:::::I see Moxy as being not entirely supportive, asking for, as I have, further input. Arctic.gnome originally stated Template:Infobox minister office looks nicer than Template:Infobox Political post. GoodDay was fine with the status quo, though didn't mount a passionate defence of it. So, I really only see two with strong support. Regardless, I ''still'' think you should be taking this to [[WP:CANADA]] to get input from the participants of that project, who oversee the improvement and maintenance of Canadian articles.
:::::I see Moxy as being not entirely supportive, asking for, as I have, further input. Arctic.gnome originally stated Template:Infobox minister office looks nicer than Template:Infobox Political post. GoodDay was fine with the status quo, though didn't mount a passionate defence of it. So, I really only see two with strong support. Regardless, I ''still'' think you should be taking this to [[WP:CANADA]] to get input from the participants of that project, who oversee the improvement and maintenance of Canadian articles.
::::At no point did Mies enter into a discussion about how many people you need for consensus. You just made that up. If you made that up in your head and believed it, I'm sorry for calling you a liar. But I don't see how you could have been having that discussion and assumed that. Perhaps you don't understand the process here. We were in the early stages of a discussion where some people supported you, one didn't, and others made noises in both directions. That is not consensus. Frankly, it is wrongheaded to claim consensus for a change when so few editors have contributed. Also, your count of four to one was misleading at best, which made the fact that you felt the need to not only mention Mies's remark about consensus, but misstate it, in setting out your case here made it look like an attempt to discredit Mies rather than his arguments. Given that, it looked like a lie. -[[User:Rrius|Rrius]] ([[User talk:Rrius|talk]]) 02:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
::::At no point did Mies enter into a discussion about how many people you need for consensus. You just made that up. If you made that up in your head and believed it, I'm sorry for calling you a liar. But I don't see how you could have been having that discussion and assumed that. Perhaps you don't understand the process here. We were in the early stages of a discussion where some people supported you, one didn't, and others made noises in both directions. That is not consensus. Frankly, it is wrongheaded to claim consensus for a change when so few editors have contributed. Also, your count of four to one was misleading at best, which made the fact that you felt the need to not only mention Mies's remark about consensus, but misstate it, in setting out your case here made it look like an attempt to discredit Mies rather than his arguments. Given that, it looked like a lie. -[[User:Rrius|Rrius]] ([[User talk:Rrius|talk]]) 02:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::Alright, I absolutely see why you think I lied, and I most definitely apologize. When I said that "He told me that four VS. one is not enough", I was trying to say that he doesn't believe a consensus had been reached. When I wrote my arguement above, I must have forgot that I talked about the four VS. one point after he had told me a consensus had not been reached. So, I take that back, but my intention was definitely not to decieve people. Again, I apologize for the confusion, and I can see why you would think I lied. As for the number of supporters, I was not lying at at all; there were four people (including me) that supported this change. Now, there are six (including me) who support the change, and two that do not.
:::::Supporters: Me, 117Avenue, Arctic.gnome, Moxy, Walter Görlitz, and Roux
:::::Opposers: Rrius, Miesianiacal
:::::[[Special:Contributions/174.7.90.110|174.7.90.110]] ([[User talk:174.7.90.110|talk]]) 03:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
These pages are for students and teachers from Canadian universities. Since its inception in 2011, the Canada Education Program has been part of the Wikimedia Foundation's Wikipedia Education Program. The goal of the Wikipedia Education Program is to engage students and professors across disciplines, universities, and countries in using Wikipedia as a teaching tool. Want more information about the Canadian program? Check out this brochure.
Want to chat with someone about the program? Log on to IRC to the #wikipedia-en-ambassadors channel on irc.freenode.net.
Interested in joining the program? Leave a note for Jonathan Obar (obarmsu.edu), the Education Program Advisor for the Canadian arm of the Education Program.
Please see this trophy case to see some examples of great work from editors in the Wikipedia Education Program!
