the article, which is almost inevitably in English or an English version of the name, it should be be in larger lettering. I'm so happy that we've been able to find grounds upon which to agree! Thanks for your efforts on this one, GoodDay. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No probs, it was the Infoboxes at Moscow, Mexico City and Tokyo that modified my stance. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you've changed from the exclusion of other languages in the infobox but do you still want the translations like "Saint Marie's Waterfall", "Queen, Saskatchewan", "it looks like a caribou" and "Our Lady of Perrot Island" there as well? And do you want those prominent or if the translation is required should it be in the body of the article, which is my preference? something lame from CBW 16:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

On those? either way will do. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Recap

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

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

I would agree with those guidelines, although they don't really change anything very much. So is "City of Toronto" to be changed to just "Toronto" in the infobox ? "City of Vancouver" to Vancouver ? I am also a little worried about communities outside of Quebec having french in the infobox. Such as Sudbury. I am still for moving it out of the infobox completely, but maybe I can live with smaller text.

Also I requested a french article to be moved to it's english spelling already. Communauté métropolitaine de Québec to the english version Quebec Metropolitan Community, it was moved no problems. User:Skeezix1000 moved it back and said it needs to be discussed and a consensus reached. This move is not debatable, there is a common english title. If every move and spelling change like this needs to be discussed, what was the point of this long winded discussion/debate we just had ?Po' buster (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason to make a Quebec and everywhere-else split. If the region has a sizeable francophone population with a respective French appellation, it should be mentioned, not removed. In the case of Sudbury, as per my above-mentioned guidelines, both "City of Greater Sudbury" and "Ville de Grand-Sudbury" should be listed in the official_name field, and subsequently name should be "Sudbury" only, with settlement_type set to "City".

As for Communauté métropolitaine de Québec, can you actually prove that the translation is more common in English? I ran a comparative search, and obtained 148 GHits for "the Quebec Metropolitan Community"[1], and 1180 GHits for "the Communauté métropolitaine de Québec[2]. Remember, usage comes first. — Io Katai ᵀᵃˡᵏ 21:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Remembering my earlier comments regarding "english has no rights in Quebec". There would be very few provincial or any municipal documents referring to the area in english. English has been almost "outlawed" by the Province. So that would explain the hit differences, even though it is the english usage. And yes the french spelling is definitely the more common due too the area's francophone community, but that isn't relevant. It is the common "english" reference, not the"most" common. Po' buster (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Po' buster, you seem to have now confirmed [3] what I had a nagging suspicion of all along. You think there is a "french agenda" at play and presumably you think this must be countered by erasing French wherever you can or else it's going to take over. You do indeed seem to want to re-fight the language wars, or perhaps you never stopped fighting them. Please try to separate your ideology from your comments on encyclopedic content. Franamax (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm having really strong User:DW flashbacks here, actually. Bearcat (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You're constructing yourself a false reality. Laws of a region have nothing to do with usage. In French, the same type of rules apply. If a predominant French usage exists, then the French name will be used, otherwise the name of the region, entity, word or whatnot remains in English. Does this stem from the fact that French has no rights elsewhere than Quebec? No. It comes from common sense, so leave your biased politics aside. Not everyone will readily associate with the English translation, so you need to stick with the usage that is the most common. Not your personal preference. — Io Katai ᵀᵃˡᵏ 22:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Io Katai, your guidelines are good except point three and four contradict each other. Point four should be changed to something like: "The infobox should reflect this (i.e. the usage) by displaying the most commonly used name (preferably but not necessarily an English version, if one exists and is commonly used) more prominently (name), especially over alternative (other_name), native (native_name) and official names (official_name)." That stops things like name=many fish official_name=Iqaluit —Preceding unsigned comment added by CambridgeBayWeather (talk • contribs) 23:26, 1 March 2010

Heh, yeah. I shouldn't have used the word guideline in my earlier post, it was more of just a recap of all the previous comments plus my own thoughts, but thanks for pointing the ambiguity out. — Io Katai ᵀᵃˡᵏ 00:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Greater Sudbury, I don't actually have any issue with doing that — in fact, I've tried to do it on several occasions, but for some reason infoboxes never seem to work properly when I add or fill in a settlement_type field. I'd actually appreciate it if somebody who knows what I'm doing wrong could help me fix that, because I do want that infobox to be consistent with others. Bearcat (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Io, that's a good recap, and I'll take a closer look at it shortly. Thank you for taking the time to condense the discussion.

