Talk:List of oldest buildings in Canada

Importance of young buildings questionable

I have added the importance-sect tag.

I realize that Canada has a much shorter "occidental" (for want of a better word) history than we Europeans do, and that many of these buildings may be of significant importance in their communities. However, when years like 1939 (!) are cited, the phrase "oldest" building is almost ridiculed. I once, personally, lived in a house from the sixteenth century. I have lived in two other houses from the late nineteenth century. Some of the houses listed are about as old as my mother (and I dare you to list her as an oldest anything, she would take your head off...)

I would suggest a reasonable cut-off at possibly 1800 (highly negotiable); with exceptions for say the two or three oldest houses of an individual state, should they happen to be younger. 94.220.252.5 (talk) 12:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You are right, some would not get the fact that older has a different meaning in the new world. It does, however, have a different meaning. A cut-off at 1800 is ridiculous, as many major cities were founded land after that. I'll remove the tag you added. --Qyd (talk) 13:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid that you miss the point: Notability and relevance. That a house built in 1939 is the oldest in some particular part of Canada is not of sufficient global relevance and interest to be included in an encyclopedia, seeing that there are millions upon millions of houses that are older. This information is interesting to the locals (not a sign of notability), possibly to tourists (WP is not a tourist guide), and possibly to historians or ethnologist (WP is not a specialist guide).

To take an analogous and hypothetical example, that John Smith of Torolaska holds the third best long jump in the states history at 6.54, really is not something Wikipedia should discuss. The Canadian record might be worth mentioning even if that poor, but only by virture of being the Canadian record. Wikipedia may be a relevant first stop to search for the Canadian record, but the adventures of John Smith would be sought in a specialist source of Track-and-Field statistics. (For comparison, the WR is 8.95, the women's WR is ~ 7.50, and the actual Canadian record is bound to be above 8 meters.)

My suggestion would be (if people are sufficiently interested) to move the complete listings to a private website and link to it from the WP entry.

(I have not re-added the tag, but do consider its inclusion correct.) 88.77.154.179 (talk) 08:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I get your point: you lived in a 16th century building that is not mentioned on wikipedia, so a 1900 Canadian building does not matter to the world. They are not relevant to you.

My point is that buildings registered as heritage buildings in Canada are notable enough, not only to be featured in this list, but to have their own wikipedia article. --Qyd (talk) 17:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

However, a point to be made. There are no 16th or 17th century buildings in Saskatchewan. The oldest is 1774, and there are still a few standing and declared national and provincial historic sites in the 1800s, but the some of the designated historical architecture of SK is of the early 1900s as the main immigration came with the CPR Rail, or shortly before in the late 1800s. The sites earlier than that are re-stored or re-built forts and Hudson Bay Company posts. SriMesh | talk 04:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No, being a heritage building is not enough for an own article. Notability takes more than that.88.77.128.233 (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion has been noted. moving on. --Qyd (talk) 02:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

New Table Column

I'm wondering if, perhaps, an additional 'Notes' column would be appropriate? Not all of these buildings have their own articles at this time (and some are either unwarranted or simply unlikely to get them), and it may help provide context re: the above discussion. - Jonathon A H (talk) 02:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Tick, Tok. This aticle is languishing

The Alberta and Quebec sections have been extensively rewritten to match the new (as of 2008) title. The other provincial sections need to be updated or should be deleted, because the information in them is grossly inacurate. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 01:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to simply correct what's inaccurate? If you can fix, or at the very least point out the problems you see, then why not not do it? - Jonathon A H (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Because I'm not an expert on those provinces, don't know where to find the proper resources, and don't want to expend the time and effort to learn. I fix what I know, and hope that it inspires other to follow along. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 05:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You know enough to say that the information is 'grossly inaccurate', so you know enough to point out what's wrong, no? That's the least you can do if you're going to say things like that. - Jonathon A H (talk) 06:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm from London, Ontario and the house that I live in is from the 1800's so this article made me laugh quite a bit. - Aman V (talk) 04:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.135.8.53 (talk)

Fairfield House

The link for Fairfield House pointed to a building located in England, so I removed it. I also "updated" the date of construction from 1794 to 1793 as per the Loyalist Township website article on Amherstview TimothyPilgrim (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

what about eldon house in london, ontario — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.32.8 (talk) 07:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Yukon Territory?

No subsection for the Yukon at all? Surely there are some old buildings from the gold rush that are still standing up there?--Anawrahta (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)