Canadian Content Added to Wikipedia By Our Program
None of the three appear to have made any attempt to discuss the matter. So I'm bringing it here for discussion. Should the order be in the box or not. One thing I would like a link to the part of the WP:MOS that forbids the use of it. I will notify the three editors. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of news articles and academic papers that use terms like "the 22nd Prime Minister of Canada", so I do think that it is notable enough for an infobox, especially given that it doesn't even use an extra line. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in the MOS that I am aware of that would forbid that. It most definitely should be in the infobox as that is something that is quite often mentioned in both newspapers and academic works. -DJSasso (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that makes at least four of us who took a look at the rather long WP:MOS article and didn't see anything obviously applicable. The edit comment by Malarious in putting through his proposed mass change a second time ("Against WP:MOS, end of discussion.") was not particularly informative. I think he's going about it the wrong way and would hope for some input from him here. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 00:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted Malarious for several reasons. He didn't provide an edit summary, possibly hiding a controversial edit. He added a hidden note, indicating that there was editor consensus to not re-add it. Cited the massive MOS Wikipedia has, and not what they thinks the number infringes on. Said it was "unused and clutter", which I disagree with because the infobox has a parameter for it, and I see it widely used. The order is widely used, not just for the Prime Minister office, which means there should have been some discussion for the change. And that others would agree this was an uncalled for mass change. 117Avenue (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My only theory for how it violates the MOS is the line from WP:IBX that reads "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose...". If that is the rule in question, then I disagree that this is too much information. If the problem is with the phrase itself, then I can't find any rule regarding titles of offices or ordinal numbers that this is breaking. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Numbering is particularly needed in the Canadian Prime Ministers bio infoboxes more so, due to the fact that they're numbered via individusal (i.e. PMs who serve non-cosecutive terms don't get counted multiple times). Unfamiliar readers would (for example) mistakenly consider Harper the 28th PM. GoodDay (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stepping AFK just now, but could some people have a look in on Thomas Mulcair? I think there may be some political spin entering here, outside views would be appreciated as to whether or not this article is being skewed by political operatives, given the obvious context of the NDP leadership campaign. Is there a stable version that could be reverted to and semi-protected to push discussion onto the talk page? Thanks! Franamax (talk) 00:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn’t on WP when the 2006 results were released. Was there any organized or coordinated effort by the community when that data was released? Is there a desire or need?
Were there any discussions about formatting and/or content consistency, whether nationwide or provincially/territorially, for the census data updates to Canada’s thousands of community/geography-related articles and lists? Is there a desire or need?
What's going to be interesting is when they start releasing the data that used to be 20% sample data (full-form census), now based on the voluntary full-form questionnaire. In particular, any trends may be hopelessly skewed. Franamax (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am about this far from suggesting we shouldn't even use the results from the 2010 census for anything more rigorous than 'this many census forms were returned to StatsCan.' The head of SC resigned, ffs, because of how unreliable the data will now be. → ROUX₪21:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first release, population and dwelling counts, is from the mandatory short form, not the voluntary National Household Survey. Let's keep this thread on the 100% (or 98.1%) data about to be released, not the NHS release in early 2013 based on a X% voluntary participation rate (where X=useless). Hwy43 (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Do we know if they are going to adjust the data to control for the probability of different groups returning the census? Either way, I think we should report the data, but we can no longer use it as a sole authoritative source. When possible, we should either cite a backup source that confirms their numbers or cite the 2006 data along with it. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per above, not necessary for releases of data from the mandatory short form. We can use data from the short form data releases as a sole authoritative source. Hwy43 (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For other countries, we rely on their census data which in many cases surely uses far less rigorous statistical practices. What's the true population of Somalia, for instance? Regarding Canadian census data for 2011, what other source could be more authoritative? After all, no private research agency can compel compulsory truthful compliance with their survey requests either. If some well-respected researchers publicly challenge a specific published figure from the census, we could certainly cite that in the usual way that we report noteworthy controversies, but in general it would be very unhelpful to stick asterisks and footnotes on every single fact and figure in Wikipedia that uses the 2011 census as its source. And the errors caused by 2006 data being badly out of date probably outweigh the errors caused by 2011 data being collected in a less rigorous way. All in all, we shouldn't WP:POINT just to express our pique at the government. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even more off topic, some day we should figure out a way to properly explain ethnicity data, where people can tick as many boxes as they want, resulting in 200% of the population having an ethnicity in any given table. Franamax (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to distract the thread from your OP Hwy43. I think we should just decide on a process now, in particular making sure we get everything. I wonder if a bot to update infoboxes would be useful here? As far as what's elsewhere in articles, that's going to have to be done by hand. Do we have a list of all the articles we need to deal with? We could divide that up and tick each one off as they're done. Bearcat did something like that with municipalities once, can't put my finger on the details right now. Franamax (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting idea, but probably unworkable as I think we're dealing with a much larger dataset. And we would still have to update the footnotes. Making the conversion would be just as much work as just updating the figures too. Franamax (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This shouldn't be unworkable, certainly not from a technical viewpoint. We just need someone willing to write the code. I don't know HTML coding well enough to do it... -- P 1 9 9 • TALK13:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, I started a discussion in 2007 about the Canada 2006 Census data release (and I've been meaning to do it for the 2011 census for several weeks now). The discussion about it is in the archives. We didn't do much as a project, but we were fairly active in individually updating articles. Mindmatrix01:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a thought: if I can find someone to process the results from Special:LinkSearch for links to www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/* [1] and narrow it down to a list of article pages (ideally sorted by province), could we agree to work from that one list and classify each article as we go as "updated", "not done (wait for NHS)", "not done (reason)", "base data done, needs NHS" and such-like? Franamax (talk) 03:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, good. Now the project that is often updated immediately can finally stop using ancient data that was irrelevant 4+ years ago. At least our population counts will be somewhat accurate for the next six months or so... Resolute04:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for a good guideline on what exactly is acceptable as a "current" population or land area number. I'm pretty sure I can dig up a municipal planning document somewhere with an incorrect or wild-guess pop figure for 2010. Can I use that right now? Up-to-date figures are good in the artcile, isn't it just the infobox numbers we strictly restrain to be obsolete? Franamax (talk) 04:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(after e/c, Res has probably spotted what I meant) And wasn't there a thing recently about whether Calgary or Ottawa was the 4th-largest urban area or something? That was based on competing new population estimates IIRC. Franamax (talk) 05:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And lists like this. There's always room for both the last federal census, and the most recent civic census, and yes, estimate. And truth be told, in the infbox, I personally would always use most recent civic census or estimate, leaving the last federal census figure in the lead. Resolute05:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So what then, latest figure published anywhere? StatsCan update, city council survey, regional government listing of cities, provincial government latest estimate? What takes precedence? Franamax (talk) 05:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are we discussing changing WP:CANSTYLE#Population? Because I would like to see it changed as well. I believe infoboxes should be a source of quick, reliable, information, and Canadian municipalities should list the most recent census in the infobox. Only when municipalities are being compared, should the federal census be a mandatory reference. 117Avenue (talk) 05:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting off track again. I'd be pleased to discuss what Resolute introduced and others have subsequently added, but under a different discussion thread and preferrably after this wave of 2011 census updates is complete. 2012 estimates and civic census results won't be released until the last half of 2012. Hwy43 (talk) 06:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now reviewing the discussion that has transpired since this afternoon. To add to the ideas presented above, I've created the following list of Statistics Canada census subdivisions based on CSV downloads from the 2006 census that could be used as a starting point for identifying articles at the municipal (or municipal-equivalent) level. Hwy43 (talk) 06:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I notice there are WikiProjects for all provinces as well as one for the territories. Perhaps we should seek volunteers from each project, which are familiar with the articles within their projects ranging from their communities to their highest levels of geography, to prepare a list of articles that will require update. Existing categories and list articles will be helpful in compiling the lists. Hwy43 (talk) 06:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've just created a template that will automatically format a reference to Statistics Canada as a citation. I named it {{SCref}}, and it's still a work in progress. Hopefully, this will remove some of the clutter from articles citing StatsCan for population info. It can be used for provinces and territories, CMAs, CDs, CSDs, and FEDs (federal electoral districts). I plan to expand it to add census tracts and other units. It should also be able to handle various census years (so far 2011, but I'll be adding 2006, 2001 and 1996). If you have any suggestions, please leave them at the templates talk page. Thanks. Mindmatrix00:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very useful - thank you! I'll take a closer look at it once I'm through my to-do list and may have some questions/suggestions. Hwy43 (talk) 05:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Lac Portarè"?