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

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

You can make whatever remark you want, but I just recapped the entire discussion that had previously occurred, and touched-up on a few details that I noted on other non-Canadian international articles such as Beijing, Phnom Penh, Bangkok, Kabul, Tokyo, Moscow and New Orleans. The discussion is always open to new proposals, but so far you seem to care to only want to translate everything into the English language irregardless of what any other editor on Wikipedia has to say. Remember, it's a collaborative encyclopedia. If you would like third opinions from people who aren't trying to "push the 'french agenda'", then feel free to invite them over to this page. Cheers. — Io Katai ᵀᵃˡᵏ 02:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have an actual source to demonstrate that people actually call it the "Quebec Metropolitan Community" in English, or are you just assuming that anglophones will always prefer an English translation? It's not enough to say that "because this is the English Wikipedia, we have to give everything an English name" — you have to provide actual sources to prove that "Quebec Metropolitan Community" actually predominates over "Communauté métropolitaine de Québec" in actual English usage. It's not our role here to invent alternative names for things; our role is to reflect the names that are actually in use. So the onus is on you to prove that "Quebec Metropolitan Community" is actually in use in reliable English sources. Or are you going to propose that we invent a new English name for the Bloc Québécois too? Bearcat (talk) 02:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Are you completely insane, or just partially? Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Je suis partiellement :) Po' buster (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

For some reason I have an urge to dig out my old Cheech & Chong recording of the interview with the lumberjack, "ehh dere, by golly Jock". :) I wonder if I can find it, I think it might be on Big Bambu. No reflection intended on any editors here, it's just that I used to know the whole thing by heart. :) Franamax (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Try actually reading what's actually being said to you. Because you're committing the classic fallacy of building your own strawman and arguing against that. Seriously, nobody has suggested that the infobox on Toronto needs to contain Ville de Toronto. Bearcat (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Lol, relax Bearcat, I’m just having a little fun with you. I haven’t suggested that the infobox on Toronto needs to contain Ville de Toronto either. But if Toronto adopted a bilingual name I’m sure it would go up there according to some.

I will explain myself one last time. (Even though I said I was done with this ridiculous argument)

The French spelling is of no relevance to an English speaking person. Official name or not it shouldn’t be in the infobox unless the original and common used spelling is in fact french. If not it should be mentioned in the article only. Why would anyone english care that the French spelling of Sudbury is “Ville de Grand-Sudbury”? If in fact that is an official name, then it could be mentioned in the article that “in French” the town is called ….. Especially if it isn’t even an official name like “Nouvel Ontario”. That should not be in the info box

Every example of an international article with bilingual infoboxes is because the original spelling is foreign. (Ex:Brussels, Beijing, etc.) If the original spelling is English or has been anglicized for generations it does not need to be shown in French. It is completely useless, clouds the infobox, and makes for inconsistencies with other Canadian geographic articles. Keep it in the article. Po'Buster out ! Po' buster (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, not trying to be confrontational, but please don't generalize your personal opinion as if it were an absolute for everyone. The French name may not be relevant to you, but it certainly is for others. In sorting this out, we have to avoid rejecting material for personal reasons. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Pre-Final

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

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

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

I would prefer something like this:

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

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

Po' buster, you have the same problem with item 2 that I noted before, and item 5 says the same thing as 2. They should be something like "The infobox should reflect the most commonly used name, in English if possible, more prominently than any other names. If the official name is not in English and a commonly used English name is available then that should prevail, with the other language name given below. If there is no commonly used English name then the other language name should prevail, with an English translation below."

M.nelson, I agree with points 1, 2, 3 and 5 but 4 will just make a mockery of Canadian articles. Point 4 would mean that "it looks like a caribou" prevails over Tuktoyaktuk and "Saint Marie's Waterfall" over Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. something lame from CBW 23:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that's actually not what I meant by translation. I absolutely don't agree with translating the actual name into "Mount Royal" or "Saint Marie's Waterfall". Looking back, I suppose the only "translating" required will be "Ville de", etc. -M.Nelson (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I think "most commonly used" covers that concern — neither of the translations you point out here is actually in common use to refer to the topic in question. I was going to say that WP:CANSTYLE already specifies that we shouldn't translate a name just for the sake of translating it, if the resulting name isn't something that's actually in use to refer to that topic, but then I realized that as written, it only talks about not creating redirects from unattested translations. If there's no objection, I'm willing to beef that up to talk about article content as well. Bearcat (talk) 00:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

M.nelson, thanks for clearing it up. Bearcat, "most commonly used" should cover that, but given the anti-French attitude from some editors I got the impression that English and only English was the goal. something lame from CBW 02:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not should any foreign languages other than english be included in the infobox unless it is a referenced official name. This is english wikipedia, we should not be including anything but official names in the infobox. Anything not official should be in the article only, if that. This opens the door for "Ville de Toronto". Who is to say what is "other name" or "commonly used french name" etc. This cannot be included in the final guidelines. Po' buster (talk) 02:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. -M.Nelson (talk) 05:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Allentown, Pennsylvania is a great example of how we should model the infobox title guidlines. Name, Settlement type, Official name. Po' buster (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Nobody, but nobody, in this discussion has ever suggested that anything other than a referenced official name would be mentioned. Some people have thought, however, that you were suggesting that we should translate names into English regardless of whether the resulting name was actually in use or not for any given topic (e.g. "Saint Mary's Falls" instead of Sault Ste. Marie or "Wolf River" instead of Rivière-du-Loup). Bearcat (talk) 07:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Interesting. I think that using that format could fix all our problems-- all official (expanded) names could be listed below, and at the top the common English-language name would be used (for example, "Montreal"). If the only official name is in French, the common English-language name is still used above, and we avoid having to translate "Ville de" and whatnot. -M.Nelson (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, {{Infobox settlement}} doesn't allow for more than one official name. Unless the template can be modified, I'm not sure if this formatting could work for cities with two official names and a differing common name. -M.Nelson (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You can use <br> to list more than one official name in the one field if necessary. Bearcat (talk) 07:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Final

Ottawa
City
City of Ottawa - Ville d'Ottawa
Downtown Ottawa

Montreal
City
Ville de Montréal
A view of downtown Montreal

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

• The respective pages should follow the same guidelines as mentioned on WP:CANSTYLE and WP:PLACES. That is, if a particular usage is more common in English, then we'll that usage will be used throughout the article and in the article's title. "Montreal" and "Queen Charlotte Islands" are attested and are currently the most common in English, so these articles will use those names. In the same way, we'll use "Iqaluit" over "Frobisher Bay".

• The infobox should reflect the most commonly used place name in English in the name field. The name field should then be displayed more prominently than the alternative (other_name), native (native_name) and official names (official_name).

• Other names should be mentioned only if they are official names and documented. English names (official or translation) should always appear largest and at top; other names below, smaller, and if non-English preferably italicized.

• "City of X" should be only be used if documented as official and in the official_name field. “City of X” should be removed from the main (name) and (other name) category in current articles to be consistent across the board. Also "ville", "communité", and other french settlement types should not be used, instead "city", or "town" should be used.

• The etymological origin of the name has nothing to do with translating a place name. "Montréal" will not be translated as "Mount Royal". "Xhaaidlagha Gwaayaai" will not be translated as "Islands on the boundary between the worlds"

• The following template should be used for all Canadian cities to be consistent

|name =

|official_name =

|settlement_type =

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

• That looks great to me. Here are some easy examples, where Ottawa has two official names and Montreal has only one (French). Does this look alright? -M.Nelson (talk) 00:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  • PS, I think that we can eliminate the whole "translation" bit, since the only names being used are common names and official names; whether a common name is a translation or not is irrelevant. -M.Nelson (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it would look better if in the official name field included both english and french on the same line for cities with two official names. Montreal's settlement type cannot read "Ville" because ville does not exist in english. It is a city. Just because it is in Quebec does not make it not a city. Po' buster (talk) 02:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean something like City of Ottawa  · Ville d'Ottawa? I like the way separate lines looks, but I have no real opposition to having them next to eachother. -M.Nelson (talk) 02:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

As for the "Ville" thing, using Ville (perhaps linked to Ville#Usage in Canada) avoids the issue Bearcat brought up above, where the word "ville" doesn't translate exactly to either "city" or "town". Legally, the municipality is not a "city" or "town"; it is a "ville". -M.Nelson (talk) 02:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I Prefer one line, but either way is fine by me. As for the "ville" usage I am strongly apposed to that idea, it goes against the guidelines we just wrote, if there is an common english translation we use it. Ville can be "city" or "town" so the common distinguishing factor can be used (over 10,000=city, under 10,000=town) or use a concensus on whether it is a city or town. Using "ville" is a terrible idea, we would be using even more French than we were previously which sparked this whole debate.Po' buster (talk) 03:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

PS. For articles such as Montreal, Quebec City, Gatineau, etc. they would never be considered "towns" due to their size. This would only affect smaller settlements with populations between 5,000-10,000 which could be considered either. Po' buster (talk) 14:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Montreal would never be considered a town, but it's still just as incorrect for us to call it a "city" as it is to call it a "town". The fact is that Quebec has different "settlement types" than the rest of Canada; other provinces do too.