The inscription on File:Hang on to them - Lac Portare 1875.jpg seems to say "Lac Portarè", which doesn't exist, not to mention the fact that è doesn't make sense as the last letter. It's some Canadian lake, probably close to a Hudson's Bay Company fort. Any idea what it could be?
To understand the context, there is here an Inventory of sketches made by Harry Bullock-Webster. This Inventory give the title, the place and the year of each sketch. « Hang on of them » is dated 1875.
I'm trying to properly source the traditional Canadian dish "hot chicken sandwich" for wiktionary. Can anyone help? wikt:WT:Requests_for_verification#hot_chicken_sandwich (it's called "hot chicken" in French... which also needs sourcing; and probably the related sauce used on the sandwiches "hot chicken sauce")
I recently made an edit to a variety of paragraphs relating to this subject. The text appearing in Wikipedia relating to Family Clan Government, Economic Development and Automotive Riots do not seem based in any published history on the area. References to spaghetti trees, muskrat farming Beneteau/Bondy feuding, etc. appear to be a fabrication. Hence the reference to a well-known historical text of the area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1978J10 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's been brought to my attention that there may be a significant WP:COI edit war going on at Peggy Nash, for the obvious timely reasons. I've editprotected the page for the time being, but due to the scope of the problem it may take a few editors to sort out what's worthwhile editing and what's tendentious POV-pushing from people who are either pro- or anti- her leadership campaign. Any takers? Bearcat (talk) 06:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Recently I made an edit to Science and Technology section on the article, "Canada". It was about medical contributions made by certain Canadians. For some reason, the contribution I made was for no reason taken away.
Canadian political office/governors/monarch article infoboxes
An anonymous editor has expressed a desire to change the infobox presently used (or used until the anon changed it) on articles about Canadian ministries from Template:Infobox minister office to Template:Infobox Political post. His case is based on a desire for alignment with equivalent articles for other countries, which mostly use Template:Infobox Political post, if they have an infobox at all.
However, Template:Infobox minister office is part of an infobox system coded to deliniate between federal and provincial/state ministers, federal and provincial/state governors, and the federal and provincial/state crowns; a system that includes Template:Infobox vice-regal and Template:Infobox Monarchy. It was used in articles about Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, and (perhaps) UK ministries, governors, and monarchies, though the exact extent of its use is presently unknown. The system is now used in nearly all (if not all) monarchy articles and all articles on governors of various types, at least those in the Commonwealth realms, as well as Canadian ministry articles.
Well, I think Miesianiacal is distorting the facts a little. First of all, I didn't resist coming here. I was fully willing to bring up the issue, but I didn't think I should until the users on the talk page felt that a proposed idea to change the Political infobox itself to include a colour icon of some sort was fully rejected. I thought were still discussing the topic, and therefore I didn't feel that it would be appropriate to bring up the issue if the users and I were going to pursue the change on a larger forum.
Second, the infobox template preferred by Miesianiacal (and Miesianiacal alone on the talk page might I add) is not used with everything he has listed. Here are the facts:
a) All infoboxes regarding the monarchy (monarchs, governor generals, etc. of various countries) use the template. (Template:Infobox minister office)
b) The United Kingdom (besides the monarch) do not use the template what so ever, meaning the prime minister, cabinet, and other government officials do not use the template.
c) Australian ministers (finance, defence, foreign affairs) including the prime minister do not use the template.
d) The New Zealand prime minister does not use the template.
Please note: I was the one who changed the infoboxes of the Australian and New Zealand prime ministers to the standardized one (my preference), but the users in both those countries seem to be absolutely fine with the move.
a) All heads of government and heads of state (that are not a monarchs), so presidents, prime ministers, U.S. governors, chancellors, AND their cabinets (Example: U.S. Secretary of State, Australian Foreign Minister, British Foreign Secretary) use my preferred template
b) The countries with monarchs as head of state (Norway, Denmark, Japan, etc.) have the monarch using Miesianiacal's preferred template, BUT the prime minister or president, and government officials use my preferred template
What I am essentially trying to convey is that every political government official (not monarchs), so the presidents of the U.S., Mexico, Ireland, Germany, Italy and the prime ministers of Australia, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and the ministers of foreign affairs of various countries, ALL use my preferred template. The list goes on. You can check every government official that is not a monarch on here, and you will see that they ALL use my preferred template.
Here are some examples (there are many many more):
And those are just some. Every political infobox is the same.
Although, there is one that doesn't: Canada. That's right, Canada is the only country that uses this outdated infobox for its government officials, while all the other countries have remained consistent in using the Template:Infobox Political post template. My main argument is CONSISTENCY. Wikipedia needs to be consistent, and for that to be accomplished, we need to have the same infobox for every political figure. Now, the question of if we really want to be consistent, shouldn't we change the infobox of the monarchs as well, will probably come up. Unfortunately, because all the monarchs use this template and it spans over so many countries, a lot of editors would have to be involved and the discussion would get very big.
So, for a start at least, I am proposing that we stay consistent with all the political office articles on Wikipedia.
Now, my issue is consistency and the fact that, to me, the old template looks outdated, but there are a number of issues outlined by other editors about the template Miesianiacal supports:
1. "I might be commenting too late, but I think Infobox Political post is better. I see no need to colour code the ministries, and it does produce a CONTRAST issue. Infobox Political post looks more how an infobox should look, and includes fields for an emblem, and incumbent since. I think we should move to this to be consistent, and get rid of these silly colours." -117Avenue
2. "I think that being standardized provides more atheistic benefit than looking nicer.. In my opinion, the default should be standardized infoboxes and that we should only use a different one if (1) the standardized one lacks a feature that would provide important encyclopedic information for Canada, and (2) that feature cannot be or won't be implemented in the standardized template." —Arctic Gnome
3. I do like the new layout, because I am not a fan of the to color lines under the title "Prime Minister of Canada", as the contrast does not meet our basic standers for color contrasts (My wife is color blind and she say's she sees no words in the 2 colored strips (see WP:CONTRAST). -Moxy
The government officials of Wikipedia all use the Template:Infobox Political post template, EXCEPT Canada. Why should Canada be left out? It simply doesn't make any sense. PLEASE LOOK AT THIS. I have the support of four editors (including me) to change the current template and use the standardized template that all of Wikipedia uses. There is one person who does not agree with me: Miesianiacal. He told me that four VS. one is not enough, and that I need to consensus of this talk page. So, I ask you, do you support my proposal to remain consistent will the rest of Wikipedia? I hope I have made my agreement clear, but if there is something you are not sure about, please don't hesitate to ask. I know that was long, so thank you for taking the time to read. 174.7.90.110 (talk) 05:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be content with either option. Your proposal per consistency or Mies' opposition per differentiating federal & provincial. GoodDay (talk) 06:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason why these infoboxes should be inconsistent with articles from other countries. If there is a strong desire to maintain the colour coding (something about which I am ambivalent, as there is nothing explained about such coding in a way that is meaningful or accessible to the average reader), then simply encode it into the template which is used by other countries. → ROUX₪18:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Canadian one is better, and not wildly different. I see no reason why consistency somehow trumps the fact that the Canadian version has functionality the other doesn't. Rrius (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you feel the Canadian one is better? Why do you feel it has more functionality? The proposed standard infobox includes fields for an emblem and an Incumbent since. The only functionality it removes is the coloured