This Statscan table outlines the list of Canadian settlement types— the fact that the name happens to be French doesn't mean that we shouldn't list it. I wouldn't be against listing it as "Ville (City)" or something of the sort (so that English-speakers can understand), but the "ville" settlement type must be uniquely identified, since it is a unique settlement type. -M.Nelson (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, we need to have consistent usage across the board. Just because a city is in Quebec doesn't mean it is not a "city"... "Ville de X" covers the usage of "ville" in the official name area and/or article body. Let's not pretend it is not a city when it clearly is. No one outside of Quebec would refer to it as a ville. Remember we are to "reflect actual English usage" in articles. It would be a "Municipality" not a "Municipalité" , and a "Settlement" not a "Établissement". As for the 1 line vs. 2 for two official names either way gets the point across.Po' buster (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

{outdent) I guess the major issue here is that I want to use official status, and you want to name it for what it physically is. Naming as "city" implies that Montreal has a different municipal status than what would be the "town" of Barkmere, Quebec (pop 87), when they are in fact legally the exact same. If there is an English-language way to describe this, then I'm all for it, but the only way I see is to tell it like it is, using "ville". -M.Nelson (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

PS a solution could be using "City" or "Town" as settlement_type, and then using "Ville" as government_type. My only beef with that is that we arbitrarily set the standard for what is a city or town, which I don't think is legit at all. -M.Nelson (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The distinction in between Ville de Montreal and Ville de Barkmere, Quebec in english would be city, and town. Unfortunately there is no words in french to distinguish the two. The province tried to distinguish the two and experimented with "Cité" but gave up. Montreal has a "City Hall" and a "City Council", it is 100% a city in english usage. We should be using "City" for places which would indisputably be cities in english, such as Montreal, Quebec City, Gatineau, Laval, etc. Anything disputable would remain as is until consensus was reached on the respective talk pages. Or adopt a standard from another province such as Ontario's +10,000=city, -10,000=town, or British Columbia's +5,000=city, -5,000=town. That wouldn't be preferable however. But aside from the "disputable" sized city/towns, indisputable city's should be labeled as City.Po' buster (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No, we absolutely can't use any standard that doesn't exist in Quebec law to decide whether any given ville in Quebec is a "city" or a "town". For one thing, even in Ontario and BC those figures are not hard and fast rules by which a place automatically gets called a city or a town as soon it reaches that population figure; they're eligibility cutoffs, and a municipality still has to apply for a status change that may or may not be given. For example, Markham is still a town, even though it has a larger population than many Canadian cities. And the problem you're missing is that the number of villes in Quebec that would clearly be called either a city or a town in English is very, very small; for the vast majority of them either term can be used perfectly interchangeably. Bearcat (talk) 05:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Well we're going to have to come up with a standard because "ville" cannot be used. It clearly states in the guidelines not to use french when there is an English alternative. As for Markham they are a city but have chosen to keep the "town" name for marketing purposes. Po' buster (talk) 12:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

As Bearcat explained, there is no English alternative to "ville". -M.Nelson (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

There are two. "City" and "town". Let's not make this more complicated then it has to be. Po' buster (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me for being blunt, but did you read Bearcat's post? A "ville" is a "ville". We can't arbitrarily translate it to "city" in some instances and to "town" in others. A single term must be used to accurately label these municipalities (and no, I don't mean "municipality"), and since one doesn't exist in English, we must use the French label. -M.Nelson (talk) 16:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Markham has chosen not to file legal documents to incorporate itself as a city, hence it it still a town. You don't get to decide the issue - it's very clear. Markham is a town. Moreover, there are incorporated places in Ontario that have a population less than 10,000 still designated a city (eg - Dryden). Mindmatrix 15:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I am very familiar with the practices of cities and towns in Canada and have studied them and worked with them for years. Your childish remarks such as "you don't get to decide the issue" will not be tolerated. If you want to have conversation and stop whining we can. If you did your research, which you obviously haven't, you would know Dryden is the only city in Ontario with a pop. less than 10,000. It went over 10,000 applied to become a city and then it's population fell below 10,000. This is irrelevant, when you jump in the conversation half way through you make your self seem foolish. The real conversation was about "ville". Please read the previous conversation before jumping in half way through. Po' buster (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

What Mindmatrix meant by "you don't get to decide the issue" is that Markham is a town—period. Whether you personally consider it to be "marketing purposes" or not is irrelevant; it is still a town. PS try to keep WP:CIVIL. -M.Nelson (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes Markham is a "Town", but by definition it is a "City". It only kept the "Town" name to market itself as a small, friendly, green, place to live to suburban home buyers. Any Canadian City could be a town if they never applied to be a city. It could be the Town of Vancouver, or the Town of Toronto. But this is way off topic. Po' buster (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, and if the municipality is legally classified as a "Town", we will label it that way. I have no opposition to the "town" of Toronto if that is its legal status. -M.Nelson (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent; reply to Po'Buster 15:53) Yes, I know Dryden is the only such city in Ontario - it doesn't invalidate the claim, does it? You brought up the issue of Markham, and I responded to what I felt was a misleading claim - if it's irrelevant, you shouldn't have raised it in the first place; if you do, you should expect responses. And as M.nelson noted, when I stated "you don't get to decide the issue", I was clearly referring to the nature of Markham's status - this is determined entirely by the filing of legal documents. Referring me to childish and foolish doesn't strengthen your argument at all. Mindmatrix 16:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

1) I didn't bring up Markham, read the conversation, 2) You clearly said "there are incorporated places in Ontario that have a population less than 10,000 still designated a city" implying there was more than one. I am not have any further conversation about Markham and Dryden. Po' buster (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the whole point of the Markham and Dryden talk is that no provinces use only an arbitrary population number to define cities and towns. If no other provinces do, then why should we apply this standard to Quebec? PS, even if some provinces do use only an arbitrary population number, this is not a Canada-wide definition; there is no justification to apply a separate province's unique standard to Quebec. -M.Nelson (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Maybe we should omit |settlement_type= altogether and just stick with |name= and |official_name= as previously discussed? I'm still strongly opposed to translating to "city" or "town" in every situation, because the definition of these are entirely arbitrary. -M.Nelson (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, because of the confusion with "ville" it might be best just to omit settlement type altogether. Should it be omitted from places in Quebec or all Canadian articles ?Po' buster (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Rural community

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

Interesting question. I don't see much similarity with rural area but if there is enough equivalence with the use of rural municipality in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, then perhaps a merge is in order. PKT(alk) 21:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks like they are "Provincial specific" designations, also a rural community could refer to an unincorporated community within a larger municipality though, such as Maynooth, Ontario being a community (which is rural) within Hastings Highlands, this is just an Ontario example though, as that is all I am familiar with. I don't think a merge of RM and RC is really appropriate as they are specific topics, and a merge into rural area wouldn't be appropriate (as noted above), as rural area is a pretty general topic, but something like Subdivisions of New Brunswick would be more appropriate, as then you are grouping the various subdivision categories of a specific province together, rather than subdivisions categories of different provinces that may be similar (or may not).--kelapstick (talk) 04:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with Kelapstick here. While the term isn't entirely unknown elsewhere in Canada, it mostly just means "community which is rural" — no other province in Canada, as far as I can tell, actually gives places "rural community" as a formal designation. If redirecting this is the goal, we'd be better off redirecting it to a New Brunswick-specific title rather than trying to shoehorn it into an article about another type of settlement. Bearcat (talk) 03:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Just noting that in BC "official" (BCGNIS) designations for rural communities can include "locality", "hamlet", "settlement" (also, I think "rural settlement"), "community" (and "urban community" which tends to be new development, though sometimes in rural locations). There's a few others, too, but for now they escape me. NB while "Village" in BCGNIS is an incorporated village, "Abandoned village" can be found, also "village site", almost invariably in reference to historical/vanished First Nations settlements, which are particularly many along the Coast in certain areas. Note also "site" occurs now, mostly in Nisga'a Lands, as the designation for what had been Indian Reserves until the Nisga'a Treaty.....(and these "sites" have specific land-title boundaries...not that any are settlements...now).Skookum1 (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Monarchism in Canada

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

Well, I, one of the two editors involved in the "huge battle", just came here to make the same request; looks like you beat me to it. The issue is starting to spread more into whether or not Monarchism in Canada and Republicanism in Canada should again be merged into Debate on the monarchy in Canada, or some such article. But, yes, some more input would be very welcome. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Oy. First bilingualism and now this! Is nobody watching the Olympics? I think there's some sort of game on right now... freshacconci talktalk 01:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Everything's anticlimactic after Joannie Rochette! (*silly grin*) Bearcat (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Own the Podium – 2010