lines that say ministry, federal, and state, which I feel serves no purpose. There is no explanation for their use in any sort of template documentation, there is no navigational use for a user, and there is also no explanation of what they mean for the reader. Wikipedia is big on consistency, guidelines, and consensus. The reason we have templates and infoboxes is that there is some consistency between articles on this project, I hope no one here is a proponent of "everyone write and own your own page, forget about what is done elsewhere". WP:IBX discourages the duplication or forking of infoboxes. We have [[MOS:|manual of style]] guidelines in order that everyone can write articles in a similar layout and style, and the encyclopedia will be easier to use. We use consensus on template talk pages, and WikiProjects, to implement this consistency, and build the cohesion. 117Avenue (talk) 03:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, IP overstates his support among other editors, as is seen if you actually read what the other editors said at the original discussion. Also, IP flat out lies when he says Mies told him four versus one isn't enough for consensus. Mies said did not see four strong supporters and urged IP to come here. That sort of behaviour is not helpful, and I hope he or she refrains from it in the future. -Rrius (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rrius, I didn't lie at all. There are four people, now five, (including me) who support the change, and Miesianiacal said "You do not have consensus. Please see WP:CON." when I politely asked him if a consensus had been reached. He told me that I didn't have a consensus, so I did not "flat out" lie. I've been civil, honest, and constructive since I brought up this issue, and I don't see Mies angry with my behaviour, so why are you criticizing me? Look, I'm new here, and I simply brought up an issue that I thought was important to address. I was definitely considering creating an account, but after being repremended for something I didn't do, and realizing the level of condescension IP users get, I'm re-considering the thought of creating an account. 174.7.90.110 (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because it looks like you lied. You said above about Mies, "He told me that four VS. one is not enough..." That is not true, and you know it is not true. In the earlier discussion, before you introduced the idea that you had four supporters, he said what you quote in your contribution immediately above. You later brought up your 4-to-1 argument, to which Mies responded as follows:
I see Moxy as being not entirely supportive, asking for, as I have, further input. Arctic.gnome originally stated Template:Infobox minister office looks nicer than Template:Infobox Political post. GoodDay was fine with the status quo, though didn't mount a passionate defence of it. So, I really only see two with strong support. Regardless, I still think you should be taking this to WP:CANADA to get input from the participants of that project, who oversee the improvement and maintenance of Canadian articles.
At no point did Mies enter into a discussion about how many people you need for consensus. You just made that up. If you made that up in your head and believed it, I'm sorry for calling you a liar. But I don't see how you could have been having that discussion and assumed that. Perhaps you don't understand the process here. We were in the early stages of a discussion where some people supported you, one didn't, and others made noises in both directions. That is not consensus. Frankly, it is wrongheaded to claim consensus for a change when so few editors have contributed. Also, your count of four to one was misleading at best, which made the fact that you felt the need to not only mention Mies's remark about consensus, but misstate it, in setting out your case here made it look like an attempt to discredit Mies rather than his arguments. Given that, it looked like a lie. -Rrius (talk) 02:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I absolutely see why you think I lied, and I most definitely apologize. When I said that "He told me that four VS. one is not enough", I was trying to say that he doesn't believe a consensus had been reached. When I wrote my arguement above, I must have forgot that I talked about the four VS. one point after he had told me a consensus had not been reached. So, I take that back, but my intention was definitely not to decieve people. Again, I apologize for the confusion, and I can see why you would think I lied. As for the number of supporters, I was not lying at at all; there were four people (including me) that supported this change. Now, there are six (including me) who support the change, and two that do not.
Supporters: Me, 117Avenue, Arctic.gnome, Moxy, Walter Görlitz, and Roux
Could any brave and willing members of this project weigh in on a discussion at Template talk:Music of Canada on whether or not "God Save the Queen" is officially the Royal Anthem of Canada and whether or not it therefore should be included in the Canadian music navbox? There are a limited number of participants in the discussion, so it would be helpful to draw input from wider afield. Cheers. --ĦMIESIANIACAL00:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