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

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

Category:Canadian liberals

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

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

Category:Canadian conservatives

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

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

Elections

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

This does actually need to get done at some point. Anyone? Bueller? Bearcat (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm having a go at it, but the only source I can find showing that level of detail of vote counts is this one. It shows signs of being accurate, but of course it's not official. I will keep working on the article, but can somebody find a better list of the results? PKT(alk) 15:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC) (call me Ferris)

(added) In particular, I have found conflicting results for Delta South because there was a recount and I can't tell what's correct. PKT(alk) 18:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that; guess that's why it didn't get done. Anyway, I found the final results posted on Elections BC's webpage (though it took some hunting, as they didn't do a very good job of linking to it from anywhere you'd expect them to have done); they're at this link. The more annoying thing is that there's an individual PDF posted for each district, rather than a unified table. Oy vey. Bearcat (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

•  Task complete. PKT(alk) 23:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

k-os

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

Hockey positions and terms within scope WikiProject Canada?

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

I believe this would be in the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Canadian_sport. As that project has been largely ignored for a while I am going to try to bring it up to snuff. HalifaxRage (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry after rereading this and looking at the discussion there I agree now that terms themselves would not be in the scope of the project. HalifaxRage (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Assistance required at Monarchy of Canada

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

template merger?

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

template:Foreign relations of Canada

template:Diplomatic missions of Canada

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

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

Jason Kenney

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

Done, for a day at least. Not sure what was going on there, interesting mix of anon addresses. Franamax (talk) 11:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

And just to note, that's an unimpressive article, could use some review and possible trimming. Franamax (talk) 11:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

image upload problem

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

• FIXED*

move protection?

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

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

If anybody cares

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

Just re-upload and add a FUR (fair-use rationale) - the person is dead, so the copyright-in-the-US FUR can be justified by saying it is irreplaceable with another image, because the subject is dead, and no new free-of-US-copyright image can be obtained. Further, you can add that the image is already PD in Canada, but not in the US. (or you can find an older image, pre-1945) 70.29.210.242 (talk) 07:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I had just reuploaded the image and added what I believe is the proper criteria. Please check to verify and correct as necessary to prevent a second deletion. NorthernThunder (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you're going to need a non-free use rationale for the article also, added to the File: page. See for example, Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline, there is a bit in there for historical images. Franamax (talk) 21:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand exactly what you mean. Perhaps you could make the necessary changes yourself. NorthernThunder (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You need to add {{Non-free use rationale}} to the file page; one template per article the image is used in, and fill in the template, especially filling in the article link. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 07:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Combining political party and province into one stub

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

Examples? I don't know what you mean. PKT(alk) 03:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is one example: {{ProgressiveConservative-Ontario-MP-stub}}

Note how it references both the PC Party and Ontario NorthernThunder (talk) 03:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Former municipalities in Canada

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

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

Determining year of enactment of a Canadian statute

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

As I understand it, a bill immediately becomes law in Canada when the Governor General signs it, giving it Royal Assent. I suspect that the Statutes of Canada and Revised Statutes of Canada documents include the dates at which the revisions went into effect. You could mark imprecise timeframe information with {{date needed}} or {{when}} tags to draw attention to it. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The R.S.C. is simply a consolidation - in the days before the internet (and, actually, computers), the consolidations were typically done once a decade in order to incorporate all the amendments to statutes. The feds last issued a consolidation in 1985. Therefore, the reference to the R.S.C. 1985 (for a statute which was enacted pre-1985) is the correct cite, but sadly does not tell you when the statute was enacted. It's the same for many of the provinces -- in Ontario, for example, cites are to the R.S.O. 1990 (unless the statute was enacted after 1990). The feds and Ontario (and I suspect most of the other provinces) are no longer compiling these large consolidations, given that the internet has made it much easier to keep track of current versions of the various in-force statutes. They now just keep up-to-date consolidations of each individual statute.

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

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

Need some quick admin action

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

2010 British Columbia avalanche

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

Province of Toronto

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

If you truly believe it doesn't merit inclusion on WP, file an AfD. Mindmatrix 18:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The article certainly needs major improvement, but movements to create new provinces, whether taken seriously or not, are legitimate article topics as long as the article is sourced and properly written. Bearcat (talk) 05:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone should make an article for the Province of Montreal... since that was a serious option in the most recent Quebec referendum debate... 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Guichon Creek - advice on dab

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